I have grown to affirm the Regulative Principle…

OK, I ride, too……but on the OUTSIDE of the church building, not the INSIDE of the church building….

Here is how (and where) you are supposed to do it

Yea, that was me with the mad skillz

Evidence of an exercise in marketing a tepid “Gospel”

I saw a sign in someones yard today that declared: “Elect Jesus As Your Lord!” Now, I do not in any way shape or form infer anything ill about the character of the person who displayed this sign in their yard. I know nothing about the family that lives in the house that sits behind this sign, nor do I infer that nothing ‘good’ ever comes from such faddish displays of faith.

However, does not this sign, albeit without intention, portray a Jesus that seems a bit weak and needy? Is He awaiting a majority vote before He acts? Is the mighty Lion of Judah, is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords restrained by some political process? Is He not the absolute Lord of salvation, of the created order; is He not a mighty Redeemer? He elected me that all glory should go to Him; I do not elect Him that any glory should go to me.

I think of a sermon I listened to a number of months ago at a moderately sized community church wherein the well-intentioned pastor, after having two members of the church ride their large, loud motorcycles through the poorly ventilated church to park them in front of the stage to make some point, perfumed by carbon monoxide, about God’s timing, declared that Jesus is a ‘gentleman’ who would never force His will on anyone. Is that a biblical understanding of the sovereignty and power of Jesus?

I saw a tee shirt for sale at a large book retailer a few weeks ago. The front of the shirt was a ripoff of the Staples Easy Button. “Jesus” replaced the “Easy” on the button. Wasn’t easy for Jesus.

Evidence of discernment - excerpts from a post by John Piper

John Piper speaking on discernment, the Lakeland ‘outpouring’ in specific, and testing ‘revival’ in general:”

“Discernment is not created in God’s people by brokenness, humility, reverence, and repentance. It is created by biblical truth and the application of truth by the power of the Holy Spirit to our hearts and minds. When that happens, then the brokenness, humility, reverence, and repentance will have the strong fiber of the full counsel of God in them. They will be profoundly Christian and not merely religious and emotional and psychological.

The common denominator of those who follow the Antichrist will not be “charismatic.” It will be, as Paul says, “they refused to love the truth.”

The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12)

Our test for every Lakeland that comes along should first be doctrinal and expositional. Is this awakening carried along by a “love for the truth” and a passion to hear the whole counsel of God proclaimed?”

---

Evidence of spiritual growth

(The following is something I put together for a friend of mine from work yesterday. I was asked to provide input to a program his church was developing regarding the identification of different stages of spiritual growth with an overarching goal to move people to deeper levels of discipleship.)

Sorry for any lack of clarity on my part for what follows. I tell you, it is a daunting task to identify stages of spiritual development and perhaps describe/prescribe how one moves from one stage to another, and I do not know how qualified I am to speak to these issues. I am humbled by so many men far more capable than myself.

That all being said, here goes…………

I think I will start at the end and move to the beginning. I think we need to identify what spiritual maturity, the overarching goal, looks like It is conformity to Christ as evidenced in the following, and I believe these are evidences we in Christ all can agree on. In no particular order and perhaps a bit repetitive at times, here are some of those aforementioned evidences:

• It is evidenced in dying to self.
• It is counting as a loss everything the world may offer in comparison with knowing and being known by Christ.
• It is loving the Redeemer and Giver of gifts more than the gifts.
• It is evidenced in the attitude of exalting Christ without regard to circumstance.
• It is evidenced in the tongue that does not complain.
• It is evidenced in the heart that looks and longs for evidences of grace rather than always self-righteously looking at the faults in the lives of others who are in Christ
• It is evidenced when one looks at others as being more important than themselves
• It is evidenced in the ability to discern truth from error
• It is evidenced in the ability to know how to graciously respond to one who may be in error
• It is evidenced by seeking to ‘wash the feet’ of one’s brother.
• It is evidenced in the one who thanks God when circumstances may, on the surface, seem dire.
• It is evidenced by child-like (not childish) faith in the Redeemer
• It is evidenced by a heart that repents more dearly and sincerely, a redeemed heart broken over sin.
• It is evidenced by a humble and contrite spirit
• It is evidenced by a desire to share the Gospel and make disciples of the nations
• It is evidenced by an abiding love for the Church, the bride of Christ
• It is evidenced by a generous heart that gives sacrificially
• It is evidenced by a desire, a hunger, for the Scripture, the authoritative, infallible, inspired word of God
• It is evidenced by a desire to reflect the grace of Christ to others
• It is evidenced by a heart that grieves over injustice
• It is evidenced by a life of faith in Christ whose faith produces works of righteousness
• It is evidenced by a attitude that seeks obedience to Christ in ALL things
• It is evidenced by acknowledging that we in Christ bring absolutely nothing to the table in regards to our justification. Even our faith is a gift of God that no man should boast
• It is evidenced in an attitude of patience
• It is evidenced when one is satisfied with what one has
• A longing for the deeper things of Christ, to move beyond a diet of milk
• It is evidenced when we perhaps sometimes ask “why” instead of “why me.”
• A growing understanding of the absolute sovereignty and holiness of God and the ability to have that understanding reflected in our response to trials and tribulation.
• A growing tenderness of heart tempered by a fierce devotion to truth
• Knowing that when the Father looks upon us, He sees us clothed in the righteousness of Christ
• A life infused with grace
• A life defined by having no fear of death or life. To live is Christ, to die is gain.
• A life defined by having love for those who do not love us back.
• A life defined by not seeking retribution for those that hurt us
• A life defined by the ability to endure hardship in such a way that we, and others, may exalt Christ
• A life defined, for a husband and father, as being head over the family as Christ is head over the Church
• A life defined as being the first to seek reconciliation without regard to one’s guilt, or lack thereof, especially within the context of one’s marriage and the church
• A life defined, for a wife and mother, as one of Christ-like submission to one’s husband, whether or not he ‘deserves’ it.
• A life defined by submission to authority as long as such does not require immorality.
• A life defined as working for one’s employer as if one is working for Christ, without grumbling and complaining.
• (Irony alert) An understanding that we are not justified by faithful adherence to a list of behaviors and attitudes.
• A life defined by acts and attitudes of forgiveness.
• When one wakes up, one’s thoughts are on the Redeemer. When one goes to sleep, one’s thoughts are on the Redeemer.
• It is evidenced by acts of mercy, forgiveness, selfless service, selfless giving
• Being a gracious defender of truth, being one who stands on the wall to watch and protect
• Understanding that is ultimately the power of the Spirit that enables spiritual growth. We have nothing to boast about.
• It is evidenced when one has the courage, love, and commitment to graciously turn a brother away from sin. We are our brothers keeper.
• It is evidenced by obedience to Christ

While I have not provided any scripture to validate the above, I can do so, given a bit of time, if desired. I am admittedly writing from memory and though I feel comfortable with what the Bible states regarding spiritual maturity, I am not very good at memorization.

Having pointed out evidence of spiritual maturity, let’s go to the other end of the spectrum and ask ourselves what spiritual infancy/immaturity look like. It would be easy to simply state the opposite of the first list, but I will try to avoid, for the most part, that easy path

Again, in no particular order:

• The asking of “why me” instead of “why.” (I know that a pure, simple faith does not even ask the ‘why.’)
• The ‘pitching of one’s tent to close to the world.’
• Lack of discernment
• Focus on legalism
• Lack of knowledge regarding doctrine (Let me state that I am concerned about the ‘deeds, not creed’ attitude that seems to be so deeply embedded in large parts of the American church. Deeds and creeds go hand in hand. Ignore either at ones peril.)
• A prayer life that consists primarily of selfish petition rather than praise and thankfulness. “What can you do for me, God?”
• Seeking recognition of self - an overarching focus on self. Conversations are most always about oneself, one’s problems.
• An untamed tongue. We murder people with our tongue every day
• A tendency to involve oneself in fruitless arguments and discussions
• Finding one’s greatest satisfaction in hobbies, work, etc rather than in knowing and growing in the Redeemer
• When you may be more identified by your political affiliation rather than your affiliation with the Messiah.
• When you self-righteously judge the unredeemed for acting like someone who is unredeemed.
• Finding one’s peace and satisfaction built upon a foundation of circumstance.
• Trying to validate one’s standing with the Creator by one’s performance.
• Not knowing what doctrines are hills to die on and which doctrines may be agreeably disagreed upon.
• More on the tongue: engaging in crude comments
• Neglecting the gathering together within a local church where sound doctrine is preached and the body serves one another
• Neglecting to regularly spend time in the Word and in prayer
• Being entertainment driven
• Seeking more to be served then to serve
• Seeking revelation beyond what God has reveled in the Bible
• When you unrighteously/self-righteously judge the redeemed….which infers there are times and places of righteous judgment. You are to graciously point out/remove the speck from your brother’s eye; just make sure there is no log in your eye.
• A tendency to “play the Pharisee card” in regards to differences of ‘questionable things’. (The “Thank God I am not like those self-righteous Pharisees over there” attitude. We in Christ are all, in varying degree, recovering Pharisees.)
• Wavers on the non-negotiable truths of the faith……The “I believe in Jesus, but who am I to judge someone else on a different path to God” perspective

I have given two extremes. I think we all can identify with elements in both lists. I do not think everyone’s experience in growth to spiritual maturity is the same. Perhaps one could break the list into further categories…..infancy, toddler, etc…..but I am not so sure the Bible leads to that understanding of spiritual growth. Paul and the apostles speak in terms of maturity and immaturity. The Apostle Paul speaks of babes longing for and drinking milk and the more mature who are ready for a more substantive diet. Paul chastises those who are still drinking milk when they should move beyond the foundational elements of the faith. As an aside, I think about the church at Corinth. I think about how Paul did not call into question their salvation though he has grave concerns about that church.

Ultimately, the Spirit convicts us and leads us to righteousness. The Spirit leads us to exalt Christ. We have the spiritual disciplines of prayer and fasting. We have the body of Christ, the church, to relationally build us, mentor us, and correct us and encourage us. We have the 66 books of the Old and New Testament canon to build us, to train us in righteousness, to equip us for good works. We have under-shepherds, the pastor of the local church and the elders, to provide nurture and protection for the flock. We have the assurance that Christ will complete the work He began in us. We have the assurance that He works out all things for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.

However, we are also called to check ourselves, to see if our election, our salvation is ‘real.’ Are we bearing fruit? Some, like me, are slow out of the gate and take many wrong turns while others grow and bear fruit soon after the seed is planted, but ultimately, we in Christ will bear evidence of spiritual fruit. I fear, however, so many in the church are on the wide path and will miss the narrow gate.

In closing, many of the attributes of the first list may be found in those who do not know Christ. Merely possessing these attributes does not justify us. Many of the latter attributes are found in those who are truly redeemed by the penal substitutionary atoning work of Christ on the cross. They are no less justified by faith than those in Christ who possess all the attributes of the first list. Therein lies the power of grace through faith in Christ. We are not to fall into the erroneous idea that this life is a ’spiritual test’, that we are justified by our adherence to the ‘list.’ Adherence to the ‘list’ is an effect, not a cause. The cause is the grace and mercy of Christ as the Holy Spirit works within us and conforms us to His image.

When thoughts collide…

One thing may lead to another. In a previous post , I have voiced my opposition to what I perceive to be unbiblical presentations of the tithe. In other posts , I have expressed an interest in learning more (which wouldn’t be hard given that I know next to nothing) about covenant and dispensational theology. It is interesting that recently, in the course of a couple of conversations, the two issues have collided, and I am still sorting through the fallout.

Here is the back-story: I participate in a small group at the church I have rather recently began attending. In this group, we read through various books on the faith (currently The Contagious Christian by Bill Hybels of Willow Creek Community Church), and in reading these books, we discuss and analyze them, looking for application, all through the lens of the reformed faith. One conversation went a bit off-topic to the subject of the tithe. Giving and tithing was the focus of the previous Sunday’s sermon, one that I missed because I was out of town. In the course of following the conversation, I perhaps was unconsciously telegraphing my discomfort with the direction of the dialog by my body language. Someone said it looked as if I were about to burst, so I voiced my opinion, I think/hope winsomely. I essentially mirrored the thoughts of my aforementioned post on tithing. In the course of the conversation, one that I must affirm was very gracious on the part of all parties involved, I found myself the sole voice for giving by grace rather than by law. In my questions about my understanding of the topic, the leader of the group, a man who I hold in utmost respect, suggested I talk with one of the associate pastors. I called and made an appointment.

I must say, I quite enjoyed the conversation with the associate pastor that followed and was edified by it, and we ended up meeting again to continue the conversation. At the closure of the conversation, we agreed to agreeably disagree on the subject of an obligatory tithe, but what I came away with from our conversations is that my questions and concerns and about the nature and extent of the interjection of the Law into the Church may be illuminated by a better understanding of Covenant Theology (CT) on my part. I will not go into the details of the conversation because, one, it would honestly take too long to put to the written word and I honestly probably spend a bit too much time with this blog thing, and two, I am still sifting slowly through my thoughts. I will, however, speak in some generalities and give voice to some questions and issues and thoughts to which I am seeking clarity.

Before I proceed, please forgive any misrepresentations on my part of CT. I am still in a very formative, embryonic stage of understanding and am quite open to correction. Too, I am beginning to better understand the value of a systemic, holistic approach to understanding the Bible, to understanding the relationship between Israel and the Church, to understanding the relationship between Law and Grace. I am thinking about how the former informs the latter, both the systematic approach informing the particulars and in the Law pointing to Grace. Also and without regard to my stance on the tithe, I believe in giving sacrificially, consistently, and regularly to one’s local church as well as to other groups and to individuals in need. I believe in doing so, when possible, anonymously, not informing the left hand as to what the right hand is doing. Within the life of a disciple of Christ, the nature of our treasure and the nature of our heart are reflective of one another. I also, at times (more often than I care to admit), fail miserably at being a faithful steward. In light of that, I humbly and in repentance thank God that I am not justified by my performance (I am not able to do so), but only by the redemptive work of Christ on the cross, and that He is, over time, sanctifying and conforming me to the image of my Redeemer, Christ Jesus.

One or two parenthetical thoughts before I continue: I do not in any way, shape, or form condemn, rebuke, shun, look down upon, castigate, or judge those who differ from me on the issue of the tithe or in regards to one’s stance on CT or DT with the caveat that I will steadfastly oppose the more egregiously legalistic presentations of the tithe wherein one is led, purposefully or not, to believe that God’s grace rests on our performance. I am also certainly not advocating a discontinuation of consistently giving a certain percentage of one’s income is one is presently doing so.

In light of all the aforementioned, here are some of those thoughts (perhaps sometimes a bit incoherent, errant, repetitive, shallow, and conflicted), questions (some rhetorical, others not), and concerns in a somewhat abbreviated fashion - perhaps fodder for later posts:

Thinking……..

• and wondering if there are there more obscure frameworks, discounting hybrids of the two in predominance, other than CT and DT(dispensational theology)? I know, I know……….. why don’t I just Google the question. Also, am I too simplistic in thinking only in terms of Law and Grace, of new wine and old wine skins, of Old and New Covenants?

• about Seventh Day Adventist verses antinomianism. Where, if any (and we all know there is), is the middle ground?

• about avoiding at all cost any vestige of the 2nd century heresy of Marcion in reference to his rejecting the OT out of hand. I affirm the Law is good. I affirm both OT and NT as authoritative, inspired, and infallible.

• on the somewhat dissonant (for me) interjection of tithing in specific, law in general, into my understanding of justification by faith. As a hypothetical, would a poor, elderly widow, just barely making ends meet and living on social security, with no relatives, be obligated to tithe? If the answer is yes from an outcome and prediction of CT (and that is what I am led to believe), then CT, in my understanding of this framework, died just a bit to me. This widow is one whom I should give to. I think of the poor in Asia Minor taking up collections so that the apostle Paul may give it to the poor in Jerusalem. Note that I do not infer that the aforementioned and hypothetical widow should not be generous even in her poverty.

• about Deuteronomy 14:24-26. Also, many preach Malachi regarding “God robbers” and being cursed. Follow up, please, Malachi 3:9 with Romans 8:1 and pay attention to context, especially with Malachi.

• about distinctions that are made between the ceremonial, civil, and moral law of the OT…..and the assertion that only moral law is for the church. Do I find this assertion in the NT? Does the OT assign or infer such a hierarchy or separation between ‘types’ of law?

• about the book of Galatians and Colossians and also thinking about Acts 15 where the few clear ‘legalistic’ prohibitions are clearly stated.

• in further detail about the tithe and how it is not presented in the Old Testament as simply a specific percentage off the top of one’s income; it was agricultural in nature in a culture that had currency. There were three (a few say four) tithes in the OT and cumulatively, they could add up to over twenty percent. I think of how craftsmen and tradesmen did not tithe though they did offer gifts. I could go on, but I just want to assert my understanding that the tithe as taught by many churches is not how I understand the tithe is presented in the OT. Also thinking about how silly the debate is over determining if that percentage of the tithe is taken off the net or the gross. Brother, please………

• about, as aforementioned, how we are to give sacrificially, about how we spend our money is reflective of what and Who we value most dearly.

• disturbingly about how brothers can apply what seems to be sound hermeneutics and sometimes reach so very different conclusions.

• about how, at this particular place and time in my growth as a Christian, I am not currently in too much intellectual conflict about the relationship between Israel and the Church, a contentment perhaps born out of my blissful ignorance. I do worry a bit, having been drawn into it for a season, about the ‘end times’ mania that seems to have captured the attention of parts of the church that are strongly dispensational. This phenomenon of a hyper-focus on eschatology, however, seems to be waning a bit. Or maybe I am just not paying attention to it anymore……

• about and asserting that, from my understanding, CT (and DT) is not primarily concerned with addressing the relationship of Law and grace, but more about how God works out His will in history and with His covenant people. I assert that my foray into issues of Law and Grace in relation to CT, while not necessarily parenthetical, does not present a fully orbed picture of CT. I affirm that God is a sovereign Maker of covenants. He does not change.

• about my concern that I may be creating heat rather than light with my dialog and questions. I do not think that I am, but I pray for greater discernment and grace and wisdom in all I say and write, that I honor my Savior in words or deeds.

• About how easy it is for me to get long-winded and hyper-focused on an issue

‘Nuff said for now…could polish and refine the post a bit more, but I think I will now release it into the wild.

A tale of two thefts…

It seems I have taken a somewhat contrarian path over the last few posts, and I am going to be quite repetitive on a few points with this one. That all being said, I cannot ignore my compulsion to speak and warn against what I feel is a dangerous strain of shallow ecclesiology; I am jealous over the church of Christ. I am jealous over the Gospel.

I recently ran across a post by a pastor and church planter from Canton, Georgia. As mentioned in an earlier post, I have listened to him speak as a guest pastor at a church I once attended. Also, I have listened to a sermon or two by this pastor. Too, I gather that his church was mentored to a degree by my former church.

His post revolves around the theft of a church trailer that contained things critical to the functioning of the pastor’s church. There is no denying that this theft is a horrible thing. Let me state some things clearly and perhaps digress and ramble a bit before I continue with my thoughts on the aforementioned post.

It is not my intent to hurt, but to warn. Also, I do not intend to infer the attitude exhibited by the referenced post is universal amongst the seeker sensitive church movement; it is just that his church is one of the more extreme manifestations, and this church is not without influence. That being said…..

The Gospel is simple, but it is not shallow. The call of much of the church growth movement, though, is to decry the deeper things of the faith. Over and over and over, I hear these pastors state that it is not their job to feed the flock, but to create self-feeders. To a small extent, there is an element of truth to that exhortation in that we are all to feast on the infallible, inspired, authoritative Word of God, the canon of scripture. However, I have heard enough of these calls to ’self-feed’ to know that there is more lurking behind this call than to encourage the flock to read the Bible for themselves. There is, first and foremost, a shallow, feel-good legalism. ‘Rather than go deeper, get out there and do things’ is the false dichotomy offered by more than a few of these seeker-sensitive church leaders. There is also an element of arrogant disdain these pastors hold for those who cry to their pastors for more food. I think, too, there is perhaps a laziness or inability on the part of many of these pastors to do the hard work and study required to preach the deeper things of Christ. Rather, there is a desire to be edgy, to be hip, to be relevant, to make the church more appealing to the world. The competition to the church is perceived to be Hollywood and Las Vegas. The thought is that the church needs to do the things Hollywood and Las Vegas does in terms of promoting the message of the Gospel. Much more could be said, but ultimately what this attitude represents is a contempt for the power of the Word faithfully exposited.

Alright, back to the pastors post. Again, the church trailer was stolen. Not good. Here are some quotes from the pastors blog regarding the theft:

• First let me say, God loves you. Second let me say we forgive you. We really don’t want to forgive you, but God says we should so we do. Third of all I want you to know that I think you are scum bags. I think you are lowlife degenerates who need a good butt kicking. Matter of fact I feel so strongly about the fact that you need a good butt kicking that I am volunteering to do it. I hope you believe in God because you should get on your knees and cry out to Him like never before because if we find you, I can promise we will kick the crap out of you. It won’t be pretty, it won’t be over quickly, and it will be very painful. I know that doesn’t sound very nice but I feel pretty strongly that is what you need.
• We are probably the only church you have ever heard of that will honestly break your legs once you are found.
• Get that trailer out of the county QUICK. As soon as I hit publish on this blog post a church of about 1000 crazy people will know that our black, children’s trailer has been stolen and I can promise they will be on the lookout for it. You would much rather me find you then one of them.

A lovely image the pastor paints…..better that the pastor beats the mess out of the sinner before his crazy church of 1000 gets hold of the thief. Try to harmonize the pastor’s desire for vengeance with the Sermon on the Mount if you dare. The pastor’s attitude seems to be more aligned with radical Islam. I find irony, too, in this pastors often stated disdain for ‘Pharisees’ and ‘religious’ people found in his rhetoric.

Unlike much of the errant neo-liberalism and overly generous ‘orthodoxy’ of the Emergent Church, the seeker sensitives proclaim an orthodoxy in their mission and belief statements. Where they sometimes err is in their ecclesiology. They are orthodox in their beliefs, but they engage in heteropraxy, in errant practice. The bitter fruits are sometimes shallowness and arrogance. In the post by Gary Lamb, we find such fruit. What we find is a theft that transcends the stealing of property from a church. What we find stolen from the church of Christ, if such a thing were possible, is the blessedness of a humble, broken, and contrite heart. What we find stolen by this church, if such a thing were possible, is the sense that but for the grace, forgiveness, and mercy of Christ, you and I are condemned sinners, no less so than the trailer thief, fully deserving the wrath of God. Rather, we find a ‘lets go break the legs of sinners’ attitude. One has to ask this pastor and his church of 1000, which of you will cast the first stone that breaks the legs of the thief when you finally run him down?

In closure and to further cement my concern, here is a response from another blog to Gary’s post:

• “I follow these guys a lot and think they are doing an incredible work for Jesus! It’s nice to see they have a little bite to their bark! Click below to read what happened…”

The heart grieves and mourns for a large swath of the American church. Alright, rant mode off………

On the sometimes ill-defined evangelical metaphor of a relationship and the subtle error of decisional regeneration

Yesterday, I listened to a sermon from a preacher of a church in Georgia, a church that could be defined as ‘seeker-sensitive,’ and the central theme of the message was stated as thus: Jesus Christ came to earth to do away with religion and to talk about and engage us in a relationship. I have heard this man speak at a church I once attended.

In keeping with the anti-religion theme of the sermon, a major portion of the sermon concerned itself with expounding against the error of legalism and our inability to please God by our adherence to ‘religious’ rules. In general principle, I could not agree more. The call against legalism was contrasted with the call to have a relationship with Jesus. The pastor stated that Jesus wants us to be His friend rather than a slave. I agree, but as an aside, I think of the apostle Paul describing himself as a bond servant to the Messiah. Semantics and definitions…..

Given the pastor’s admirable distaste of legalistic religion, it is interesting that he constantly reinforced the idea that this relationship with Jesus requires an initiating action on our part. The pastor’s flock was told that all we have to decide to enter in to a relationship with Him; it’s a free invitation. Jesus is just standing there waiting patiently for us to do something. He misquoted John 3:16 as “For God so loved the world that who ever believes, who ever decides, who ever makes the action, makes the decision for Him will have eternal life.” This is a verbatim quote from the sermon.

Romans 10:13 was misquoted as “Who ever calls, whoever makes a decision, on the Lord will be saved.”

Revelation 3:20 was misquoted as, and I paraphrase fairly closely, “that Jesus stands at the door of our heart and we must make a decision to open the door. Jesus is not going to kick in the door.” One, this is a verse that is so often and with good intention taken out of context and used evangelically. However, Christ is talking to the tepid church of Laodicea, not to the unregenerate as an invitation to a saving ‘relationship.’ Two, he intentionally misquoted scripture again.

However, in all the talk about entering into some rather ill-defined ‘relationship’ with Jesus, I do not recall hearing a word about despair over sin, about repentance. That is an absolutely breath-taking omission in presenting the Gospel. Perhaps such was inferred, was understood on the part of the pastor, but the biblical call to repent and believe was not verbally presented as the invitation to a relationship with Christ. To give credit where credit is perhaps due, he did mention towards the beginning of his sermon, thought, that he was quite a hellion before he became a Christian. I am not sure if I am to infer a call to repentance from that.

Among the pastor’s numerous personal anecdotes the he used to punctuate the sermon’s main points, there was a long rant about a legalistic ‘King James Only’ type church the pastor once attended. There was another church he spoke against in the course of the sermon, one that he planted and pastored (if I recall correctly), and after calling it by name, inferred it would be welcomed in hell. Following a bit later was a diatribe against sprinkling verses dunking.

While listening to the sermon, I had to remind myself that the pastor is a human being who apparently feels he has been hurt by individuals in the church. Sometimes, and sadly, such happens. There was some real, though veiled, bitterness exhibited in his descriptions of previous churches he had be involved with, and I have to temper my thoughts and words in regards to this man and his church. I have some empathy for him.

Towards the end of the sermon, he presented the ever so ubiquitous and unbiblical refrain of the seeker-sensitive church, the all too common proclamation of how it is not his job as pastor to feed the flock, that it is the flocks fault when they complain about not getting fed at church. His spin on those who want to ‘go deeper’ was that they want the pastor to ‘confuse them’. He stated such cannot handle practical teaching because they would have to do something. These seeker-sensitive preachers and entertainment-driven churches seem to all be reading from the same script. At the risk of sounding judgmental while perhaps speaking from the burden of my personal baggage, arrogance and disdain for the real ‘seekers’ seems to have stepped in to fill the gaping void left by the absence of overt legalism.

In the last few minutes of the sermon, Jesus was presented as a marriage fixer, a relationship healer, but overall, I actually heard very little about Christ the Redeemer.

In all the pastors admirable concern about legalism, what I picked up from the sermon, with all its calls to decide, with all the calls to perform an action both in initiating this relationship with Christ and the call to self-feed, was an ironic invitation to a works-driven legalism-lite. What I picked up, too, was a not-so-subtle ‘thank God I am/we are not like those Pharisees attitude. For brevities sake, I will refrain from further exploring this theme of minor league legalism. I think it could be stated with a high degree of confidence that all who are in Christ are, to some degree, recovering Pharisees.

What I was left with after listening to this sermon was an odd mix of muted anger at and profound sadness for the pastor. I felt only deep sadness for the flock as they clapped in approval. In all honesty, two or three years ago, if I were in that audience, I would have probably nodded my head in agreement and put my hands together along with the rest of the flock. In closure, what grieves me so very, very deeply is that this is probably not an uncommon sermon in many churches. With good intentions from well-meaning pastors, the evangel is reduced to an invitation to an ill-defined relationship with buddy Jesus, a relationship that carries some vague promises to fix our marriages, to fix our money, to fix our psychology. He just wants you to get out there and do something to fill the church seats so other people can meet Him just as you did. And you know what, despite the error being expounded from the stage, I believe some may actually have a saving encounter with Christ in such services, but I also fear many others will be filled with false assurance.

There are some preachers who will tell you salvation is free, that it’s easy, but it’s ultimately up to you to decide, to act, to initiate. I do not think it was without cost for Jesus. I do not think it will be without cost to me, but I have counted them as best I can. I did not initiate this relationship, my Messiah did. I do not think it will be easy, but I will follow Him knowing that I will stumble along the way. Jesus does look after and love His flock with tender care, but He never promised a ‘wonderful plan for your life’ as many would define wonderful. I know, too, that no one can snatch me from His grip.

• Matt. 22:14 (ESV)
  For many are called, but few are chosen.

• John 15:16 (ESV)
  You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

• John 6:44 (ESV)
  No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

• John 6:37 (ESV)
  All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

• Romans 9:15-16 (ESV)
  For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

• Ephesians 1:4-5 (ESV)
  ..even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

• Acts 13:48 (ESV)
  And when the Gentiles heard this, the began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed

Observing sad trajectories

I read blogs (and a book or two) occasionally, usually those written from a reformed theological perspective. Though I have had a friend or two infer the time I spend reading blogs is misspent, that I use my time in a trivial fashion, I must affirm that I have been greatly edified, my thoughts have been provoked, and in so much as it is possible through the limitations of words written by others, I have been discipled by the wisdom found in the pages of men whom I respect from afar. That all being said, it grieves me to observe the slow drift of a couple of writers/bloggers, men who I have respected for their trenchant commentary, into what I perceive to be the seductive error of the Emergent church. What I see in words of the these writers is a subtle shift away from and a growing disdain for a perceived rigid orthodoxy. What I see is in the words of these men is, if not a complete embrace, at least a growing tolerance, even affirmation, of the heterodoxy of neo-liberalism, perhaps to a degree in a reaction to some of the honestly quite silly permutations of contemporary American Christianity.

In my propensity for stating things obvious, I affirm expressed ideas have consequences. The more important the idea, the greater the consequence. Therein lies the subtle error of the ‘deeds, not creeds’ mentality. (Other have pointed out that, ironically, such a ‘deeds not creeds’ statement a creed) I hear this mentality echoed in varying degrees both in the Emergent camp as well as in the seeker-sensitive camp. Let’s just love Jesus, do His work, and put aside the creeds that separate and divide. On the Emergent side, I believe we have an overly generous ‘orthodoxy’, one that focuses on perhaps a post-modern, counter-culture, sandal-clad social worker Jesus, a Jesus for classes of people-the systemically disenfranchised. Foundational doctrines are sometimes called into question by the leaders of the Emergent church. Individual points of doctrine are looked upon by some in the Emergent camp as simply springs in a trampoline. The inference of the metaphor is that we can do without a few of these springs, the trinitarian nature of the Godhead or the penal substitutionary atoning work of Christ on the cross, for example, and the trampoline would still be a functioning trampoline. I think perhaps the metaphor of a chain is more appropriate when weighing in on the importance of foundational doctrines. When we begin to disallow for the existence of objective, propositional truth as do some in the Emergent church, a place where perhaps the community defines truth, the door for error is opened wide.

On the seeker-sensitive, attractional segment of the church, we often find an expressed disdain for ‘going deep’. If you engage in activities, the pursuit of a deeper understanding of the creeds that define and refine the faith, for example, that do not serve to pack the auditorium, you are being self-absorbed. You are not doing the work of the life coach Jesus of the attractional church. I am painting all the above in broad strokes of the brush, I know.

What happens when one ignores creeds, when one gives short shrift to doctrine, when going deeper in Scripture, in knowledge, is disdained, our understanding of the Person of Christ becomes ill-defined and under-defined.

Social worker, counter-culture Jesus in not enough Jesus. Life coach Jesus, marriage and finance councilor Jesus is not enough Jesus. The effeminate Jesus of religious iconography is not a correct, complete picture of Jesus. The reactionary, hyper-masculine Jesus of some elements of evangelical American Christianity is not a correct, complete portrait of Jesus. Jesus is not the spokesman of the GOP. He is not wrapped in an American flag. He is not a conservative; He is not a liberal. The church, without intent, often seems bent on marginalizing Him, of bending Him to an agenda. Along the way to your personal agenda, you will find, however, that you cannot put the Lion of Judah in a cage.

Interesting post on American evangelicalism

(7-02-08: As a sort of chronologically challenged preamble to this post and after reading a bit deeper into the blog, I have developed some reservations about what I perceive to be an alignment with with the Emergent strain of Christendom.  I still agree with the following post, but again, I do not know if I can endorse the blog as a whole (not that it matters to anyone what I endorse), especially without further examination of the blog.  Anywho, moving on……)

Stumbled on this post titled Burger King Christianity:

First, while I’m sure many people reading this understand what I mean when I say “attractional” church, but many might not, so briefly…
Attractional church is that model where we see the work of church and of evangelism as getting people to come. If we tink enough with the seats, if the music is rocking enough, if the kids program high energy enough, if the parking is plentiful and the coffee sweet, non-Christians will magically develop a desire to come to church. And when they come, Pastor can take a whack at ‘em.
For better or for worse… no, scratch that… for worse, this has become the dominant model in American evangelicalism.

Second- what’s wrong with it? If it gets people to church, why should we not do anything possible, short of something immoral or illegal to get people there?

Because the goal is not to pack a room, and it’s not the Pastor’s job to get your friends saved. And shame on any pastor whose model allows people to think it is.

This is the phrase that has been going through my head recently: What you win them with, you win them to. The problem with the attractional model is this: We bring people in on the basis of consumeristic impulses and when they fail to make the transition from church consumer to servant of all, we scratch our heads and wonder what’s wrong with them.

A Quote from Spurgeon

I do not come into the pulpit hoping that somebody
of his own free will, will return to Christ. My hope
lies in another quarter. I hope that my Master
will lay hold of some of them and say, “You are
mine and you shall be mine. I claim you for
myself”. My hope arises from the freeness of
grace not the freedom of the will. A poor haul of
fish will a gospel fisherman make if he takes
none but those who are eager to jump into the net.

Charles H. Spurgeon