Tag Archives: unity

November 23, 2011

Where we go, will you go?

By Pooka

Where you go, I will go...

Here is what Ruth said to Naomi:

“Do not urge me to leave you or turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. Thus may the LORD do to me, and worse, if anything but death parts you and me.”

Here is R.C. Sproul’s note on Ruth:

The Hebrew for clung in Ruth 1:14 is the same word used to describe the marriage relationship. In other words, Ruth clung to her mother-in-law in covenant fidelity, knowing that she was bound by her promise before the face of God to remain with and aid her mother-in-law, no matter how difficult it would be. This is the same devotion we are to have to the Lord’s people today. No matter our flaws, we Christians must love and serve one another.

And Matthew Henry’s Commentary:

Nothing could be said more fine, more brave, than this. She seems to have had another spirit, and another speech, now that her sister had gone, and it is an instance of the grace of God inclining the soul to the resolute choice of the better part. Draw me thus, and we will run after thee. Her mother’s dissuasions made her the more resolute; as when Joshua said to the people, “You cannot serve the Lord,” they said it with the more vehemence, “Nay, but we will.”

We might say today that no one can commit to such a thing as Ruth did without some move of the Spirit. This is an amazing speech from someone like Ruth, amazing and weighted with intensity. She’s entering into the covenant here. And we can’t think she doesn’t know what she’s saying, either. There is plenty of evidence that God’s covenantal structure was present in ancient non-Jewish traditions as well. This fine lady is dropping everything to align herself with Israel.

These are the membership vows we took upon joining our church. I’ve edited so they are personal and line up. The reference is the PCA Book of Church Order, Chapter 57.

I acknowledge myself to be a sinner in the sight of God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save in His sovereign mercy. I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and Savior of sinners, and I receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel? I now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, that I will endeavor to live as becomes the followers of Christ. I promise to support the Church in its worship and work to the best of my ability. I submit myself to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace.

I wonder that Ruth 1:16 isn’t commonly considered in the basic introduction for new believers. I certainly never encountered it. I don’t think it was covered much in the years I was in the church as a kid, either. I think this is something to plumb out in discussion with those who frequently reach out in evangelism. When we follow-up with folks, should we not use such clear examples of covenant-making? I must admit, a die-hard Arminian can see the value in Ruth’s declaration here.

Someone could say that Ruth didn’t know what she was getting into here, and was just being expedient about the whole cleaving to Naomi. Ruth just needed something to hang on to, right? I doubt it was that easy, though certainly some pragmatism should be understood. Ruth wouldn’t have a naive approach to what she committed to, considering it was a Jewish family into which she’d married and a Jewish woman with whom she was returning to Israel. Though Alimelech had taken his family out from Israel, I highly doubt he could have conceived of taking Israel out of his family. The traditions and practices would’ve remained, and from first meeting to final words in that relationship, Ruth and Orpah would have been exposed to the richness of the Israelites’ relationship to God. No doubts she had the best introduction to what she was getting into well before she committed herself to Ruth and the One True God on the roadside.

I wonder that our churches do not query us in the way that Ruth volunteered herself. I wonder if there’s anyone today who has been asked,

“Where we go, will you go? Where we lodge, will you lodge? Will our people be your people, and our God, your God? Where we die, will you die, and there be buried? Shall thus the LORD do to us, and worse, if anything but death parts you and us?”

It sounds a bit harsh for these modern days, doesn’t it?

So there’s another version:

1. Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save in His sovereign mercy?

2. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?

3. Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as becomes the followers of Christ?

4. Do you promise to support the Church in its worship and work to the best of your ability?

5. Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?

Updated for modern parlance and conversant with the realized covenant of Grace, of course, but isn’t it quite similar? The God of Israel instituted the church; and it is Christ’s body, sustained by Him, founded on Him, with all members finding their place in Him. We can all agree on that, it being well-developed throughout the New Testament.

So I find that this pair of vows, in Ruth and in the church are important enough to make me wonder what in the world could possibly be right about a church that refuses to require this of her members? Shouldn’t that be cause for deep concern? That one who hasn’t committed to the people of God, to Israel, to Christ is seen as an accepted, acceptable part of the Body? Good Lord! What standard is there for communion if not this? It would be like the President just walking in after elections and taking over the Oval Office without first standing in front of the nation and taking the Oath of Office! Only worse! God’s people are in office for far more than 4 years in a country far larger than one nation. We’re eternally bound to God and His country! And in our commitment, do we not absolutely have to have a door into that commitment? Dare I say a public one?

I didn’t have a problem taking the vows of membership at New Life. Now, after a year here, having learned much more about what Reformed, Confessional, Creedal and Covenantal really mean, I would retake those vows in a heartbeat, and say them again with far more gravity than the first time. I realize that we have a situation very analogous to Ruth’s covenant promise when we come to Christ’s church. I don’t see how a church could survive otherwise, for without these covenant oaths, there isn’t even a door-keeper. Ruth understood that, and said the password – and I don’t for a minute assume she didn’t intend to make this in front of God as much as Naomi and then expect to have to maintain the same before the Israel she was about to encounter.

Sheesh. The severity of these oaths, the commitment God has delivered to us, in light of the salvation He has made for us, all should take our breath away. If the continuity of God’s covenants and the Biblical consistency of our own promises which we make in return isn’t obvious by now, where can we go? I guess the test really is, at some point, to look carefully and see if we can honestly say, along with Ruth,

“where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. Thus may the LORD do to me, and worse, if anything but death parts you and me.”

If that can happen, then we’ve at least the satisfaction of the keepers of the keys to Heaven.

1 comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , | posted in The Faith

April 4, 2011

My Progress In Theology 6

By Pooka

From my paper “Covenant Theology As Grasped By A Regular Guy”

This part here is at the heart of covenant theology. It is where the Reformed depart from the Evangelical mainstream. My convictions are no longer a product of a roughly realized “second family” of God. There is a lot of cargo in this change in my theology. I understand that I’ve discarded a lot of the practices and systems of my past in cleaving to CT. Rather than discussing all this Church-Israel relationship, drum beating that I think is more diatribe and pontificating I don’t need to pursue, I intend to measure some of the differences into which this change has led. Here is what I wrote:

In the church, we see a correspondence to Israel. The church is Israel fully realized. This makes sense if we consider the nature of both New Testament Church and Old Testament Israel and see their positions in the covenants.

Israel is God’s People. They are His people. A holy nation. Exodus 6:1-9.
The Church is God’s people. They are His people. A holy nation. Hebrews 8:1-13.

Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. Galatians 3:7-9

Both are given rules to live by and ordinances that set members apart from the outside. Circumcision and ceremonial law, the temple and priesthood served Israel for their identification, purification and instruction. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper serving the Church for their identification, purification and instruction. Note that Christ is ultimately the source of regeneration and forgiveness in both.

The Old Testament covenantal administration was a shadow of what Christ would do perfectly. From circumcision to sacrifice, from kings to prophets and judges, Christ is all of them now.

Similarly, both were required to accomplish God’s will. They both were to believe and obey Him.

This tells me that there may be differences in the way God dealt with His people economically, the fundamental essence of His people has not changed. Though the Old Covenant was outward in application, being written on stone and practiced in ritual and the New Covenant is inward, written on the hearts of men, the elect in Israel are saved in the same fashion as the elect in the church. God calls them to repentance and to trust in Him for new hearts, forgiveness, and to supply that obedience that cannot be accomplished by the people.

If this view of the Scriptures, that covenants guide our relationship to God and that Jesus fulfilled the covenantal requirements, is the heart of CT, then the spine is the character that Reformed churches maintain in being Confessional. Confessional churches are those who adhere to a set of standards which distill the Bible’s main teachings, regulate their practices and essentially clarify who is orthodox in their Christianity. This is not to say that a non-confessional church is not orthodox (properly teaching and believing in accordance with the Scripture), since there are many who are. It simply means that Reformed churches hold to a tradition that submits that men are not good at innovating when it comes to religion.

In order to conform to a Biblical standard of belief and teaching, worship and relationship in-and-out of the church, the Reformed (at least Presbyterian and derivatives of the Dutch Reformed) have submitted to a body of creedal or doctrinal statements called standards. Here are either the Westminster Standards or the Three Forms Of Unity that lay out the principles Christians have historically drawn from the Bible. I’ve sort of fallen in love with this aspect of my church. We have a government that doesn’t center around one person or even entirely on a group, but all members and leaders together have committed themselves to adhering to the Standards as the benchmark for their orthodoxy. The Standards are, as I said, a compilation of the central doctrines that have survived the test of the centuries in all the varieties of cultural complications since the Bible was canonized. In this system, confessionalism, the culture that grows up around one man or one theological emphasis is capably combated. Everyone has a basis for their perspective on the most critical aspects of the church and faith.

The thing that stands out to me in these confessions is that the idea of God dealing with His people in covenants is explicit.

WCF VII.I. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.

Okay. I’m about to finish up here tonight. I have only 2 more things to say.

First, I have to make sure this is clear, that the Reformed don’t go to the Standards to form their hermeneutic relationship to the Scriptures. The Reformed developed the Standards as a synopsis and guide for reference based on their hermeneutic relationship to the Scriptures. In no way to the Standards determine orthodoxy, rather, they are the reflection of the ultimate standards that are present in God’s Word.

Second, I highly Highly recommend that everyone read through the Westminster Standards or the Three Forms Of Unity at some point in their theological studies. They are accessible to any reading level, valuable to pastors as well as us little guys and absolutely fabulous for instructing children. Anyone who doesn’t really get the idea of a high view of Church, the Preached Word, Elder Leadership and many other “highs” of the confessional churches should read these valuable resources with care. 

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , | posted in The Faith

October 8, 2010

Dem Spirityool Giftz

By Pooka

There’s been great quantities of discussion at one of my favorite blogs  concerning Pentismaticstm and I want to chime in here at LAH. Team Pyro had an article that basically covered a Churchianity Today interview with an author who wrote on history of the pentecostal/charismatic movement.

Not claiming any great wisdom for me here, but I want to see if I can put the analysis-cause-effect-solution in my own words. Dan Phillips has done more than enough on the subject anyway that I don’t think I could add a stitch of value.

Anyhow, on with my try at capturing the point.

One issue that keeps coming up is always “show me in Scripture where it’s un-Biblical for the Sign Gifts to operate today”. It’s one of those things, I guess, that misses the whole point. It’s MORE than that and, I think, simpler.

We have to ask the real question behind why the Pentismaticstm gifts are pointless (at best) and misleading. WHAT does the Spirit accomplish TODAY through individual PEOPLE who have been endowed with the gifts of “Tongues,” “Prophecy,” and “Healing”?

My answer is NOTHING. Because it’s not of the Spirit. Here’s the explanation, in verses:

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. – John 14:26

The Spirit teaches and reminds of Christ’s words. He does not add prophetic visions, free tickets to sightseeing in Heaven or other stuff. In every case I’ve read or heard about, the vision or prophecy always points back to the one who is telling the story. It always involves self-promotion either for popularity, respect or to be the One with the Real Info on God’s message. Does any of that sound like the verse above? No. On to the next sketch:

But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. – John 15:5-11

In this passage, the H.S. does not have us running around telling happy stories about how we healed some poor schmo, babbled on in some unintelligible noise or took a quick day-trip to the green fields of Heaven. That doesn’t convict! The Holy Spirit convicts. How does this work, since the Holy Spirit is not in the un-believer? Obviously, He works through believers to proclaim the Gospel. We are to present the Word to the world; to our families, friends, neighbors, co-workers and anybody else who crosses our path. He works in us to point to Christ. When have we ever seen anyone realize their sinfulness and need for a Savior after witnessing a healing or hearing somebody speak in tongues? We have not. On to the next sketch:

I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth, for He will not speak on his own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak, and He will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for He will take what is mine and declare it to you. – John 16:5-14

Here’s where we get into trouble. That is, if we don’t have a clear perspective on Scripture we will have a great tendency toward error. When Christ is saying this, is He telling us that the Holy Spirit will continue to reveal messages from God beyond what the Word contains? Who was Christ speaking to, here? In what context? Where, in the Bible, was this statement repeated after Pentecost for the benefit of Church-age Christians? Was this message for us, telling us that we would still be contributing to the Canon two thousand years later? No. On to the next sketch.

Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. – Hebrews 2:1-4

Look, at this point the previous passages should have shot down misuse of this one. But the misuse persists. What message was declared by angels? What was declared by the Lord, attested to by witnesses and then what did God Himself witness to? The message we’re talking about is the plan of Redemption! Our need for a savior, the promise of a Savior, the arrival of the Savior, the deeds and words of the Savior, the sacrifice of the Savior (Crucifixion), the resurrection of the Savior, and the results thereof. What more is there? Come on! The Whole Bible points to this central message.

What do these gifts do when they’re mentioned in the Bible? They Point. To. The.  Gospel. By validating that the message being proclaimed is accurate and true by the Holy Spirit’s particular endowment of the Sign Gifts upon those who were the messengers. It was an official seal of confirmation from the Lord to be able to display these miracles DURING THE PERIOD when the Church was in its infancy, beset by false teachers and without a completed Canon of Scripture.

How can we miss the obvious fact that the miracles of God, through the Apostles, were what’s being discussed here? How can it be extrapolated that the gifts continued past closing the Canon? The validation is in the Canon itself, not explicitly in the existence of the gifts but in when and where the gifts were in place. Scripture interprets Scripture; Scripture validates Scripture. The sign gifts validated the authority of the guys through whom Scripture was delivered! If it’s now valid, why do we need the gifts?

Okay, now, going back a short bit… If we can say that the gifts stopped with the completion of the Scriptures, what can we say about the operation of the gifts today? I noted at the beginning of the study that the gifts point to Christ, as the Spirit points to Christ, that they point to the message, validate the message and Him who sent the Spirit. What do the adherents to continuation of the gifts do today? Do they, in their visions, prophecy, funky babble, always faithfully reveal Scripture? Do their displays emphasize and validate the Gospel?

Here’s the part that hurts. There are Gospel-centered heroes of the faith out there, proclaiming the Truth of Christ’s death and resurrection, our need for forgiveness and calling for us to repent of our sin. And some of them still believe in the sign gifts of prophecy, tongues and healing. On the surface, that belief seems pretty insignificant, maybe even not worth mentioning in light of the power and efficacy of these men’s ministries. But if we look at their teaching and the signal it sends out, that those gifts are still valid, does it not also validate the heretics’ claims?

Sure, we can rationalize that the heretics like Benny Hinn and the other goof-balls out there are so far off the “Reformed Charismatic” (for example) playing-field that there’s no connection. But really? A little leaven leavens… Where do you think the error starts? A true Christian who also believes in the Charismatic type gifts is preaching the sufficiency and efficacy of Scripture out one side of his mouth and disassembling that truth out the other. He is implying that today God steps into the life of an individual and gifts him with revelatory miracles that are outside, above the very Scriptures that were supposed to be sufficient. FAIL!

Heaven and earth shall pass away but My words shall not pass away. – Matthew 24:35

Listen, if I swear up and down to uphold only the true, Biblical Gospel and I get it exactly right from Depravity to Perseverance but allow for this one little false teaching about miraculous activities that were put in place to VALIDATE the GOSPEL that was finally validated around the 1st Century A.D.  am I not unraveling the trustworthiness of the message in its entirety? I’m allowing the possibility that God can actively edit His Word today, in this millennium, altering the message He said was complete 2,000 years ago.

Revelation 22:18-19 contains an explicit warning that that letter was in no way to be tampered with. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 states, clearly, that All Scripture is profitable so the man of God can be competent, equipped for every good work. Scripture claims to be self-sufficient and complete over and over again. On the road to Emmaus, in Luke 24, Christ explained, through Scripture, to His disciples the whole thing!

I am so glad the elders and pastor at my church preach from the Bible. And that’s all they do. They don’t quibble over and don’t have a sideline show about the Gifts. The bottom line is that prophecy, tongues and healing don’t do any justice to the Gospel. They haven’t for almost 2,000 years. They detract from it by lifting a man up from his humble state as God’s preacher to some celebrity who has been “empowered” especially by God. That’s not the Holy Spirit’s mission and therefore should not be our assumption.

The Holy Spirit convicts us and enables us to teach the Word for the conviction of others. We don’t heal or tell the future or have visions or babble to get that job done. Why can’t we attack this heretical movement of Pentismaticstm at the root? Why can’t Biblical Christians finally release their death-grip on what was for Apostolic times only? Why can’t Biblical Christians stick to Biblical Christianity? Aren’t there other doctrines that need more work, need more time devoted to them?

It’s silly anyway, isn’t it? A good grasp of the concept of Sola Scriptura should render “da gifts” pretty hopeless. Preaching Christ and Him crucified for our sins would be a better use of our time.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , | posted in special, The Faith

September 23, 2010

Bible Study on Discipline in the Church — Martyn Lloyd-Jones

By Pooka

This is part two of three. There are three questions for this week’s Bible Study at church and I’m going to try to tackle all of them.

Great Doctrines of the Bible by: D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

Assignment: Volume 3 Chapter 1: The Marks and Government of the Church

ALWAYS USE SCRIPTURE AS YOUR FOUNDATION WHEN ANSWERING QUESTIONS.

Question #2. What are the 2 main lines along which church discipline should be administered? Why is erroneous teaching tolerated in the church today? Where has that tolerance led us to today? Explain when 1 Cor. 5:5 would be an appropriate action to take in the course of church discipline?

Discipline
2 Main Lines: Sinful action and Doctrinal Error. Matt 18:15-20, 1 Cor 5:1-13, 2 Thes 3:6-16

This is where the crummy theology and false doctrine build up to full speed. Sinners sin and sinners want to hear anything that appeals to their self-interest or self-righteousness (is there any difference?) and draws their minds away from their sinfulness, including Christians (Rom 3:10-18, 7:15-25, 2 Tim 4:3-4, Luke 18:9-14)

Discipline is being avoided because of misinterpretation of passages such as Matt 7:1-5, usually missing verse 6. We are called to judge, to be discerning truth from error.

I found a good article by Mohler regarding discipline and its history at this site: Mohler Discipline

2 Tim 3:16 paves the road for using the Word as our benchmark. Scripture provides the doctrine and lifestyle that Christians are to maintain. It also clarifies the un-faithful teaching and lifestyle that are to be detected and dealt with in the church. The Epistles all deal with some form of correction, not just teaching. Some examples: Corinthians deals with immorality, mistreatment of the Lord’s Supper and strife, Thessalonians deals with unproductive or lazy Christians, Galatians deals with false gospel and even gives the example of Paul confronting Peter. Revelation is an excellent reference to discipline as it is the Lord Himself reaching down through John to criticize churches and call them to repentance as well as exhort and encourage them to continue in faith and works.

Somewhere, the concept of discipline has been pretty much wiped from the general church today. The entire Bible is a book that deals immensely with discipline, starting out with God’s personal discipline in Genesis 3 and finishing with it in Revelation. There is instruction, standard and method for correction throughout.

1 Cor 5:5: When a Christian is unrepentant, clearly in defiance of clear Biblical teaching, it is absolutely ridiculous to maintain that person as an accepted member of the Body. The inclusion of a rebellious sinner in the roles of membership brings shame and compromise to the Gospel and Christ who is our Head. Precedent is maintained in 2 Thes 3:14-15 too.

Matthew Henry’s commentary is pretty good here too:

“The apostle notices a flagrant abuse, winked at by the Corinthians. Party spirit, and a false notion of Christian liberty, seem to have saved the offender from censure. Grievous indeed is it that crimes should sometimes be committed by professors of the gospel, of which even heathens would be ashamed. Spiritual pride and false doctrines tend to bring in, and to spread such scandals. How dreadful the effects of sin! The devil reigns where Christ does not. And a man is in his kingdom, and under his power, when not in Christ. The bad example of a man of influence is very mischievous; it spreads far and wide. Corrupt principles and examples, if not corrected, would hurt the whole church. Believers must have new hearts, and lead new lives. Their common conversation and religious deeds must be holy. So far is the sacrifice of Christ our Passover for us, from rendering personal and public holiness unnecessary, that it furnishes powerful reasons and motives for it. Without holiness we can neither live by faith in him, nor join in his ordinances with comfort and profit.”

A real understanding and commitment to holiness, being set apart, should lead a church to keep with the doctrine of Church Discipline. Christians are in the world, but not of it (John 17:14-19). Sproul’s “Holiness of God” is great stuff, as is a good study of 1 John. – Side-Note, why did the “Not Of This World” people pick Colossians 2:8 for their inspiration? Sure seems, from the website at least, that the NOTW folks are sort of captive to something other than the Gospel of Christ.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , | posted in The Faith

September 22, 2010

Bible Study on The Marks and Government of the Church — Martyn Lloyd-Jones

By Pooka

This is going to be part one of three. There are three questions for this week’s Bible Study at church and I’m going to try to tackle all of them.

Great Doctrines of the Bible by: D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

Assignment: Volume 3 Chapter 1: The Marks and Government of the Church

ALWAYS USE SCRIPTURE AS YOUR FOUNDATION WHEN ANSWERING QUESTIONS.

Question #1. Name the 3 main marks of the church and describe the main reasons for their existence. Do these marks exist in the church that you attend? Do you see the fruit of both the existence and non-existence of these marks in churches?

3 Main Marks:
(I’m giving a sample of Scripture references to accompany each Mark) Preaching the Word (1 Timothy 4:6-16, 2 Tim 3:1-4), Administering the Lord’s Supper and Baptism (Acts 2:41-42, Matt 28:19, Luke 22:19-20, 1 Cor 11:23-26), Church Discipline (Matt 18:15-20, Titus 1:10-16)

These marks are in place at my church. They are reinforced both in practice and teaching on a regular basis. The pastor and elders are adhering to the marching orders for pastors found in 1 and 2 Tim.

The fruit of the presence of the 3 marks is a church that knows doctrine, has a desire for greater knowledge of doctrine and manifests the natural result, which is the love for Christ and His people and a desire to reach the lost (1 Thess 1:2-10, Phill 1:12-18). Conversation is about the Gospel, not on “what we did for the community last week” and there is evidence of growth not in numbers but in faith and discernment (Rom 12:2).

The running trend in many (if not most) publicly prominent churches is a blend of philosophy/therapy and works. One might combine Thyatira, Pergamum and Sardis to find a works-oriented, world-praised church on every street corner here. With a little deeper look it should be easy to discover compromising doctrines and practices that betray a desire to please the masses and make the members grow in numbers (1 Tim 6:20-21, 2 Tim 3:15-17, Col 2:8, Rev 2:12,18, 3:1).

“O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,” for by professing it some have swerved from the faith.”

I think the point is frequently missed in Matt 5:1-16. The part about salt and light and good works is taken without consideration of verses 11 and 12. If our works earn us worldly praise and we face no suffering or persecution, I think that makes our works suspect. Christ was the first suffered for His message, as did all the apostles and great fathers of the church after them. Those who don’t (Sardis) suffer don’t match up with the Bible’s description of the life of a Christian (Acts 5:41-42, Rom 5:3, Phill 1:29, Matt 10:16-23). I’m not claiming that it’s all gonna be pain and agony here, for God is kind and loving toward His people, but we should expect to face hardship on account of our commitment to Christ (2 Cor 1:3-7).

Regarding administering the Lord’s Supper and Baptism: I’m not going to hit this part right now. I’m not entirely clear on the meaning MLJ has put forth about grace. I come from the Baptist background of ordinances that are public displays and signs of faith, conversion, promise, and unity and I don’t think there is much teaching of particular application of a special grace in that doctrine. I sense that this is not entirely correct but need to study more in order to grasp it. 1 Cor 11:17-34 is key here and I will be working on it.

It is apparent that churches I have attended who do not teach clear doctrine (or are heretical in general) do not seem to have the same reverence for the Lord’s Supper or during it. They repeat the mantra “this is my body…” and do the bread and juice without much call to self-inspection, gospel or, in some cases, even any sense of seriousness. It’s as if it’s just a practice that sort of unifies the group under one banner without any real depth. The same goes for baptism in that one is dipped into the club rather than into Christ.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in The Faith

May 29, 2008

Where Have I Been?

By Pooka

didn’t die. I’ve actually been really busy. Busy with lots. I guess I’ll put a run-down of my busies.

First, let me bring your notice to the sidebar over there on the right. You’ll notice a couple of pages listed. They actually get updated periodically (and provide opportunities for stimulating interaction too). The two that get updated most are the Prayer page and the Good Reads page. Lots of interesting stuff over there, so check ‘em from time to time, maybe once a week or so.

And what have I been doing?

Working a lot. Spending a lot of time at work coordinating and managing our training program (Sunday, Tuesday, 1430! Don’t miss it!). I’m trying to get my own training done as well; attempting to qualify as an Expeditionary Warfare Specialist (you can google that and find out more if you’re really interested). I’m doing a lot of management of the people we have over here, but more from a workforce sort of perspective, not much in the leadership department.

I haven’t really posted much because of the broad range of pondering that’s been popping around in the ion distribution center between my ears.

Mostly in the form of questions, though I have answering thoughts for most of them, of course:

Why are churches so compartmentalized so often? We have the old folks, the young folks, the families, the families with 4 or more kids, the homeschoolers, the singles, the oddballs, the fanatics and the been-here-all-along types. These may not all be present at one church, but I think I’ve seen combinations of several varieties in every church I’ve seen. Diversity isn’t a real problem, but lack of Unity in the middle of Diversity is a real problem. We don’t interface (read: Fellowship) as a united whole too much.

This is primarily OUTSIDE church, when the doors are closed and the lights are out. We don’t relate to each other but in little packets or cliques throughout our daily routines. Where this gets me is that I perceive a fear that when two or more are gathered in His name (aside from posted hours), there is fear. I think that we don’t want to be recognized as Christians in groups out in the mortal world. I think I can draw my evidence from my service in the military. Should the Christians stick together in the workplace, there is a high potential for adverse reactions (or at least we may be afraid of such). It is much safer to be quietly and singularly Christian, behind the desk, rarely even nodding recognition to the other Christians in the workplace. Not good. We should be interacting, uplifting, encouraging, exhorting, admonishing, being accountable to each other in every aspect of our lives.

Christian guys don’t converse regularly with other Christian guys about marriage, relationships, parenting, whatever. It’s like our Private Matters are just that, Private. Where is the intimacy that Children Of God should have at all times? Watching real children, one can see that they don’t hide so much as we do. They’re pretty transparent in their communication (like that one persistent event in all families where the kid in the grocery store starts making beeping sounds and says “LOOKOUT MA, SHE’S BACKING UP!”). Why aren’t we like that (in a productive way).

I feel a real desire to reconnect with my family. Distance makes it painfully obvious what our real relationships should look like. We don’t realize what we’re missing, what we’re not doing until the opportunities are gone.
So why is it that we do even less with our fellow Christians? And our greater families? Wow. How lonely is it when you’re isolated, not a part of everything your family does, ESPECIALLY when you’re related by blood, by generations as well as Christ. There’s so much glue that isn’t being used.

How much stronger could we all be in our Christian lives if we truly fellowshipped? I have put a few processes into action for me here, though they are still challenging. I’ve made it a rule to spend a few minutes (or longer, if possible) with a specific Christian here at work, daily, with no regard to whether others perceive the encounters as Christians gathering or not. And the occasions are purposefully NOT lunch or Bible-Study standardized times. That builds intimacy that isn’t as easily prone to being false like routines become.

I try to keep up with Christians (and family) on the internet. I don’t reach out well to new people, but I’m a little more capable in tracking those I do know.

This blog has also been a wonderful means of at least offering intimacy outward. Though I’m not necessarily forthcoming about my little private stuff (wise, considering the internet), I’m pretty transparent about the big stuff running through my head just because of the subject matter and where my thoughts run.

So what I’d like to do with all this, having no plan but plenty of desire, is to explore breaking these boundaries in our family and church lives. That sort of service, though I don’t know what “title” it would bear, really seems an important and viable sort of goal. Involve the family in more. Involve the family with more family. Involve the family with more people in church. Involve more church people with each other. Drive toward interdependence OUTSIDE church hours and in the daily routine.

Maybe that’s a book-writing sort of possibility.

Another thought I’ve had, just as a closing provocation, I guess, is this:

Assent to profession, creed, philosophy, confession, statement or any other offering of good thought is awesome. Being inspired by John Macarthur, Piper, Challies or Chan or C.S. Lewis or Spurgeon or Jim Berg or Augustine or Calvin is just great. They’re mostly good stuff, mostly great stuff, actually. They’ve helped make our desire for God even more desirable.

Greater than inspiration from these greats and all the others, however, is this: discovering one of them and realizing that, through personal pursuit of God, one has already come to the conclusions and has the delight of finding that somebody else thought of it too. The reward of pursuing a good relationship with God is not that we have all these wonderful resources to read and apply in our lives. The reward is that He can and will teach us, inspire us and has done so in all these great thinkers, theologians and writers as well. We don’t have to depend on them for our inspiration. The Word requires our devotion to Him and His Revelation and through it He can inspire and move us to the greatness of those historical and current wise men on His own.

In other words, don’t read C.S. Lewis and go WOW. Go WOW and then read C.S. Lewis and go WOW again over the exact same remarkable truth.

OUT.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , | posted in More About, special, The Faith

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 123 other followers