the tenth letter...

Yes! Christianity is a Cult

2012-01-20T01:43:00.001-05:00

Before embarking on this little exercise in reality I ought to make it clear that I am a Christian, I pastor a friendly welcoming and typically non-judgmental congregation, I believe that the Gospel invitation goes forth for all, and that Christ really did live, die, and raise for this world. I affirm what most evangelicals would consider the orthodox faith, and I make no apologies for that. I ask only one thing of you as you proceed, do not close your mind until you have given at least a few moments thought to what follows.

Let me start with one simple statement. Christianity is a cult. That is the thesis, and it is not too difficult of a thesis to prove. Christian, your hair may stand up on your back as you read that three word sentence, but it is true, and in denying it you unknowingly deny the faith handed down by Christ and the Apostles. Christianity is a cult.

Let us work through some of the standard markings of a cult, and let us see whether or not Christianity fits the bill.

All cults have a leader who makes audacious claims about themselves. The head of Christianity claimed to literally be the Son of God. This is the most audacious claim that could be made, it was the very claim that caused the leader of Christianity to be nailed to a cross.

Most cults claim to be the true manifestation of an existing accepted religion. Jesus claimed in Matthew 5 that he was the fulfillment of the Jewish Law and the words of their prophets.

Cult leaders demand irrational obedience to their leadership. Jesus demanded his followers to take up their cross and follow Him. Typically these commands include a separation from existing relationships. Certainly you recall Luke 14:25-27, and you will be hard pressed to convince me of that not being cultic language. Must I go on to Jesus’ other commands of obedience to Him? When Jesus called his disciples they were expected to drop their nets (their very livelihood), to not tend to the death of their parents, instead to let the dead bury their own dead. Come on folks, if you cannot see this as cultic you are simply stuffing your fingers in your ears and screaming “La la la la la la” at the top of your lungs. However we have only begun.

Cult leaders tell their followers that persecution by the majority validates what the cult leader is professing. “Blessed are those who are persecuted for my sake.” The leader of a cult knows full well that the majority will reject their message, so to encourage their followers the leader prepares them for constant rejection. If you cannot see this theme in the New Testament, again I think your blindness is intentional.

Cult leaders implement strange rites of initiation. Have you not read that we are baptized into the death of Christ. That we must be born again of water (baptism) and the Spirit? Wanna talk more about strange rites? Jesus said to his followers that unless they eat his flesh and drink his blood they have no part with Him. These are the words that only a cult leader would dare utter.

Cult leaders profess that the way which they proclaim is the only true way. Must I rehash all the exclusive verses of Christ? Jesus claimed himself as the way, truth, and life. His apostles taught that He was the only mediator between man and God. Another apostle claimed that all who rejected this leader would be cast into the lake of fire.

Cult leaders have insider language for their followers. Take a look at Matthew 13:10-17 and you will see that he taught in parables not to make things easy, but in order to confuse everyone who was not his follower. (As an aside, if you somehow think that parables were meant to make difficult topics more understandable you really need to stop reading this post and go read Matthew 13 for yourself. It’s at best a mistake, and at worst an outright lie to say that Jesus gave the parables to clear things up. The opposite is true, which by the way is the type of thing you might expect from a cult leader.)

Cult leaders have great things to say about their followers. “You are the salt of the earth… you are the light of the world…”

Cult leaders make wild promises to their followers… um, Jesus promised his followers eternal (yeah, like forever and ever and ever) life in paradise.

Cult leaders typically work with an inferior class of people… you know like tax collectors and fishermen, as opposed to theologians who would know better.

So far we have just looked at the leader of Christianity, we have not looked at the church itself. Oh did I mention that the one who prepared the way and announced the arrival of this leader was a family member of His? That might raise the cult red flag a bit. Now hopefully what I have written so far has shaken you at least a little bit, and much more could be written about Christ and the cultic nature of His leadership. I do want to make sure you know my heart in this. I am not blaspheming Christ by affirming that he is the leader of a cult called Christianity, not at all. The claims that Christ made of Himself are true, and He verified them in His resurrection and ascension. Unlike the cult leaders we are most familiar, Jesus substantiated His claims. Nonetheless they are undeniably cultic claims.

Now on to the Church. The church was founded upon the teachings of the close friends of this leader, the apostles, who continued to propagate the claims the leader made about himself. Hmmm… a leader and his inner circle have the authority.

One of the marks of a cult is the incredible amounts of time the cult spends together. Have you not read in Acts that the believers met daily in their homes breaking bread, and devoting themselves to the teachings of the apostles?

The church met for prayers, psalms, and spiritual songs. The church gathers to partake of bread and wine which they profess in some way is the body and blood of their leader. The church requires baptism into Christ’s death for membership into its ranks. The church still gathers each week to hear ordained leaders speak to them for 30 minutes or so about the writings in their sacred book about their leader.

Cults are heavy on indoctrination. Isn’t the great commission from Christ to the church to go and make disciples, teaching and baptizing. Disciples? The very term disciple is undeniably cultic. This could go on and on.

Let us look beyond the church itself and look at the very basic nature of Christianity. We have a leader who claims to be the Son of God, we have a Holy Book that claims to be the word of God, we have a body of people who claim to be the people of God, we have sacraments which we claim to be instituted by God. Plug your ears, scream “la la la la la” if you want, but you will not change the reality that Christianity is a cult.

Congratulations if you have made it this far. Those with their fingers in their ears have left us a number of paragraphs ago. However for you who have hung in this far, you deserve to know the whole point of this little tirade, let those who left go polish their little porcelain Jesus to make him look really nice to the rest of the world. We are here to deal with the real thing.

The unbelieving world knows that Christianity is cult, they may not label it as such, but functionally they know it is. As Christians however we fail to see it, or worse we do everything in our power to deny it. In our effort to ‘de-cult’ Christianity we render the entire New Testament impotent.

We have a false notion that the world does not want to be Christian because they think it is too cultic. So what do we do in response? We remove all the cultic elements from the public eye. It is popular in the more cosmopolitan churches to have their baptisms performed at a separate service, you know so ‘seekers’ are not exposed to the ritual. Those churches will typically do the same thing with the Lord’s Supper. We spend our time on topical sermon series which allow us to pick and choose the scriptures we will cover so as to avoid those cultish ones. We remove unison prayer, we remove ancient songs, we remove the communal reading of the Psalms, we go so far as to attempt to proclaim that not only is Christianity not a cult, but we lie and say it is not even a religion. Why? Because we believe that people will not like the church if we do those things.

We are afraid to give people the real thing, because we believe they will not like it, that they will be offended by it. So we run around saying it is not a religion, it is not unique, it is not holy, it is not separate, it is not strange… then we invite them to our church… and if we are still preaching the cultic Christ, they are offended because we hoodwinked them. Or, we invite them to our church which has stripped Christ of all his uniqueness in favor of a pep rally about transforming your life (as though it is about you, and not about the leader of this cult.)

The unbelieving world deserves the truth about Christianity. Then they can come to our churches, and we will welcome them, and they won’t need to feel like we are trying to pull some sort of bait and switch on them.

What follows would be an honest invitation to our church:

I would love for you to come to Delta United Methodist Church. We are not going to judge you, we are as messed up as anyone, certainly as messed up if not more messed up than you. However I give you fair warning, we do some strange things, we worship a man who has made some strange claims, we sing some songs with some strange lyrics, and we pray some strange prayers. (Of course as Christians we find these things to be normal.) You see we know we are a strange bunch, and we want nothing more than for you to experience this strangeness with us. Yeah I suppose you could say it’s a cult, but it is open to all, we have nothing to hide, and we look forward to being upfront and explaining anything you might have a question about. We have had the same questions, and most of us still have a number that are yet unanswered. Yet grace abounds my friend, and you will find it here.

Isn’t that more honest than:

Hey come check us out. We have great music, great coffee, a relaxed atmosphere, and most of all we are not religious.

Then a few months later:

Join our small group, come to our baptism class, become a member and tithe, give to our building program, come to our special communion service…

Wait what? This is quite a bit different than the invitation you gave a few months ago.

Fruit-Booting and Reality

2011-09-29T20:53:00.004-04:00

I used to be a fruit-booter. At least that’s what the skateboarding crowd would call my friends and me. “Fruit-booter” was a derogatory term for those who were aggressive inline skaters. Let’s be honest, as far as aggressive inline skating went I was average. There were a few rails I could slide, some decent flights of stairs I could jump off of, and had there been the plethora of skate parks then as there are now I am sure my friends and I could have at least held our own at them, though we probably would not have wowed anyone, we certainly would not have inspired any film crews to show up to see our skills. The non-skating crowd would have thought what we were doing was amazing, but among those who know the sport few would be impressed. Nonetheless we had fun, tons of it.

As I look back to those days I realize that there was something different about me then, something admirable that over time I am afraid to say I lost. There was a passion in me, that rarely have I been able to capture since. This is going to sound weird at first, but when I look back at that time skating was my ‘worldview’. How I looked at the world was entirely shaped by inline skating. When I was at the amusement park standing in lines with my friends we would look across all the rails in the cue lines and discuss the various moves that could be done within those lines. When we drove by a staircase in front of a church our natural tendency was to see if it had enough of a run up to be able to jump off of, and enough space to land. When we saw sidewalks downtown with a concrete ledge we would question whether or not it could be waxed in order grind down. The entire world of concrete looked to me as a playground with unlimited possibilities. What was simply a planter box to the common observer was to me a royale to soul grind (skating terms) waiting to happen. The stairs you trudged up to get into your office building was to me a mute 360 waiting to happen. In the middle of winter while the skates got dusty my mind was still engaged, still creating, still seeing the world around me as a place of infinite possibilities.

The point is that my skating ‘worldview’ looked at the world seeking out its possibilities, not bogged down with its rational uses. I did not care what the intent of some flight of stairs was, I looked at those stairs for possibilities! That worldview brought life to everything I could see. My friends and I could have never put a finger upon why life was so good then. However if I had the chance to talk with them all now I imagine that we would be unanimous in saying that something has changed in all of us since then, and that the change was not for the better. At some point after careers began and life became driven by goals, and tasks the world lost its magic. Hand railings became something to help us up stairs, stairs became something we used to only to change our elevation to get somewhere different. Planters became nothing more than decoration and buildings became nothing more than places of employment. This supposed maturing process that we all go through is utterly tragic. As I grew up everything became so much more rational, so much more logical, and the world that was once a magical playground when I had the skating ‘worldview’ lost its magic. The strange thing however is that the world did not change, the world never lost its color, the world never lost it, it’s still here, I have just become blind to it. The magic is not gone, I have just ceased to believe in it! I contend with you that the magic that the skating ‘worldview’ allowed me to see was real, and the only reason I could see it was because of the ‘worldview’ I held. It was not a false magic, it was real, ask my friends Nick and Matt if it was real, they will gladly confirm it. Ask the kid on skates down the street, or the skateboarder with his skinny jeans and ugly haircut if it is real, he will tell you that indeed that magic is as real as the screen you sit in front of!

Now as great as the skating ‘worldview’ was, it is limited. For instance, rain or snow could bring the skating world to a halt. When the rain or snow fell you could only dream of the world that was, or the world that was to come again once the roads became usable again. Rain was not a blessing, it was the greatest of curses, because it temporarily destroyed your world.

Maybe my four year old son’s worldview is better even than the skating worldview. We walked in our house today in the middle of the rain and he had to stop to analyze the down spout. As I looked at the spout I saw it was flowing well which meant no clogs, all was well. When Joey saw it he saw a waterfall pouring into a newly created small lake in the front yard. Like magic the rain created a whole new world to be explored, he cared not about the function of the down spout, his thought was not rational in any sense, but you cannot tell either me or him that there was not a waterfall in our front yard that was not there a few hours earlier. He is not mature enough to see the function, he only sees the form, and the form was a waterfall. His view was far more desirable then mine! Don’t tell me it is just because he has a better imagination, it has nothing to do with imagination, he was just better suited to see reality! Clear as day there was a waterfall pouring into a newly formed body of water in my front yard, there was nothing unreal about it, you could touch it, feel the cold water, splash in the puddle that had formed, it was real. It was far more real than my view that saw nothing but a formed piece of sheet metal doing its job. This is not the case of a delusional Don Quixote fighting a windmill as though it were monster; this was the case of a real waterfall at my house.

What if I told you that I fought a monster today with hundreds of eyes that feasted on dead carcasses and vomited its prey all over the place? Would you think I am mad? I am not mad, no I valiantly destroyed a common housefly, which indeed fits the description I just gave. Go ahead and tell me I am a mad dreamer, I do not mind. Tell me I am nuts for seeing myself as a valiant monster slayer enjoying the task of taking out that fly as though it was the thing I was created for. Tell me I am nuts, I don’t mind, but it is you sir, not I, that is driven mad by the annoying fly in your house. You may kill the fly and have relief, but when I kill the fly I have victory and joy. Am I being childlike? Maybe, but you cannot say that I am lost in some fable or myth because I really did kill a little monster with hundreds of eyes that feeds on carcasses and vomits its prey everywhere. My mission was real, your worldview just limits you from being able to see it!

What I am saying to you is that this world is far more rich and dare I say ‘magical’ than you are willing to see. What I am saying is here is that the valiant fly swatter, skater, and waterfall downspout gazers are more realistic than you are! They see realities that exist that you fail to see. Your rationality prevents you from seeing the world as it ACTUALLY IS.

I could go on and on. The writer sees the English language with all its grammar and syntax as a great possibility for a story. The novelist sees more than just the function of grammar, they see a deeper more real reality! The rest of us see vocabulary and rules that we need to learn.

Hopefully what I have said above has piqued your interest, at least just a little. As you look down at your keyboard what do you see? Mere keys, or is it a device that enables you create and destroy worlds, to bring healing to people’s brokenness, and to expose wickedness. The REAL possibilities at your fingertips right now are staggering. Or what of your kitchen table, is it a mere place to eat your food and have some conversation. Or is it a place where you tell war stories about slain monsters, and discovered waterfalls. Is it a place to eat and complain about the days issues, or go through a few formalities of family life, or is it a conference of warriors, and explorers? Are you catching my drift? There are ACTUAL realities that exist around your own table that your view of the world does not allow you to see!

I would contend that the only worldview that actually seeks realities beyond the mere rational form and function of everything is indeed Christianity. In the eastern religions the goal is to ultimately separate from reality, that somehow entering into a state of nothingness can one truly experience spiritual life. Transcendentalism teaches essentially that matter is bad. These worldviews would teach us to learn that the downspout doesn’t matter, and that if we can get ourselves to the point where the downspout and nothing else for that matter affects us then we will truly be free. It’s bogus! I tell you that the waterfall was enjoyable and beautiful precisely because we realized it was REAL. It was not our distance that brought pleasure, it was putting our hand under it and enjoying it!

The reason I say Christianity gives us the proper worldview is because in it we realize that all things were created by and for Christ. All of it. We also see that we are indeed co-heirs with Christ, in other words this whole world in a very real sense is ours. When we say all things are created by Him we really mean ALL, from waterfalls to wrenches, it is all the creation of God. If indeed all things are ours as co-heirs with Him then we can determine how to use them as we please. Let me give an example. If I have a wrench, I can limit it’s usage to turning bolts, or I could make it a pendulum for a clock, or I could use that flat part as a mirror to pull out my nose hairs. It’s my wrench, therefore the possible realities for that wrench are limitless. Of course we are bound by laws of God so that we would not steal the wrench, or kill someone with it, but beyond illegal usage we are unbound. So it is with the entire world!

Even evil and pain function within this worldview to make something beautiful. Evil itself was the mere nemesis which God had nailed to himself in victory! There is a cosmic throw down which Christ won on the cross. It is a really beautiful thing, him reconciling the world to himself with real flesh and blood, a real cross with real nails. The existence of evil itself proves that there is the existence of good. The tension of good and evil makes the world all the more beautiful. Without pain there is no joy of healing.

In Christianity we have a sovereign God, the author of reality, all realities, nothing has been made that was not made by him. That means that even the reality to the skater is a reality created by him. The waterfall was His waterfall, the kitchen table is his command center, the evil housefly monster is a villain created by him that I might be the valiant king of my home. Do you see it?

If you can’t see it don’t quickly dismiss it. I assure you that in the middle of downtown Toledo there is a playground that spans over a hundred acres… you might just need to be a fruit-booter to see it. Unbeliever I implore you to look at the world through the eyes of a Christian, not one of those creepy Christians, but look at the world as a world created by and for Christ, a world of intense order and beauty that contains realities you have yet to imagine! You might just see there is more to all of this than you ever imagined.

I love Mondays

2011-09-26T14:08:00.002-04:00

I have spent almost my entire day today just thinking without an agenda. In other words my mind has been wandering randomly all day, and I am ok with that. It started this morning as I was thinking about a conversation I had last week with my cousin about the benefits of factions in the church, this thought later became a blog post over at Dead Pastor Society. Later I began to think about how most preaching both liberal and conservative typically amounts to just beating people down in order to get them to do something, and then the phrase “The beatings will continue until moral increases” came into my head and that spurred on a whole other line of thinking. Eventually I ended up watching some video about the holocaust, later listened to some teaching on the Theology of the Cross, checked facebook a few times… and now I am just sitting here writing another blog post. This is not an atypical Monday for me. In fact I always look forward to Mondays because this how they usually go. Monday is the day that I free myself up to do this sort of things, ALL DAY. Granted I do more of this at other times during the week, but for the most part I have no plans to do anything but bounce around in thought on Monday. When I get done with this post I will be picking up “Orthodoxy” by GK Chesterton and hopefully finishing the rest of it, and later I will continue reading from 2 Chronicles if time allows.

Monday is random, undisciplined, and free. In some ways it is even better than a day off.

Of course the question comes up, “Jay! How do you have time to do that?” Let’s be honest, you, reader (if you are like most people), are not as busy as you say you are. You’re just not. People ask you how life is, you say “really really busy”, but the reason you say that is because it makes you feel important, and it gives you an excuse for never calling or talking to the person you’re in the conversation with. We just are not as busy as we proclaim to be. Most of the tasks we have to do take far less time then we allot for them, and sometimes we take much longer than necessary just because it makes the task seem all the more important. Need proof? How many times has a deadline crept up on you and out of necessity you complete your task in 1/3 the time you normally take and lo it’s done just as well. Come on, be honest, you are not as busy as you say you are, and your job and your family is not as demanding as you make it out to be! (Of course there are exceptions and you may be one of them, but I bet most people reading this are sensing the truth of what I am saying.)

I don’t write any of this to condemn anyone, not at all. I write this to encourage you to free up some of your work time for random thought. You have already fought enough with employers and family and such to get everyone to believe it takes you longer to do a task than it really does, which means that you have extra time on your hands. Have fun with it! Don’t waste all of it on facebook (but waste some there), or looking through old emails. Get some books, think random thoughts, write, contemplate, do the things your mind longs to do. You will find that you are going to have so much more to talk about with people, you become more insightful, and more ready to do good creative work, all because you took time to be random.

I certainly believe we should be a disciplined people (that is why I give myself Monday and not the rest of the week.) There are tasks that we need to do, deadlines we need to meet. I only am telling you not to believe your own lies about how difficult your job is and how little time you have, because the time you take making those lies appear true is time that you could waste doing fun stuff, like writing blogs, reading books, and listening to good theology. (At least that’s what I find fun!)

I’d love to hear all your thoughts on this one.

Why I am not a "creationist"

2011-09-23T15:55:00.001-04:00

Again I remind you that post every Monday over at Dead Pastors Society, so if you are interested in more of what you find here, head over there.

Let me say that I have a huge beef with creationism. Now listen, I certainly believe in the literal creation account of scripture, meaning that I believe in a literal 7 days, a literal flood, and a literal tower of babel, all those things I take to be absolutely true. However I am not a creationist because the doctrine that defines my system of theology is NOT creation. Now I am not opposed to “-isms”, in fact I think they are helpful. Methodism is a system of understanding scripture and ecclesiology, as is Lutheranism, Calvinism, Romanism, Arminianism, etc… There is nothing wrong with an “-ism” in that sense. Now certainly not all “-isms” are equally desirable and therein lies my problem with “creationism.”

Creationism affirms that all biblical doctrine is eventually founded in the creation, or in the first 11 books of Genesis. One of the main things you will hear a creationist say is that if you lose the book of Genesis you lose the entire bible. In other words the creationist affirms that all doctrines are ultimately founded in the creation and without the literal creation account no doctrine can stand. This is standard creationism, and I believe creationism’s emphasis is horribly misplaced.

Let me give an example. One of my best friends, who I love dearly, in the Lord is what I would call an ardent creationist. I explained to him that I believe in the literal creation account simply because Christ seems to believe in it, and Christ being resurrected is indeed proven as God in the flesh, and if God Himself affirms a literal creation then who am I to deny it. In other words my sole reason for believing the literal creation narrative is the authority of Christ proven by his resurrection. After hearing that argument my friend said, “I will definitely add that argument to my arsenal.” What I presume he meant is that he will add the resurrected Christ argument in order to serve his creation argument.

So what is wrong with his methodology? Or is there anything wrong with his idea of the adding the resurrection argument to his arsenal? YES! Listen, the resurrection IS our arsenal, it IS our argument. It is not one of many arguments used to prove a greater point. It IS the great point! It is not a sub argument that we add to prove other points of doctrine, not at all! The life, death, and resurrection of Christ IS our doctrine, and all other arguments are subservient to that doctrine. In other words, the literal creation serves to proclaim the life, death , and resurrection not vice versa. To put it more clearly, I can proclaim the Gospel without mentioning the creation. However the only way to rightly proclaim the creation is in light of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. I can proclaim the Gospel without mentioning where Cain got his wife, but I cannot proclaim the story of Cain and Abel without making a beeline to Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. Christ’s life death and resurrection is the primary storyline of scripture, the one which every other scripture is governed by. The bible is Christocentric, not creation-centric. Can you see my issue?

Creationism wrongly places the creation as the foundational moments of scripture. You can be a young earth creationist without being Christian. You can be an orthodox Jew and be a YEC, hell you can be an agnostic and be a YEC. There is nothing distinctly Christian about creationism, and even if the argument for creation is ultimately won in the public sphere it does nothing to guarantee Christian doctrine. If you look a Paul arguing in Acts, the reason people get bent out of shape is not his appeal to a common ancestor, they can work with that, but the reason the reject or accept Christianity is always the resurrection!

Let me make it clearer. In Christianity we see Adam’s fall in the light of the redemption Christ offers. In Christianity the reason for the fall is found in the redemption which Christ offers. The creationist sees Adam’s fall as the action that necessitates Christ’s work. In Christianity Adam was subservient to Trinity’s ultimate plan of redemption by his fall (that is not to say God caused it, a topic for another time). In creationism Christ was subservient to Adam in that Christ was required to come because of what Adam had done. In Christianity Christ necessitated Adam, and creationism Adam necessitated Christ. In Christianity Christ is Plan ‘A’ from before time, in creationism Christ is plan ‘B’ as a result of Adam’s sin.

When I see fossil records that prove creation, and archeology that proves the Pentateuch I rejoice because all these things point to validity of Christ’s plan of redemption from before time began. However Christ’s life death and resurrection are the verifiable historical events in which I place my trust. In other words I do not get near as bent out of shape by some government agenda to squash creationism as I do by churches that are denying penal substitution, even if those churches are YEC churches.

With all of that said, I do appreciate the work of groups like Answers in Genesis, and I am not at all opposed to them, no I am very much thankful for them. Nonetheless I think they err in that they present a brand of Christianity which places creation as the foundation of all doctrine, and not the life death and resurrection of Christ. I believe this is a tragic misplacement of emphasis.

Hope that one makes sense, let me know what you think.

Emotion and Intellect

2011-08-30T15:09:00.002-04:00

I am not really good at debating creation vs. evolution, I’m just not. I think the one thing that both creationists and evolutionists can agree on is the simple fact that they are not going to change their position without some VERY compelling evidence. The Christian creationist needs their evidence to come from the scriptures else they will not accept it, the evolutionist needs their evidence to come through observation and the scientific method or else they will not accept it. The debate is a stalemate. Of course there are the occasional converts in both directions but by and large it is a settled point.

What I do find interesting however is the tendency of Christian creationist to appeal to the emotion and beauty, and the evolutionist to appeal to the hard evidence and scientific process. I think it is a fail on both sides.

It is typical in Christian circles to downplay the intellect. The Christian who reads many books, thinks deeply about doctrines that might not be essential is often derided in Christian circles as being high minded, or somehow wasting their time. They are often met with “The bible says it, I believe it, that settles it” or “you just need to have a childlike faith”. I wish more people would have a childlike faith! My 4 year old is constantly asking questions, and every question leads to a new question, and he is inquisitive beyond what I can handle at times. The child does not settle with simple answers, they always dig further, always want more, they do not care about ‘essential’ vs ‘non-essentials’ they want it all and in that sense ‘child-like’ is very intellectual.

On the flip side, the ‘evolutionist’ downplays the emotion and takes it completely out of the equation. They typically argue from the third person perspective and distance themselves emotionally from the arguments they make. It is unfortunate, because in many ways they have a wonderful story to tell that is stimulating and engaging, if they were willing to tell it in such a manner.

As Christians we say that history is a marvelous story of creation and redemption, of sin and grace, of a final victory, and tragic defeat of evil. We get wrapped up in, and immersed in this great story, a story that we affirm is true. It is a highly emotional story, and the emotion is part of its appeal. Nonetheless there is an intellectual side of it all, how the sacrifices work together, the types and shadows, the doctrines, the laws, the history. It is a complete package, and it is a mistake to neglect the intellect because the intellect serves the emotion and vice versa.

On the flip side the evolutionist has a marvelous story to tell as well, one that they affirm is true. It is a story of a world governed by natural law that defeats the odds while functioning with in those laws to bring forth the wonderful complexity that this world has. It is a story of life forming against the odds, but still within the possibility of infinite time and space. It is a story of ever increasing complexity and innovation. Like every good story it has a tipping point, and the greatness of this universe begins to return to the nothingness it once was, and tragically it ends as it began in an infinitesimally dense small speck. Honestly that is a story that we can get wrapped up in as well, one that, if it were true, we are really a part of, really involved in its timeline, and truly affected by it. (Of course I believe that story to be wrong, but I would be a liar if I said it wasn’t interesting and compelling.)

What I am saying is that the biblical narrative is much more believable if it is engaged intellectually, but also that the evolutionary narrative would be much more believable if it were engaged with emotion.

The teachers who were most effective in communicating their subjects in my education were my high school Calculus teacher, and my physics teacher (probably resulting in me becoming an engineer). I have no idea whether they were Christian or not, and as far as the subject matter was concerned that is irrelevant. The reason they taught so well was that they balanced intellect and emotion in their teaching. My calculus teacher was genuinely excited about the order that could be expressed by numbers, she genuinely portrayed an emotional connection to the math she taught. Our physics teacher was much the same. He not only wanted you to grasp the concepts, he drove you to become emotionally involved in them. If it were all emotion without the intellect we would have learned nothing, yet if it were all intellect without the emotion we would have dismissed the knowledge we received the moment we received our grade card.

A great book to read on this topic is CS Lewis’ “Abolition of Man”, he expresses this tension far better than I ever could on a blog post.

DeadPastorsSociety

2011-08-22T16:26:00.001-04:00

I am now blogging at DeadPastorSociety with some twitter friends of mine. I will still be blogging here, but make sure you stop over there too, I post every monday.

Hey Aaron, are you going to eat all that?

2011-08-10T16:45:00.000-04:00

There are certain portions of scripture that just make me question the veracity of the word. Yeah, that’s right, there I times when I question the book. Let me give a prime example. Moses, in Leviticus, is laying out the Law of God regarding the sacrifices and it just happens that the really good meat is not going to be burned up entirely, but instead it just gets nicely roasted, and lo, Moses’ brother Aaron and Aaron’s family is supposed to eat it. The cynic in me finds that to be an awfully convenient law for Aaron. I mean, here you have all the people of Israel bringing their best animals to be BBQ’d for Aaron and his people to eat, and it is a law that they must do it. Hey, why don’t I come down from a mountain and tell my people they need to bring ribs to sacrifice and they must be soaked with Sweet Baby Ray’s sauce, and yeah, why not bring a drink offering too, Coca-Cola Classic would be ideal. Does that not seem just a touch sketchy? Certainly I am not the only person that has taken issue with this text?

Something I have come to realize though, is that the Old Testament only finds its true meaning in light of the New Testament, specifically in Christ’s work on our behalf. In other words, if indeed the Aaronic Priests were supposed to eat this sacrifice and it really was the command of God for them to do so, this command can only make sense to me in light of Christ’s fulfillment of that command. So before I go dismissing the early parts of Leviticus as Moses trying to make sure his family eats well I must deal with it light of the Gospel.

So let me walk you through my thinking as I came to this portion of Leviticus with my skepticism yet again in my bible reading.

Aaron is commanded to eat the sacrifices, the priesthood so to speak is required to eat the ‘perfect’ sacrifice in the sight of God. Hebrews reminds us that in light of the Gospel we are a kingdom of priests, and that all who are the redeemed are priests before God. In other words the Aaronic priesthood has been fulfilled, there is no longer a set group of priests called to consume the sacrifice, but all believers now enter into that role of priest. Moreover, we know there is no longer sacrifice for sin, other than the perfect sacrifice which has been offered, that is the Christ himself. Moreover Christ has stated:

John 6:53 (ESV)

⁵³So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

In light of Christ’s words contained in John’s Gospel we see a new picture arising. This hard command of Christ, that we must eat his flesh and his blood begins to make a little more sense. Moreover as we consider the Passover, when each family was to kill a lamb and leave none of it until the morning, begins to make sense, when you consider Christ as the Passover Lamb. The idea of consuming the sacrifice finds it’s full meaning in the fulfilled work of Christ and more specifically in the institution of the Lord’s Supper.

Needless to say, the command for the Aaronic priesthood to eat the sacrifice no longer bothers me at all, in fact it informs my doctrine of the Lord’s Supper and grounds it in the Old Testament sacrificial system and gives me a more robust understanding of what Christ meant by His hard teaching in John 6. This new reading further bolsters my belief that the sacrament is far more than a mere memorial meal that calls us to remember the Gospel, but that the sacrament in some sense is a part of the Gospel itself. Look, this does not make the case for transubstantiation, or some modern priesthood that must drink the portion of the sacrament not consumed by the people. Not at all, at the same time it does insert some healthy mystery into the Supper, and reminds me that in some sense we truly partake of the Lord as we receive the sacrament. This understanding of the consumption of the sacrifice leaves me thoroughly non-baptist with regards to the meal.

Was it wrong of me to question the veracity of the Law or to at least be a little skeptical of it? It would have been wrong if I had no intent of squaring it up with the New Testament, however if I allow my skepticism to drive me to answers, answers that I know must be founded in the Gospel, that initial skepticism proves to be a vehicle that drives me to greater faith and understanding of deeply profound truths.

Studying the scriptures should be a fascinating and enjoyable process, but it ceases to be that if you never let yourself be disturbed by the truths that you cannot seem to square up. Often we want to say something like “well it is in the bible so I am just going to believe it” without realizing that we are refusing to step on the mat with a God who is calling us out to wrestle. Unfortunately we are far too content to simply come up with trite clichés to answer deep questions that really disturb us.

I suppose this post is a small treatise for a healthy skepticism, but a skepticism that trusts that real truth can withstand our petty doubts.

obvious is not so obvious

2011-08-08T14:57:00.002-04:00

I am a big fan of stating the obvious, and I believe that as humans, for whatever reason, we need the obvious stated to us often. So this post is a bit of an exercise in the obvious.

The meaning of a statement can rarely be ascertained without the context of the statement. Let’s start with a simple statement:

“The grass is green”

If you are standing in the middle of a desert that statement is a statement of a miracle of sorts. If you sprayed your driveway with round up three weeks ago and are looking at the grass in the cracks it is a statement of disappointment. Without context you cannot know whether the statement is positive or negative in tone.

Because this blog centers primarily on theology let’s move to a more appropriate example. Let’s try this statement.

“Jesus is the way”

Is that a true statement? There is no way to tell without context. If someone asks me, how do I get to the grocery store, and I answer “Jesus is the way” it would be ridiculous. If someone asks me how can I get to hell, that statement would be even more unhelpful. To have any idea of what is intended by the statement “Jesus is the way” some sort of context must be given.

Again this is an exercise in the obvious, but it seems to become less obvious when we are dealing with the scripture. We have been taught, and rightly so, that every word of scripture is inspired, God breathed, and inerrant. Of course we cannot understand scripture without it’s context, we all agree with that, but I do not think we are near as aware of the danger of placing a scripture in the wrong context.

If I am giving directions to a grocery store, and the final information I give is: “The grocery store will be on your right.” That statement would only be truthful if you were approaching the store from the directions I gave. To say the “the store is on the right” is an absolute truth within the context of the directions, but outside of the context it could be the polar opposite of the truth. Nobody who read the entire directions to the store would argue with the veracity of the claim that the store was on the right.

Now the problem arises when we affirm something as an absolute truth while placing it in a context that makes that very truth a lie. This is not postmodernism, in fact it is quite the opposite. I affirm it is an absolute truth that the store is on the North side of the road, but ‘left’ or ‘right’ are relative to context.

Again we affirm that the scriptures are absolute, when understood within their context, but by quoting a scripture you are not guaranteed to be quoting absolute truth. This is where it gets a little bit more sticky.

Let’s take a super important question: “What must I do to be saved?” We want to answer that question with scripture, so what scripture should we use to answer that? We must use a scripture that is answering the same question. A common Evangelical answer to that question would be to quote Romans 10:9.

⁹because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

This seems like a fair statement, by doing this we answer the simple question, with a simple scripture that contains absolute truth. However, does Romans 10:9 intend to answer the question “What must I do to be saved” or is it answering a different question? The context of Romans 9 through Romans 11 involves the salvation of Jews and Gentiles and it is answering a question regarding who is saved and why, but Romans 10:9 is not laying out the way to be saved. An honest reading of the whole context of Romans 9-11 would make that clear. It is not appropriate to use a scripture to deliver an answer that was not intended to be delivered by that scripture. Now we can disagree with the meaning of Romans 10:9 and what it means in context, but let’s at least be careful to examine what Romans 10:9 is actually answering before we drop it into our conversation.

I do not hold to baptismal regeneration, I am not Lutheran or Catholic on this, but the bottom line is that Acts 2:38 answers the question… “What must I do?” If you read Peter’s Pentecost sermon, and you see that the hearers have come to a place of despair, you see that their question is exactly the question we are dealing with. “What must I do to be saved?”

³⁸And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Now we must do some leg work into what is meant by being ‘baptized in the name of Jesus Christ’, which might be something for another day, but at least by answering the question with Acts 2:38 you are answering the question in a way that is honest to the context.

So what about Romans 10:9, or even the entire “Romans Road” that so many people use to lead people to Christ? Is “Romans Road” evangelism biblical? Well it uses the bible, so in that sense it is biblical, but is it aware of the context? Look to the beginning of Romans:

Romans 1:8–13 (ESV)

⁸First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. ⁹For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you ¹⁰always in my prayers, asking that somehow by God’s will I may now at last succeed in coming to you. ¹¹For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you— ¹²that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine. ¹³I want you to know, brothers, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles.

At the outset of Romans we see who this is written to. Believers! The audience is not the lost. That alone should temper our reading of Romans. Nothing in Romans is written as praxis on how to get saved. Yes it certainly speaks eternal truths regarding salvation, yes it answers why people are saved, and how people are saved, but it is answering those questions to people who already believe. In other words it is written to people heading west down the road who will indeed need to turn ‘right’ into the grocery store on the north. It is not written to those heading east.

We could go on and on with countless scriptures, Matthew 7:21-23 is another big one that abuses the context. (I’ve blogged about that before.)

I encourage you, before you quote scripture make sure that your usage of it is appropriate to the context it fits within.

External Gospel for the Homeless

2011-07-11T10:20:00.002-04:00

It is likely a common experience for a devotee of any particular doctrine of theology to come to a point where they honestly question the doctrine they hold. This questioning of our own doctrine is not necessarily healthy, nor is it unhealthy. In one sense we can constantly question and come to a point where we believe questioning everything is a virtue in itself, and our primary doctrine becomes a command to ‘question everything.’ Unfortunately that process is not as virtuous as it first appears. If ones primary doctrine is that to question everything is virtuous, then answers or truths become inherently evil, for if there is an answer or truth regarding a particular question the question is solved. Any sort of absolute becomes the enemy of the doctrine of ‘question all’. On the flip side, to hold doctrine without ever bringing it into question is equally dangerous. To never question anything is to assume that at some point in history you achieved perfection in your understanding and to refuse to question is to permanently lock your intellect and spirit in that one place and to arrogantly believe you have arrived. The bottom line is that questioning that honestly seeks answers is healthy, even questioning very foundational truths in some sense shows more faith than not questioning at all. When you question foundational truths you show faith that those truths can withstand your questions.

With that background laid out I want to bring forth a doctrinal stance that I have brought into question recently, and it is a doctrine that in my estimation is foundational to the Christian faith. In some sense a part of me thinks I should feel guilty for even questioning it, but now that I am on the other side of the question mark I am thankful that I asked it. The question is simple “Is the Gospel actually the simple message that Christ has done all that is required of us for salvation?” Now before I delve into the process of my questioning I will simply state the conclusion, which is; “Yes, that is the Gospel message.” Yet it is an honest question, and one that needs to be asked and answered because the answer to that question drives everything that is Christian.

In recent years, thanks to some reformed and Lutheran friends and authors, I have been led through the scriptures to believe that Gospel is news, independent of all personal action, that Christ has paid my penalty, lived the life required of me, and rose from the dead making me not guilty of His death and the proper recipient of His life. The implications of this understanding of the Gospel shattered both my lingering shreds liberalism and my strong fundamentalism. It shredded the liberalism that led me to believe that social justice and service we in some sense part of the essence of the Gospel, and it shredded my fundamentalism that believes that somehow my changed life is part of the essence of the Gospel. This understanding has left me with the bare truth that Christ alone is the essence of the Gospel, and that the Gospel is something entirely apart from me, or entirely external.

Now, after being brought to full commitment in this doctrine of a Gospel that is external to me, I then came to a place where I began to question this. The primary question I asked is this: “If the Gospel is entirely external to me, then is it really true that, with regards to salvation, my actions are irrelevant?” Of course to have true commitment to an external Gospel the answer to that question must be “yes”, but is that answer really yes? That is a hard question to wrestle with because the implications of a “yes” answer seems to scream “antinomian” (lawless). If I am to continue with a “yes” answer to that question I must dismiss the fundamentalist notion that “if I am saved, I will no longer do x, y, and z sins. If I answer “yes” I must also dismiss the liberal notion that “salvation is to become one who serves the poor and makes the world a better place in the name of Christ.” Both of those notions are difficult to dismiss, especially when they have become a part of the fabric of what I have grown to know about Christianity. While my answer has been “yes” to that question for a couple of years now, that “yes” answer has been tentatively hanging in the balance. A recent experience has solidified that “yes” answer.

A couple of nights ago my wife and I were at a coffee shop hanging out when a homeless man came in to get a cup of tea. He kept to himself, and we kept to ourselves. Eventually the time came for us to leave and I walked over to him before leaving and began to make some small talk with him. This was not a “missional” thing or some spiritual endeavor to serve the poor, or get someone saved. I simply saw a lonely looking guy and thought I would have a conversation with him partially because I thought he would enjoy it, and also because I just enjoy conversation. I was simply being a human, there was no conscious attempt to do a good deed. Our conversation progressed, and we ended up giving him a ride to a hotel ten miles away and put him up for the night there. Again, this was more about being a good human than anything else, a member of any faith, or even an atheist can do this sort of thing, it requires very little character for someone who is comfortable with people. This man, Mike, immediately upon getting into the car began speaking of Christianity. He had no idea that I was a pastor, it seemed that he assumed we were Christians by the simple fact that we were giving him a ride. As he opened up to us we found out that He lived in a monastery for a year and has sought with all his might to live a Christian life. In our age of contemplation this man seemed to have arrived. He had given up all to live a simple life of dependence on God. He had taken the concept of monasticism to its final conclusion. As he continued speaking, this man affirmed to us that he was currently in utter despair regarding his soul. Why? He kept saying that he wondered if he had done enough. While early in his life he sought poverty believing that was part of the essence of Christianity, he now wrestled with the reality that he had nothing of substance to give to those who had need. His poverty that He embraced now became his source of despair. The very fact that he needed to receive a ride from someone else caused him to believe he was not a Christian because he was receiving instead of giving.

This man was taught that the Gospel meant to give to everyone, yet he came to a place where he had little or nothing to give and was met with despair. This man was a clear picture of what currently theology promoted by the emergent movement and new monasticism eventually leads to… despair.

At this point, I had yet to reveal to him that I was Christian, let alone a pastor. As I was thinking during this conversation I was being reminded of the words of Pastor Mike Slaughter who said “If the Gospel is not good news to the poor, it is not the Gospel.” Unfortunately, pastor Mike, used this true statement to come to a false conclusion. The conclusion was that if your Gospel does not include service to the poor, it must not be the Gospel. The problem was that this homeless man’s Gospel was completely saturated with the command that he must serve the poor, and his means no longer allowed him to do so. Pastor Mike’s statement was true, if the Gospel is not good news to the poor, it most certainly was not the Gospel, but Pastor Mike’s conclusion was anything but good news to the truly poor. This poor man had embraced the emergent theology all the way into poverty and was left without good news, he was left only with commands he could never obey.

I revealed at some point in the conversation who I was, and what my vocation was, only because this man was dying to have a statement from the Church that he was somehow acceptable to God. This man needed an alternate message than the one he had committed his entire being to, and to hear that answer from an ecclesiastical authority meant a lot to him. I proceeded to proclaim the Gospel apart from works, the plain message that Christ has accomplished EVERYTHING on his behalf regardless of what he had or had not done. Possibly for the first time he had heard a Gospel that was truly good news for the poor. It made sense, and it was good news, with no strings attached.

If I still held firm to the fundamentalist Gospel I would have had to tell him about how he had to clean up his life, I would have had to convince him of his sin, bring him to a place even lower than he was in order that he would see his need. If I still held to the liberal Gospel I would have had to relax his despair be telling him that his poverty was honorable and that because he embraced it he was more Christian than most of the world. Both options would have left him in despair, because he knew what he had done was not enough. Instead I embraced the answer of “yes” to the question “Is the Gospel truly external to us, and independent of our actions?” Both Mike, the homeless man, and I can be thankful that the answer to that question is indeed yes.

Did I serve this man? Did I get him a room? Yeah. Did I engage a lonely man conversation? Sure I did those things. More than that, I shared the simple truth, the only truth, that is truly good news to the poor, and in the process it affirmed to me that the Gospel truly is external.

Beyond that I did something that might make a number of readers of this blog cringe. I absolved him of his sin. He heard the message of this external Gospel, in as far as I could tell he embraced this message of real hope that is independent of his action, and I pronounced to him that he was forgiven in the name of Christ. The man who had heard nothing from Churches except the constant calling to be something he was not, and to be something he could never be, heard from a pastor the reality that he was forgiven because of something done FOR HIM.

So before you get amped up on calling everyone to service to the poor, or calling everyone to separate from the world, or demanding people to be a new creation in Christ, think about the logical conclusion of those commands, think about the person who embraces those commands to the fullest and what they will finally become. On Saturday night I met the embodiment of what those commands produce if taken to their final and logical conclusion, and what I found was nothing but despair. Praise God that the commands of the Law are not the pronouncement of the Gospel.

Being like Jesus!?

2011-03-09T14:04:00.000-05:00

Sometimes it is important to state what you are not saying, prior to making your actual point, and this certainly is one of those issues. I would never say that we should not strive to be like Christ in our love, our ethics, and our general discourse in this world. Moreover I would never say that we should not serve the marginalized, oppressed, captive, and impoverished in this world. We are commanded by both Christ and Moses to do that exact thing! So because Jesus did those things perfectly, we too should strive to be like Jesus right? Yes, in those ways, however to say that trying to be like Jesus is a universally acceptable rule of thumb is not wise.

We are called to obey all that Christ commanded us to do, we read that in the great commission. Jesus never commands us to live by His example, but instead to live by His commands. He certainly is a great example of what obedience to his own commands looks like, nonetheless it is His words we obey not his example. Why is this important? or is it important? It is incredibly important.

If you say you are trying to be like Jesus then you are trying to weep for my sin, trying to be a man of sorrows, trying to be despised, trying to be misunderstood, trying to end up on a roman cross, trying to sweat as it were drops of blood, trying to be a sacrifice for other's sins, trying to do a number of things which He has done, but never commanded you to do! Am I splitting hairs? It may seem that way at first, but this is more critical than we think. When we look at Jesus' life as exemplary then we quickly lose sight of the work that He has done FOR US that could never be accomplished by us. We gloss over His divinity while focusing entirely on His humanity. When you encounter someone who is in sin if you ask yourself "What would Jesus Do?" the response should be weep and fear because you are going to die for that sin. Yet if you ask "What has Jesus commanded?" you will be equipped to properly deal with sin.

The focus of being like Christ is a noble focus when properly framed. However it quickly becomes a paradigm for life that doesn't take into account the things He has done for you and this world neither you nor anybody else could ever do.

So where do you focus when it comes to moral standards, ethics, and so on. Jesus summed up the law for us, Jesus gave us a number of commands, He did not leave us without instruction. Focus on His instruction, and then with regard to those instructions, see him as the example of how to carry them out, and never allow your sight of Him as an example to overshadow the sight of him as your righteousness, propitiation, and redemption.

Sermon and Notes - 02.13.2011 - Revelation 8:2-11:19

2011-02-14T13:29:00.000-05:00

You can download the Sermon from this past Sunday here. or visit http://deltaumc.podbean.com to view archived sermons.

You can also download my notes and outline by clicking here.

Also, the RSS feed address for our podcast is http://deltaumc.podbean.com/feed/ and this feed has been submitted to iTunes and should be available shortly there for you iTunes users.

Pastoral Care from the Pulpit /not small groups

2011-02-12T21:56:00.000-05:00

The pulpit is a place to dispense pastoral care, in fact it is the primary place to dispense pastoral care. There is this tendency to segregate pastoral care, and pulpit ministry into two separate areas of the pastoral call. The standard sentiment seems to be that the pulpit is for preaching the gospel, and the visitation or counseling session is for pastoral care.

There are probably a myriad of reasons this dichotomy of preaching/pastoral care has arisen, but I believe the number one reason is that we have come to believe that the Sunday sermon is the primary evangelistic tool of the church. Most pastors seem to buy into this; the fundamentalist pastor builds his message around saving the lost soul that ventured into a pew, the Church growth guy builds his message around some principles for a better life complete with some cute stories and a joke or two to get them to come back next week, and the missional pastor spends his pulpit time inviting people to participate in social justice or the great commission with his congregation. In all three of the aforementioned examples the sermon is used with the intent of getting the uninvolved, unchurched, or unsaved into the flock. What is the problem with this? The problem is that the very covenant community, which happens to be involved, churched, and saved, is never the intended audience of their pastor. The sheep get neglected in favor of 'potential' sheep. Now the clever pastors believe they have found a way around this, and that way is small/home/cell group ministry. The idea is that the pastor cannot preach in such a manner that his faithful will grow, because for them to grow the depth of his sermon would be too much for the 'unchurched'. So to address the problem the pastor recommends that his faithful sheep go to the small groups to grow and to be cared for. Sounds great right? Wrong!

I am not anti small group by any means, but I am sick of hearing the "that's wear the real growth happens" line brought out by pastors who have neglected feeding the sheep on Sundays. In most cases the leaders of small groups who are called to 'facilitate' discussion, and have no theological training and have not been selected by a process that evaluates their qualifications as pastors. Yes I said their qualifications as pastors! If we are going to make the small group the primary place where people are pastored, should not their leaders meet the biblical criterion of a pastor? Do you see the problem? The sheep are left to whoever is willing to volunteer their home to lead, while potential sheep not yet of the flock get lead by the pastor, the one who has a calling on his life to lead the sheep! It's all backwards. Pastors, we are to care for the flock, so that the flock can go healthily into the world with the Gospel to the lost, unchurched, dechurched, or whatever current cliche you drag out when referring to people without Christ.

I do believe in doing visitations as a pastor, especially to the sick. Yet what is it that you bring to them? The good news of Christ, who lived, suffered, died, and rose FOR THEM. That is what pastoral care is all about, bringing the Law and Gospel into the various dark, difficult places where people are. While visitation is for the individual, Sunday morning is a visitation so to speak for the covenant community, and that is how it should be treated. We should enter the pulpit with care of the congregation of our Lord as our first concern! Our goal should be to bring Law and Gospel to the sheep for their health and edification, leaving them emboldened by grace to go into the world. I will leave the lost to the small groups... but the pulpit ministry is for the sheep.

That was a bit rantish, but think about it.

Quick follow up on Justification posts

2011-02-09T12:14:00.002-05:00

First of all I want to thank all four guest writers for this past weeks blog content. Though there was not much by way of comments, blog traffic was over 5 times what it usually is. The one item that sticks out at me is that all views seemed to hold, to some degree an objective view of justification, though Connie's view did not place emphasis there.

Connie, and Dawn, both held a universal view of justification, and it appeared to me that Matt did as well. Connie's view was hopeful that justification which occurred for all was also applied to all, or that all would reap the benefits of it. Both Dawn and Matt, saw justification as purchased for all in Christ, but applied to those who by faith receive it. I imagine if Dawn and Matt continued to hash this out we would see quite a difference in how faith is received, nonetheless the nature of a universal unlimited justification based on an unlimited atonement seems to drive their view of justification. Dawn and Matt both seemed to attach this atonement firmly to Christ as second Adam for us. Connie seemed less intent on getting into the how justification occurred objectively, and more into what action that justification produces in the world.

Ralph's reformed baptist view was the only view of the four that had atonement as limited to the elect. Ralph's emphasis is on a monergistic work of Christ to redeem his people entirely independent of their efforts. Ralph, Matt, and Dawn all held to what I saw to be objective justification, in other words, we are justified by the life, death, resurrection of Christ for us as a historical fact. Connie may or may not believe that, but she affirmed that her focus was not at all on the 'how' but on the 'what this will produce'.

The greatest difference between the three classically orthodox views (Matt, Ralph, and Dawn) is how justification is applied. Ralph has it applied on the basis of election which guarantees faith, Dawn and Matt have it based on faith which applies the already given justification. Matt and Dawn's views would then differ on how faith is given or exercised.

Other thoughts? What did I miss?

Justification (4 of 4) Outlaw - Connie W.

2011-02-08T09:59:00.000-05:00

This post is from Connie W he can be found on twitter @conniejoh2o and she blogs at http://conniejoh2o.wordpress.com/

Read this before reading on, just to see what is going on here. Note: these posts are guest posts and may or may not reflect my views. -Jay

Trying to Understand Justification

Near the end of the Love chapter ( 1 Corinthians 13) Verse 12 we are given, I think, a lens through which we have to view most of our attempts to be assured that we “understand” the Bible, it says, “ For now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then face to face: now we know in part; but then shall I know fully even as also I was known fully.” If Paul could admit that he couldn’t fully grasp the enormity of God’s essence (love) then it isn’t reaching for us to assume that there is no one human answer that is perfect on the topic of justification, but that our faith and belief in Christ Jesus is not in jeopardy if we question in a prayerful way, the specifics of how justification works.

I appreciated Jay asking me to present my understanding of Justification and to also speak, if I could to the “Outlaw Preachers” understanding of Justification. His request sent me on a quest by way of several conversations to find out just what Outlaw Preachers believe when it comes to the topic of Justification. As all good 21th century folks do, my first stop was Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(theology) to get an overview of various understandings of justification. Next I had conversations with several Outlaws across the country whom I knew came from varied traditions and understandings.

Justification is not a foreign subject to me, having received my MDiv while a candidate for ministry in the United Methodist tradition justification was a topic at many DCOM meetings and in many of my seminary classes. I am familiar with the understanding of grace of which justifying grace is an important step. Justifying grace is the time in one’s faith journey in which you recognize the presence of God and begin your personal relationship with God as you accept for yourself the action that God has already taken through Jesus Christ. Then begins Sanctifying Grace, you begin to display your growth in the Spirit by becoming each day more like the image of Christ, hopefully traveling on to perfection. It wasn’t talked about much, but there was a brief mention in Seminary about “back sliding” or leaving the way and losing your salvation or the possibility that one wasn’t justified at all having never “really” accepted God in the first place because the actions never reflected the acts of someone moving on to perfection. It made sense to me, but I always understood that our understanding of justification is unique to the United Methodist tradition.

As I began to speak with other Outlaws about how they were taught to understand Justification, it became apparent that there was great diversity (which I completely anticipated seeing). Outlaw Preachers come from many traditions, and no traditions, some run away from the understandings of their youth, some cling to them, and some didn’t even know that “justification” was a big deal. See, when you are part of a group that spans the gambit of theological understanding from Episcopalian to Assemblies of God, “Recovering Conservative Evangelicals” to Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Disciples of Christ and various other traditions and complete lack of tradition diversity is a given, finding common ground is the trick. This bunch of rapscallions seem to be linked not by any academically defined doctrine, but a simple (not simplistic) belief that the Grace of God restores ALL. There seems to be an understanding that God’s grace and God’s love are not contingent on our becoming someone else but that by the unconditional love and grace of God we become confident in whom we already are.

Once God’s grace and love are seen in this way, the focus becomes not on “how God did it” but “what is our response to what God already did”. Grace and love can never be seen as simply between God and the individual, while there is no doubt that each of us in important to and beloved by God, grace is extended to all humankind, making our response not one of deep relief because we are “saved” but gratitude for inclusion into the “body of Christ” and we then become part of the grace and love of God.

In conclusion, if you ask me now about my understanding of justification, I would be most inclined to call myself a hopeful Universalist. While I cannot see through the dark mirror clearly enough to tell you that I know for sure that everyone, everywhere will get “in” in the end, I can say this, the God that I see in scripture, the God that most Christian traditions proclaim, the God I have observed in my life, and all that my logically mind has learned about God all point to the belief that God has done everything within God’s power, including giving that power up to walk among us, and die as one of us, to prove to us the lengths God will take to reconcile with God’s creation and extend God’s love and grace to that creation. I hope that God does bring everyone home for eternity, nothing would make me happier than for everyone, everywhere to be perfected in the grace and love of God. I don’t believe this understanding varies far from where I started, the idea of prevenient grace tells us that God is always seeking us, looking for a way to be a part of our lives and I don’t believe God ever gives up. I long for the day in which I know fully the how’s of justification, but for now, I am content to live in the grace and love of God trusting that it is indeed for all of our good and not our demise, that is indeed good news that I can share with everyone, everywhere.

Justification (3 of 4) Wesleyan - Matt L.

2011-02-07T10:50:00.001-05:00

This post is from Matt L he can be found on twitter @mattlipan and he blogs at http://mattlipan.blogspot.com/

Read this before reading on, just to see what is going on here. Note: these posts are guest posts and may or may not reflect my views. -Jay

Special thanks to Jay for inviting me to guest post here on “the tenth letter…” about the idea of justification from a Wesleyan perspective. You’ll note my meager attempt to do so below. Don’t hesitate to continue the dialogue or connect with me @mattlipan.

It starts with the problem of sin, one we all have thanks to the parents of humankind, Adam and Eve (Rom. 5:12). What sin does is put you and me at odds with God. Our inability to perfectly follow God’s law has made us, as John Wesley noted in his sermon Justification by Faith, “dead to God, dead in sin…and under the sentence of death eternal” (I. 6.). And see, the thing is, there is nothing you or I can do on our own to escape the sentence of death we have earned because of our sin (Rom. 6:23). If it ended here we would all be in sad shape but fortunately for all humankind, there is more to the story.

Seeing the predicament humankind was in, God sent all the fullness of Himself and man to dwell among us in the person of Jesus. Wesley describes Him as, “a second general Parent and Representative of the whole human race” (Justification by Faith. I. 7.) and as such, it is only through Christ that you and I can be forgiven, or justified, before God. Through Christ’s willingness to bear our sins on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24-25) as the perfect and complete sacrifice for the entire world (1 Jn. 2:1-2), justification has been made possible.

Paul tells us in that we are “justified freely” by the grace of God through Jesus (Rom. 3:24) and not through anything we’ve ever done or will ever do (Eph. 2:8-9). It is a gift received through faith and by faith. Speaking on faith, Wesley says it is the “only necessary condition” of justification (Justification by Faith. IV. 5.) and that without it, one cannot be justified. He goes on to write

[We] must come as “mere sinner[s],” inwardly and outwardly, self-destroyed and self-condemned, bringing nothing to God but ungodliness only, pleading nothing of [our] own but sin and misery. Thus it is, and thus alone, when [our] "mouth is stopped," and [we] stand utterly "guilty before" God, that [we] can "look unto Jesus," as the whole and sole "Propitiation for [our] sins." Thus only can [we] be "found in him," and receive the "righteousness which is of God by faith."

(Justification by Faith. IV. 8.)

Wesley describes justification as “the forgiveness of sins” but says that this in no way implies that God “esteems us better than we really are, or believes us to be righteous when we are unrighteous” (Justification by Faith. II. 4 &5.). Here Wesley makes a distinction between justification and sanctification. The former implies what God does for us through Christ while the latter speaks to what He works in us by His Spirit (Justification by Faith. II. 1.). In this way, justification is the first step in the process of sanctification and a necessary one for anyone who would call themselves a disciple of Christ.

Sermon and Notes - 02.06.2011 - Revelation 6:1-8:1

2011-02-07T05:00:00.001-05:00

To hear the Sermon Preached at Delta United Methodist Church on February 6th from Revelation 6-8:1 click here.

To view the outline I preached from this weekend with the preparatory notes click here.

I hope this blesses you in someway, and as always feel free to leave your feedback.

Justification (2 of 4) Reformed - Ralph P

2011-02-04T12:05:00.001-05:00

This post is from Ralph P he can be found on twitter @ralphprovance

Read this before reading on, just to see what is going on here. Note: these posts are guest posts and may or may not reflect my views. -Jay

Also out of fairness to all, I am going to delay Matt L, and Connie W's post till monday and tuesday, simply because blog traffic is low on the weekend. So lucky Matt gets monday which happens to be the highest traffic day for this blog.

Surely shall one say, in the Lord have I righteousness. (Isaiah 45:24)

He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Martin Luther said that “Justification by faith alone is the article by which the Church stands or falls on.” John Calvin said that it is the “main hinge on which religion turns.” Leon Morris said “Understand justification and you understand everything that matters.”

The purpose of this brief study is to explain the glorious doctrine of justification from a Reformed perspective. There have been volumes written by many brilliant men of God over the years covering every aspect of this doctrine. It is a topic that demands a great deal of diligence in study so we may grasp an understanding. Again, this paper will be a “surface level” overview.

John Murray defined justification as “a constitutive act whereby the righteousness of Christ is imputed to our account and we are accordingly accepted as righteous in God’s sight. Justification is both a declarative and constitutive act of free grace.” (Redemption Accomplished & Applied p.124)

There are three areas where the doctrine of justification from a Reformed perspective differs from other traditions, i.e. Lutheran, Methodist, Orthodox, Pentecostal and Roman Catholic. They are in that 1. Justification is divinely monergistic; 2. Justification is a one-time event (not a process); 3. Justification is permanent.

Reformed Christians hold to the fact that there isn’t anything that we can do to cause or earn our justification. We are dead in our sins (Eph 2:1). We have a heart of stone (Eze 36:26). We are completely unable to exercise any saving faith apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Once we are “born again/regenerated” by the Holy Spirit, God grants to us the gift of faith that we may repent. It is then that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us and we are justified. This is part of the “ordo salutis,” or the order of salvation. The ordo salutis as held by those of the Reformed tradition is as follows- 1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30.) This is in opposition to those that hold to a synergistic view of justification. While the views vary slightly within Protestantism, the general ordo salutis is 1) outward call 2) faith/election, 3) repentance, 4) regeneration, 5) justification, 6) perseverance, 7) glorification. They state that we are able to exercise “inherent” faith and work in conjunction with God to be born again. Never is our faith the cause of our justification in the New Testament. That would be a “work” and therefore something to boast in (Eph 2:8,9). An examination of the Greek text shows we are justified “pistei, dia pisteos, ek pisteos, kata pistin, epi te pistei,; “by, through, upon, according to” faith. Never are we justified “dia pistin” or “because” of it. Faith is our act, coming from a new heart, but not our work. We must never look to ourselves, anything that we do, as grounds for our justification.

Those of the Reformed tradition hold to the belief that justification is an instantaneous event, only occurring once. God, the just Judge (Psalm 96:13), legally declares the sinner righteous because of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. It is a legal declaration, a “forensic justification.” It is not that the sinner is made righteous; but that he is seen as righteous because of Jesus. Martin Luther framed the idea well with the phrase “simul iustus et peccator,” “At the same time, just and sinner.” This is in stark contrast to the Romanist understanding. They hold that justification is not a one time declaration of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner but a process that is conditional upon the ongoing work of man. This is why Rome is confused about the doctrines of justification and sanctification. Rome holds that there are three main sacraments necessary for justification and ultimate salvation. The sacraments allegedly give grace to an individual and help to maintain him in a state of sanctifying grace. They are baptism, penance, and the Eucharist/mass. In fact, according to the Roman Catholic Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, “If any one saith that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation...and that without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain from God, through faith alone, the grace of justification...let him be anathema.” This statement by the Roman Catholic Church denies the clear teaching of Scripture. The grounds for our justification can only be found in Christ alone. (Romans 3:24; 5:9,19; 8:1; 10:4; 1Cor 1:30; 6:11; 2Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9)

The final distinctive of the Reformed tradition, as relating to justification, is that our justification is permanent. This means that we can never lose our salvation. It is known as the “Perseverance of the Saints.” It stands in contrast to every other religious tradition which says that our salvation can be lost by either a mortal sin (Catholic) or a loss of faith (Arminian.) If our salvation is entirely of God, and not of any work of man, then how can we lose it? As a Reformed Baptist, I hold to the creedal statement of the 1689 London Baptist Confession. I believe that it summarizes the doctrine better than I ever could. It states “Those whom God hath accepted in the beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, and given the precious faith of his elect unto, can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved, seeing the gifts and callings of God are without repentance, whence he still begets and nourisheth in them faith, repentance, love, joy, hope, and all the graces of the Spirit unto immortality; and though many storms and floods arise and beat against them, yet they shall never be able to take them off that foundation and rock which by faith they are fastened upon; notwithstanding, through unbelief and the temptations of Satan, the sensible sight of the light and love of God may for a time be clouded and obscured from them, yet he is still the same, and they shall be sure to be kept by the power of God unto salvation, where they shall enjoy their purchased possession, they being engraven upon the palm of his hands, and their names having been written in the book of life from all eternity. (John 10:28,29; Phil 1:6; 2Tim 2:19; 1John 2:19; Psalms 89:31,32; 1Cor 11:32; Malachi 3:6)
We are kept by the power of God, if we are in Christ!

Justification (1 of 4) Confessional Lutheran - Dawn K

2011-02-03T16:07:00.002-05:00

This post is from Dawn K who blogs at http://www.realrealityzone.com and can be found on twitter @rumor99

Read this before reading on, just to see what is going on here. Note: these posts are guest posts and may or may not reflect my views. -Jay

How is the Lutheran understanding of justification different from that of other Christian traditions?

Lutherans believe that we are justified by grace alone, through faith alone, for the sake of Christ alone. We are declared to be righteous in God’s sight because of the perfect life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, not because of anything inside of us – not because of our human will and not even because of anything that God works in us, whether good works or faith. Christ died for all people, and because of Christ’s perfect life, death and resurrection, all people are forgiven and declared righteous in God’s sight. This is known as the doctrine of objective justification.

Unlike the Calvinists and the Wesleyans, who teach that we are only forgiven and justified when we believe in Christ, Lutherans teach that all are forgiven and justified at the cross but that this forgiveness and justification only benefits those who believe. When God grants a person repentance and faith in Christ, they receive the benefits of the forgiveness that is already theirs through the death of Christ on the cross. This is known as the doctrine of subjective justification. Through the Word of God and through the Sacraments (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper) faith in Christ is created and sustained.

The doctrines of objective and subjective justification might be illustrated in this way: Someone transfers a million dollars into your bank account. The money is yours. But if you refuse to believe that it is there, you do not use it and it does not benefit you in any way. In the same way Christ’s death on the cross led to justification and life for all people. But those who do not believe this do not benefit from it.

This is in contrast to the Calvinist view, which teaches that Christ did not die for all people but only for those who would believe in Him. It is also in contrast to the Wesleyan view, which teaches that the death of Christ only made justification possible for all men through prevenient grace, whereby all are enabled to freely choose to believe. And it is in contrast to the Catholic view which sees justification not as God crediting His righteousness to our account but as God infusing righteousness into us to enable us to cooperate with His grace.

Because of the reality of objective justification, Lutherans are not compelled to look inside themselves – whether to their heart or to the quality of their good works – to determine whether their faith is genuine. Faith itself is created by the external word of Christ to the individual – that Christ died for me, that His life, death and resurrection saved me, that He baptized me into His family and that He gives me His body and blood to eat and drink for the forgiveness of my sins.

Lutherans do not merely believe a promise that is conditioned upon our faith. And we certainly do not believe a promise that is conditioned upon our sincere decision or good works. We believe the promise that has already been given to us. Christ forgave us at the cross, and that forgiveness was delivered to us (and continues to be delivered) through the Word, water, bread and wine. We constantly look to these objective, external realities in our daily lives as Christians as we fight against the Old Adam that is within us and seek to live our lives in service to our neighbor. We look not inwardly to our faith but outwardly to Christ who was crucified for us and who even now delivers to us the benefits of His perfect life, death and resurrection.

4 takes on Justification

2011-02-03T15:59:00.000-05:00

Over the past month I have requested four twitter friends to give me in 1000 words or less their understanding of the doctrine of Justification based on the 'tradition' or framework that they currently operate from. My original intent was 5 positions, but I have still not gotten any responses from the Roman Catholic point of view. Starting today I will post one of each of these view per day over the next four days.

To determine the order of the posts I simply wrote the name of each author on the back of an individual business card, shuffled them and the order they came out in is the order they will be placed.

The order will be:
#1 Dawn K - Confessional Lutheran - twitter: @rumor99 - http://.realrealityzone.com
#2 Ralph P - Reformed - twitter: @ralphprovance
#3 Matt L - Wesleyan - twitter: @mattlipan - http://mattlipan.blogspot.com/
#4 Connie W - Outlaw Preacher - twitter: @conniejoh2o - http://conniejoh2o.wordpress.com/

Disclaimer: For the sake of this little series I neither endorse, nor discredit any of the views stated. This is all done in the spirit of an honest discourse.

I will say that each post is intelligent and well thought out, and it is clear that all the writers gave adequate time to the task. I would like to express my gratitude to all four contributers for taking the time to do this.

We should also be clear at the outset that these posts are written by individuals. Certainly Dawn's post is not necessarily representative of ALL confessional Lutherans, nor is Connie's representative of ALL Outlaw Preachers, nor Matt and Ralph's representative of ALL Wesleyans and Reformed respectively. That should go without saying but sometimes people need reminded of these things.

Enjoy... and be nice.

Assurance and 1st John

2011-02-01T16:05:00.002-05:00

Where does assurance come from? While in a conversation with @zarotribe on twitter the topic of assurance arose, and the question lying underneath the conversation, though never explicitly stated, is "How can one know they are saved?" @zarotribe's answer which he bases out of the entire book of 1 John is that genuine salvation is accompanied by fruit (I agree salvation is accompanied by fruit, but fruit is not the source of assurance). I presume he would appeal to 1 John 1:7, 1 John 1:9, 1 John 2:3, 1 John 2:4-6, 1 John 2:10, 1 John 2:29, and more. However if you try to bind this book to handbook style logic without considering its purpose in fighting gnosticism this book will give NOBODY assurance who approaches it honestly. I recall listening to Paul Washer speak a series of sermons on assurance from this book which affected me profoundly at the time, but later as I honestly looked at this passage Washer's words seemed to strip my assurance because his words were a constant call to look into myself to see if I matched up to the 1 John standard... and if I didn't measure up, I was probably lost.

Just from the first two chapters (if you take the book at face value negating its offensive against gnosticism) you will find the criteria for salvation assurance to be astounding.

If First John is primarily a handbook on assurance, then to have assurance you must:
walk in the light (1:5-7)
confess sin (1:8-10)
keep His (Jesus') commandments (2:3)
walk in the same way he walked (2:6)
love your brother (2:9-11)
not love the world (2:15-17)
not sin (3:6)
practice righteousness (3:7)
not practice sin (3:9)
must give to brother in need (3:17)
Love God and observe His commandments (5:2)
And more...

Is there anybody willing to stand up and say this list gives them assurance? Really? You love God with all heart soul strength and mind? If you do please let me know in the comments, I would be interested to hear about it.

Unfortunately I believed for a long time, and have taught youth for a number of years that this is the assurance handbook, and I have ran through this thing test by test with many youth while thinking I was doing them a favor. (Please note I am a fan of Paul Washer, and I certainly appreciate his ministry, and the Lord has ministered his word to me through him, but there are some glaring errors with how he handles this book, and how I have handled it in the past.) In Paul Washer's sermon series on this he affirmed that 1 John is the assurance handbook typically by going to 1 John 5:13 as the proof text.

"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life."

Washer and others, including myself at that time, would state that 5:13 was the purpose statement of the entire letter. Sounds pretty cut and dried does it not? Yet read the whole of chapter 5 leading up to vs 13, it is all about belief in the Son, and receiving the testimony about Him. 1 John 5:13 is not intended to sum the entire letter, but the section preceding it. However, if you want to make 1 John the assurance handbook it is convenient to apply 5:13 to the rest of the letter as it's sole or primary purpose. That is a touch dishonest though because throughout the letter John explicitly states various other purposes for it

1 John 1:4 ESV And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.

1 John 2:1-2 ESV My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. (2) He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 2:12-14 ESV I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake. (13) I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, children, because you know the Father. (14) I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.

1 John 2:21 ESV I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth.

1 John 2:26 ESV I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you.

This letter is laden with reasons for its existence, and to take any of the reasons and make it the primary message of the letter is a mistake. What if you take 1 John 2:12-14 as the absolute reason of the epistle and neglect 5:13, what do you have? You have universalism. What if you take 1 John 2:1 as the absolute reason? You are advocating sinless perfection. What if you take 1 John 1:4 as the absoulte reason? Then it was all about John having joy. You cannot take any of the "write this to you because..." statements to be the absolute purpose of the book.

The focus of this book was to give Christians who had been assaulted with false doctrine assurance that the doctrine they were holding to was true. Doctrine's such as love of the brethren... confession of sin... the authority of Jesus' teaching. The gnostics and antinomians who may have divorced faith from practice need to be exposed for what they were. Those who would be esoteric about god needed exposed. Therefore strong language correlating works and assurance are made, not to cause believers to question there own faith, but to make them steadfast in the doctrine they received and to question the teachings of those who were leaving their fold and potentially taking others with them (1 John 2:19). In fact if you look past the 'test' passages you will see a number of passages that give blanket assurance apart from any actions taken by the believer, take 1 John 2:2 for example. Gnosticism was promoting that God's will could not be known... which is why John is intense on walking in 'light' not darkness, affirming the visible reality of truth as it plays out.

Believers need to be cautious as they read this letter, and know that it is a letter that is on the offensive against the false teachings that was leading people astray, not a blanket letter on assurance of salvation. If you make this letter entirely about assurance you will find that this letter is on the offensive against you to condemn you. Yes, 1 John 5:1-13 is about assurance, but read some of the blanket blessings in there for those who believe, and notice how the first 4 verses are qualified by the following verses:

1 John 5:1-13 ESV Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. (2) By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. (3) For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. (4) For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith. (5) Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? (6) This is he who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. (7) For there are three that testify: (8) the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. (9) If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son. (10) Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. (11) And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. (12) Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. (13) I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

I will leave it there for now. Sorry if this post was a snoozer, but a misunderstanding of 1 John leads to despair, and not assurance.

Sermon Audio and Notes For Jan 30.

2011-01-31T12:51:00.000-05:00

The audio is up from last week's message and can be found here or played in the player on the right sidebar.

My sermon prep notes and outline can be downloaded here in Adobe PDF.

Generational Belief

2011-01-20T04:00:00.005-05:00

A week ago I wrote "Dual Covenant IS Replacement Theology" and the principles of that post have a tremendous bearing on how we read the entire Old Testament. If we hold to a 'Dual Covenant' understanding, then the promises of the OT can be simply relegated to Israel and the Church can be placed under a different paradigm. However if their is one covenant people, and has always been one covenant people then the OT promises to Israel have some bearing on the NT Church. (If you have no idea what I am talking about, read that post.)

Throughout the Old Testament we see generational promises made to the Old Testament saints. For instance:

Genesis 17:7-10 ESV And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. (8) And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God." (9) And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. (10) This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.

Clearly the OT covenant of circumcision was generational, intended not only for Abraham, but for his sons. This is not something that was dependent on the faithfulness of his sons, they were to be circumcised prior to their ability to believe. It was a covenant that was independent of the will of those who entered into it.

Throughout the Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy we see an emphasis on generational blessing and cursing, and a generational expectation. The faith has always been expected to be handed down parent to child, one generation to the next. The very curse in the garden was generational. There are countless examples like Genesis 17:7-10 that we could draw on.

Deuteronomy 7:9 ESV Know therefore that the LORD your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations

The idea of generational blessing and cursing is an integral component of our faith. So what does this have to do with Dual Covenants and Replacement Theology? It has everything to do with it. If we affirm (which I do not) Dual Covenants, one for the Church one for Israel, then we will presume the generational blessings belong entirely to Israel whereas the Church enters the covenant individually based on their moment of conversion. I contend that the lack of understanding of the generational nature of God's work on our behalf has given revivalism a foothold and has caused the church to be incredibly individualistic.

If someone asks you, 'How did you come to believe?' it is perfectly acceptable to answer because my parents did and I was raised to believe. That doesn't sit well with most conservative Evangelicals but it sits very well with the scriptural norm. I do not deny that everyone must be converted, and that we all 'generationally' inherit Adam's sinful nature, nonetheless in a very real sense parents are a means of grace to their children and many children are converted well before they are aware that they were lost. Again, I know this will not sit well with many, but why not?

The idea that the Church is blessed in an entirely different way than 'ethnic' Israel is an idea that has destroyed generational Christianity. In the dual covenant scheme, the generational promises apply only to Israel, and Christan's 'get in' one at a time. How does this play out practically? Well for one, kids who have believed and loved the Lord their entire lives are told they aren't 'born-again' and are led down to an altar to be saved... even though they were already redeemed. This happens more than you think. It leaves people looking to their moment of conversion as a source of hope, and not to God's faithfulness to them through their parents, grandparents, and so on. It leaves us feeling helpless as we raise our own children, and even questioning how we are going to manage to get them to have a 'salvation experience' when they have seemed to believe for so long already. People end up looking at the back of their pocket testament to see their date of conversion, instead of celebrating the faithfulness of their parents in bestowing the faith to them from an early age. It even leads to generational disrespect towards those who went before us. Can you see the implications, I am sure there are more. If you can ditch the bogus Dual Covenant notion, and begin applying the generational nature of our faith to the church, many of these problems go away.

I do not believe someone is saved just because their parents are! I believe people are saved because Christ atoned for them on the cross. The reality is that this truth, and the application of this truth to the individual happens through generational means, and through evangelism... not evangelism only.

Missing Link Monday - 01.17.2011

2011-01-17T04:00:00.002-05:00

Missing link Monday is devoted to exposing Christ in the 2 Old Testament readings from the Revised Common Lectionary from the previous day.

The first text was Isaiah 49:1-7 follow the link to read the text.

The connection to Christ in this passage is a very direct one. It is Christ speaking directly through the prophet. Not much leg work needs done to make the connection. Isaiah 49:2 connects directly to Revelation 1:16 which is a clear image of Christ. Isaiah 49:7 makes clear that the speaker is "Redeemer of Israel" which we know is a title only Christ may bear. The point is that these are the direct words of Christ through Isaiah.

The second text was Psalm 40:1-11

In Hebrews 10:5 we find the author loosely quoting Psalm 40:6-8 and he attributes the quote to Christ. At the very least Christ quoted this text as his own words at some point. This text is a celebration of news of deliverance and frankly the entire thing screams of Christ. Psalm 40:9-11 speaks of the Gospel announcement.

Clearly in the case of both Isaiah 49 and Psalm 40, the text would be entirely missed if it was not preached thoroughly saturated with Christ. It is only from a New Testament Christocentric approach that these two passages can be understood.

Sermon - 01.16.2011 - Revelation 1:1-20

2011-01-16T12:52:00.001-05:00

The link below will take you to the message I preached this morning at Delta United Methodist Church. The message cut out so the last 5 minutes or so is unfortunately dead air. Hopefully this will not be the case in the future. It does cut out for 5 or 6 seconds once before the final cut out as well. Click the link below, or listen in the player to the right (sometimes it takes a few hours for it to show up in the player to the right, if it's not there, just follow the link below.)

Sermon - 01.16.2011- Revelation 1:1-20

Also below is a link to the outline I preached from if you are interested.

Notes - Rev1 - 2011.01.16

Blessings,
Jay

Dual Covenant IS Replacement Theology

2011-01-13T04:00:00.025-05:00

I apologize for the length of some of these posts, I need to consider breaking them into 2 days possibly.

The common accusation against postmillennial and amillennial eschatology is that it affirms "replacement theology". Whenever you read defenses of premillennialism it is inevitable that the 'replacement theology' accusation will arise, every single time. Essentially, if you do not want to follow the links, replacement theology affirms that the New Testament Church replaces Israel. The point of contention is whether or not modern day Israel is still the covenant people of God along with the Church also being the covenant people of God. Replacement theology, asserts that there is one covenant people and it's not Israel. it's the church. The premillennialist typically holds some sort of Dual covenant theology where they believe that ethnic Israel is still the covenant people of God, as well as the Church, and eventually they will be brought together, and Israel will come to see Christ as their redeemer... when the time is right, but not right now.

Let me say first that I completely disagree with the idea of a dual covenant, there is one name by which people are saved and that is the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, and his people, the church, indeed are the 'true Israel' the real children of Abraham. So to say that 'national' or 'ethnic' Israel are the chosen, as well as the church, is something I disagree with, and scriptural support abounds for this disagreement. On the other hand I vehemently disagree with 'replacement theology' as well. The Church has not replaced Israel as the 'true Israel', the Church simply IS the true Israel. Moreover Israel was the church before the incarnation. The Church was born long before Pentecost, the church began when a promise was made that the seed of the woman would crush the serpent in Genesis.

A proper understanding of all scripture centers on Christ as the beginning, as well as the consummation of all things. In the old testament the believers of Israel and her proselytes (gentile believers) were his people. In the new testament the believers of Israel and her proselytes (gentile believers) are his people. There has been no change! The only difference is that much of ethnic Israel rejected her messiah and much of the gentile world were grafted in by that same Messiah.

Just think of how Israel was created... Promise to Abraham... Delivered from Egypt by blood of passover lamb... delivered through water (Red Sea / Jordan River)... Redeemed by grace even though Law was constantly violated. The means of deliverance and salvation through the water and the blood, is the same means of deliverance in Christ, and Christ is the embodiment of those events. Jesus is the bread of heaven... the same as the manna which sustained Israel. Every old testament redemption finds its fulfillment in Christ, it was Christ in the passover, it was his baptism in the red sea, it was his body that sustained them as manna in the wilderness. Israel was delivered, redeemed, and sustained by Christ. The church is delivered, redeemed, and sustained by Christ. The point is that True Israel and the Church are one body and the Church and True Israel are one body. Replacement theology assumes a change that has not happened. Ethnic Israel has always had unbelievers in her midst that stood condemned, and always had a remnant that was the 'true Israel' by faith. I am not sure how people miss this.

Now, because there has always been one church, one true Israel, and because they are one and the same institution, we would have to say that the Dual Covenant people practice replacement theology in reverse. Looking backward on history they replace the church with Israel! They should see Israel as the old testament church, instead they replaced the church with ethnic Israel, and are left trying to put everything together with some dual covenant nonsense.

Is this even important? YES! The point, church, is that Israel's story is your story! The call to "remember when the Lord brought you out of Egypt" is a call to you. It is your history, it is your family, it is your promises. Moreover when thinking back to old testament church, the promises that we have seen fulfilled in Christ are their promises, their redemption, their grace. We are one! Our separation is that we exist chronologically after Christ, and they existed before him, but remember he is not only omega, but alpha as well. We have had the fortune of seeing the things they longed for.

Thoughts?

Salvation Experience!?

2011-01-11T14:47:00.001-05:00

I am not a big fan of personal testimonies. One of the big ideas in modern evangelism is to share your personal testimony with people. Most of the time when you hear people tell their testimonies it is an embellishment to make them appear worse than they were before they were saved, and better than they are now, but that is beside the point. When people want to talk about their moment of salvation it usually comes back to some time when they heard the word preached, were at a revival, in a conversation with another believer, in the backseat of a car, or whatever. I have heard testimony after testimony like these, and I think that every one of them is wrong about their moment of salvation. I can think of a few significant moments that I can remember when I became acutely aware of the work Christ did for me, but those were not the moments I was 'saved', and the reality is that memories change, and I probably do not even remember those moments exactly as they were. Moreover, at my baptism I was inaugurated into the covenant community that professes belief in the work Christ did for us, so in some sense that was a salvific experience because in that moment I was identified with my salvation experience (please I am not saying baptismal regeneration here, but I most certainly am not rendering baptism a simple rite of passage either). Nonetheless I was not 'saved' at my baptism.

There is a huge misunderstanding in Christian testimony, and the sharing of testimonies often misses the Gospel altogether. I am not against the community of faith sharing various personal testimonies, but I am against the sharing of 'salvation testimonies', I will explain why, after I share my salvation testimony.

So here is my testimony:

Jesus, the son of God, 2000 years ago in real history lived a legally, ethically, morally perfect life which led Him eventually to a garden. Jesus knelt in that garden called Gethsemane in prayer and agreed to the eternal plan of the Father to drink 'the cup'. The cup was indeed the cup of wrath against all sin (Psalm 75:8). After Jesus prayed he was led out of the garden, put on trial and sentenced to die on a Roman cross. On the cross Jesus endured the punishment for the sin of the world and drank down that cup of wrath. As he consumed the last of that cup the rocks tore into pieces (because the world is held together in Christ) and the veil temple was torn (because Christ is our protection/mediator in the holy of holies). When done, he proclaimed 'It [the cup] is finished'. Jesus died, the wrath of God was consumed by Him. On the third day after his death Jesus rose again, validating that He is Son of God, and that He was victorious over sin.

The question that will be asked is "how can you share your testimony without mentioning yourself?" I guess what I wonder is why other people's testimonies contain so much about themselves. I only contributed one thing to my salvation, and that was the sin that necessitated it.

Jesus' life, death, and resurrection is my salvation experience. It is my experience because my sin was in Christ as he was enduring the wrath of God. It is my experience because Christ rose victoriously over sin on my behalf. It is my experience, because his perfect righteousness has been given to me. It is my story because it was His body, given FOR ME. It was His blood, shed FOR ME. That is my experience.

Here is why I do not like 'personal testimonies', because the historical salvation experience I shared above is the salvation experience of everyone who has ever believed whether they know it or not. Personal testimony should give way to corporate testimony! We all share the same testimony which is why we are united. We have all been adopted by the same Father, through the same means.

Now, is there a place to celebrate the effects that the Gospel has had on our lives? Absolutely! If personal testimony is the sharing of Gospel fruit, the edifying of one another because of what Christ has done for us, and celebrating how that has affected our families, our lives, our peace, then great! However when it comes to salvation experience, we all have the same one, that happened at the same time, through the same person.

If someone asks you to point to your moment of conversion, point them to the true historical narrative of your salvation.... which occurred nearly 2000 years ago.

Missing Link Monday - 01.10.2011

2011-01-10T04:00:00.003-05:00

Missing Link Monday” is devoted to viewing the OT and Psalm reading from the Revised Common Lectionary with the focus on the Christ. Recall again that Christ himself has proclaimed that the OT finds its fulfillment in him, and that the scriptures all point to him. It is incumbent upon us to approach all OT scripture with the presupposition that it indeed points to Christ.

Reading 1: Isaiah 42:1-9
Reading 2: Psalm 29

Reading 1: Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations. He will not cry aloud or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street; a bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice. He will not grow faint or be discouraged till he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his law. Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it: "I am the LORD; I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations, to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness. I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols. Behold, the former things have come to pass, and new things I now declare; before they spring forth I tell you of them."
(Isaiah 42:1-9 ESV)

The beginning of this text is loosely quoted at the Baptism of the Lord. (Note that this week is 'Baptism of the Lord Sunday' in the lectionary.) Later in the text we read "I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations, to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness." We are reminded of this text in Luke 4:18, yet in Luke we read Jesus applying this text to himself, effectively announcing that he is the fulfillment of this text. The link in this text is clear, and it is made explicitly by Christ. Now, as it is clear that this text is about Christ, and the 'servant' referenced in this text is him, what does that tell us of the meaning of this text? It tells us of his faithfulness to burning wicks (a horrid smelling thing) and bruised reeds (useful for nothing), in other words his faithfulness to people like us who have done nothing to deserve it. He brings forth justice, He is given as a covenant for the people, light for the nations... and so on. Now, the danger of preaching a text like this is not making the link to Christ primary, but instead taking the 'servant' to be you. Of course Christ is exemplary and we should be about the same things he is, but the 'Servant' in this text is Him, not you.

---------------------------------------------

Reading 2: A Psalm of David. Ascribe to the LORD, O heavenly beings, ascribe to the LORD glory and strength. Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name; worship the LORD in the splendor of holiness. The voice of the LORD is over the waters; the God of glory thunders, the LORD, over many waters. The voice of the LORD is powerful; the voice of the LORD is full of majesty. The voice of the LORD breaks the cedars; the LORD breaks the cedars of Lebanon. He makes Lebanon to skip like a calf, and Sirion like a young wild ox. The voice of the LORD flashes forth flames of fire. The voice of the LORD shakes the wilderness; the LORD shakes the wilderness of Kadesh. The voice of the LORD makes the deer give birth and strips the forests bare, and in his temple all cry, "Glory!" The LORD sits enthroned over the flood; the LORD sits enthroned as king forever. May the LORD give strength to his people! May the LORD bless his people with peace!
(Psalms 29:1-11 ESV)

This text at the outset seems a little tougher to show it's relation to Christ, or how it traces back to Him, but it certainly does. Take a quick look at Psalm 29:1 and then look at Revelation 5:11-14.

Psalm 29:1 - A Psalm of David. Ascribe to the LORD, O heavenly beings, ascribe to the LORD glory and strength
Revelation 5:11-14 - Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!" And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!" And the four living creatures said, "Amen!" and the elders fell down and worshiped.

The very first verse of the Psalm is crying out to heavenly beings to worship the Lord, to ascribe to Him glory and strength. In the Revelation we see with greater clarity what the Psalmist writes of. The living creatures in heaven are doing exactly what the Psalmist commands saying, "Worthy is the Lamb.. to receive, power, wealth, wisdom, might, honor, glory, and blessing." Of course "The Lamb" references the Christ. In revelation we see the picture of the Psalm reading, and we see that it is Christ that this Psalm refers to. Moreover we see countless references to the "voice of the Lord", knowing that Christ is the eternal word of God, and is the very 'voice' of the Godhead. This 29th Psalm, like all other Psalms has its real understanding when viewed in light of the new testament revelation of the Christ.

Methodists are Mythical Creatures #2

2011-01-06T04:00:00.004-05:00

For those who did not read last Thursday's post, this is a continuation of it. You don't necessarily need to read that post to get the gist of what is being said here, but you would do well to read it. What I am doing is making the assessment that a Methodist is a mythical creature (ie a true Methodist does not exist) if you define Methodist by the same definition of John Wesley. Again, I point you to the previous post if you are looking for a little more background info and context. (Please don't comment on this post unless you have at least skimmed the beginning of last Thursday's post.)

Again, this post is a response to a tract Wesley wrote entitled "The Character of a Methodist" and we continue in paragraph 6.

6. [A Methodist] is therefore happy in God, yea, always happy, as having in him "a well of water springing up into everlasting life," and overflowing his soul with peace and joy. "Perfect love" having now "cast out fear," he "rejoices evermore." He "rejoices in the Lord always," even "in God his Saviour;" and in the Father, "through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom he hath now received the atonement."

Again, we see John Wesley declaring, only not explicitly, that a Methodist is perfect. Of course we know that Wesley taught Christian perfection, but this tract goes a long way toward telling us what this "Christian Perfection" looks like. Wesley uses very absolute terms to describe a Methodist, a Methodist is "always happy". This is a standard which the Christ Himself, though perfect, never obtained. Happy always is a perfection beyond perfect, an utter impossibility. Can you yet be happy when the name of God is blasphemed before you? My fellow United Methodist, are you a Methodist by Wesley's standard? I have never met a man or woman who was happy for 24 straight hours, let alone happy 'always'. Beyond always being happy, the Methodist also "rejoices in the Lord always", um, yeah... no comment. Essentially what we see Wesley saying is that the Methodist is someone who perfectly keeps the Law. Now let's be fair, Wesley is not saying that a Methodist is justified by the Law, he is saying that a justified Methodist upholds the Law completely. Again let's be fair, I know that many will falsely make this accusation, but he is not falling into the Galatian error of justification by works. Let's move on to the eight paragraph.

8. For indeed he "prays without ceasing." It is given him "always to pray, and not to faint." Not that he is always in the house of prayer; though he neglects no opportunity of being there. Neither is he always on his knees, although he often is, or on his face, before the Lord his God. Nor yet is he always crying aloud to God, or calling upon him in words: For many times "the Spirit maketh intercession for him with groans that cannot be uttered." But at all times the language of his heart is this: "Thou brightness of the eternal glory, unto thee is my heart, though without a voice, and my silence speaketh unto thee." And this is true prayer, and this alone. But his heart is ever lifted up to God, at all times and in all places. In this he is never hindered, much less interrupted, by any person or thing.

Does this even need comment? I certainly believe this tract to adequately describe the desire which the Spirit grants believers. We long in our inward parts for this perfection, this perfect union, this absolute uprightness. Yet let us be clear that we still struggle and fail constantly to reach the standards of God, the very standards which we desire to reach. However according to Wesley a Methodist is someone who does not fail, does not sin, does not cease in prayer... EVER. The Methodist is "never hindered, much less interrupted, by any person or thing." Are you convinced yet that a Methodist in Wesley's terms is a figment of the imagination? Again, I am not saying that it is okay to NOT pray without ceasing, it is sin to stop, which is why we continually need the blood of Christ!

10. For [The Methodist] is "pure in heart." The love of God has purified his heart from all revengeful passions, from envy, malice, and wrath, from every unkind temper or malign affection.

11. Agreeable to this his one desire, is the one design of his life, namely, "not to do his own will, but the will of Him that sent him." His one intention at all times and in all things is, not to please himself, but Him whom his soul loveth. He has a single eye.

As if this is not enough, and I have skipped much, to prove that a Methodist is a mythical creature, let me sum up the whole shebang with the entire 13th paragraph. For those who love Wesley (and much of what he has done and said I love) please explain what follows to me.

13. All the commandments of God he accordingly keeps, and that with all his might. For his obedience is in proportion to his love, the source from whence it flows. And therefore, loving God with all his heart, he serves him with all his strength. He continually presents his soul and body a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God; entirely and without reserve devoting himself, all he has, and all he is, to his glory. All the talents he has received, he constantly employs according to his Master's will; every power and faculty of his soul, every member of his body. Once he "yielded" them "unto sin" and the devil, "as instruments of unrighteousness;" but now, "being alive from the dead, he yields" them all "as instruments of righteousness unto God."

So member of the United Methodist Church, or other Wesleyan tradition, have you met the standard of Wesley's sect? Later in the tract Wesley asserts that what he has put forth is just basic fundamental Christianity. The reality is that he has just expressed the Law from the New Testament to the utter neglect of the Gospel. This tract is an utter fail, one which could lead followers of Wesley in only two possible directions, the first being despair, for they will never achieve the 'Methodist' standard. Or the other being delusion, actually believing they have met that standard, though they obviously have not.

I'd love to hear from a real 'Methodist' respond here, I've always wanted to meet a fairytale creature.

Presupposing Good News

2011-01-04T04:00:00.006-05:00

Matthew 4:21-22 is a great text to test yourself with if you are a pastor, teacher, parent, or anyone else who plans to share Christ with others. So I would ask you as you read the text to take about 15 seconds before you read on, just to think about the critical point that should be shared from this text.

And going on from there [Jesus] saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets, and he called them. Immediately they left the boat and their father and followed him. (Matthew 4:21-22 ESV)

Seriously take a few seconds to consider what you would teach from this passage.

The common teaching on this text focuses on the immediate response of the disciples to Christ's call. The teachings I am accustomed to hearing exhort us to hear the call and respond immediately like the disciples did. We hear of the sacrifice that the disciples made to follow Jesus, and the amazing leap of faith they took to follow this preacher. Most preaching I have heard is a very man centered, and man exalting view focusing not on the calling of Christ, but on the response of the disciples. This approach takes this passage to be Law, a calling to immediate obedience, to be willing to lay it all down. I hear preachers ask questions like "What is keeping you from dropping your nets", or "Are you willing like Zebedee to let your children drop all to follow Christ." This type of preaching on this text is an utter failure to give the congregation anything.

Of course on the flip side the Calvinist is likely to take this text and lay out the case for irresistible grace, and use this text to speak of the effectual call of Christ. I definitely think the Calvinist approach is better in that it puts Christ and His will front and center, but it still falls short in offering good news to anyone. If you take this approach you will give your people wonderful evidence for the truth of your system of theology, and I do think this text makes a good case for irresistible grace but if it is preached this way it falls short of actually offering that irresistible grace to anyone. Reducing this text to a diatribe about effectual call removes the fact that this story is news for you. This is the place where the Calvinist preacher needs to be careful, the tendency is to explain the details of the Gospel, but failing to actually deliver that Gospel to the people as something done for them.

How I would approach this text to preach it? First as I preach I am called to feed the sheep, and to give good news. So I approach every text knowing that it is either directly proclaiming good news, or pointing to good news, and it is my job to make that connection and give it to the people God has entrusted to me. Often times, especially if the text is a heavy law text, I must walk the people down a very dark road to bring them to grace, nonetheless I know approaching the text that the end goal is to arrive upon the good news of Christ who lived, died, and resurrected for us. I know that is where I am going, but the text I preach determines the route I take. So as I approach Matthew 4:21-22 I am looking for good news.

This approach almost immediately eliminates the possibility of preaching that "you better drop your net right now if you plan on ever being Jesus' disciple". At the very least it eliminates the possibility of that being the main point. So begin to look at the text, find a few good commentaries and try to glean some historical context looking for good news. Here is what you find.

It was always an honor to you and your family if you followed a prominent rabbi. You would also note that Jesus had been gaining prominence in the Synagogue since as early as 12 years old. Jesus was already rising in fame as a teacher and for a Jew to be asked by him to be a disciple would be a tremendous honor both to him and his family. The word 'immediately' in our text speaks not to the greatness of the disciple, but to the greatness of the Christ whom they would immediately follow. Moreover you would learn with a little study that the reputation of a rabbi was tightly related to the prominence of his disciples. The best rabbis would select the brightest and most promising of disciples because their students reflected them. It is the same reason ivy league schools will court the most intelligent high school students for their university.

Put this together, Jesus a rabbi growing in prominence reaches the age where he is going to call his disciples. He calls common fishermen. He sacrifices his own reputation as a teacher to call those who would not likely ever be called by anyone. What is the message here? undeserved GRACE. The greatest of all teachers stoops down to call the common men as His disciples. That is the message here. The point is not that God is so sovereign that his grace is irresistible, the point is that he is so good to me the lowliest of low that I cannot resist this good grace. The point is not that the disciples were so obedient in the immediate response, the point was that they received an offer they never in a million years would have expected to receive.

Take it further, Jesus knew the people he was choosing. He knew one would betray, he knew the others would run and hide, He knew the weakness of them. Yet he still chose them. Jesus condescended in so many ways on this earth, and this passage is a prime example of his condescension for people like us, yet we strip this passage of all of its goodness when we make it about OUR immediate response, or the irresistible effectual call.

If you are ever placed in a position where you are called on to preach or teach, make sure that you are presupposing that your text leads to good news. Mine the text for precious gems of grace and deliver that grace to your people. The sheep in America, and I imagine around the world, are starving for the good news of a good Christ that condescended for them. When people hear this news, and it is impressed with reality upon their hearts, then they too will drop their nets and follow immediately, not because of their great courage, but because of his great offer.

Missing Link Monday - 01.03.2011

2011-01-03T07:00:00.002-05:00

Jeremiah 31:7-14 and Psalm 147:12-20

This is the first installment of “Missing Link Monday” which is devoted to viewing the OT and Psalm reading from the Revised Common Lectionary with the focus on the Christ. Recall again that Christ himself has proclaimed that the OT finds its fulfillment in him, and that the scriptures all point to him. It is incumbent upon us to approach all OT scripture with the presupposition that it indeed points to Christ.

Reading 1 – For thus says the LORD: "Sing aloud with gladness for Jacob, and raise shouts for the chief of the nations; proclaim, give praise, and say, 'O LORD, save your people, the remnant of Israel.' Behold, I will bring them from the north country and gather them from the farthest parts of the earth, among them the blind and the lame, the pregnant woman and she who is in labor, together; a great company, they shall return here. With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn. "Hear the word of the LORD, O nations, and declare it in the coastlands far away; say, 'He who scattered Israel will gather him, and will keep him as a shepherd keeps his flock.' For the LORD has ransomed Jacob and has redeemed him from hands too strong for him. They shall come and sing aloud on the height of Zion, and they shall be radiant over the goodness of the LORD, over the grain, the wine, and the oil, and over the young of the flock and the herd; their life shall be like a watered garden, and they shall languish no more. Then shall the young women rejoice in the dance, and the young men and the old shall be merry. I will turn their mourning into joy; I will comfort them, and give them gladness for sorrow. I will feast the soul of the priests with abundance, and my people shall be satisfied with my goodness, declares the LORD." (Jeremiah 31:7-14 ESV)

This passage is pretty straight forward and does not require much time to make the connection. The clear line being “For the Lord has ransomed Jacob...” This language is clear of a price paid to set free the people of Israel. Moreover “...from hands too strong for him”, implies that this is a work entirely of God and therefore grace because Jacob was in the clutches of an enemy, sin, which he could not deliver himself from. He who scattered, will gather as a shepherd... again we see very Messianic language pointing to the One, Christ, who would gather the lost sheep of Israel. If you are looking through the lens of the Gospel, and knowing that Christ is the fulfillment of the prophets, and approaching this text with that in mind, it is nearly impossible to miss the fact that this reading screams of the Gospel and points with clarity to Christ.

Reading 2 - Praise the LORD, O Jerusalem! Praise your God, O Zion! For he strengthens the bars of your gates; he blesses your children within you. He makes peace in your borders; he fills you with the finest of the wheat. He sends out his command to the earth; his word runs swiftly. He gives snow like wool; he scatters hoarfrost like ashes. He hurls down his crystals of ice like crumbs; who can stand before his cold? He sends out his word, and melts them; he makes his wind blow and the waters flow. He declares his word to Jacob, his statutes and rules to Israel. He has not dealt thus with any other nation; they do not know his rules. Praise the LORD!

(Psalms 147:12-20 ESV)

In this text we see the power of the Lord in the created realm, we see authority over the harvest, over peace, over the strength of a fortified city, over snow, and ice. We also see the power of His word and statutes. If you qualify this passage with Colossians 1:16 or the beginning of John 1 you begin to see who the authority figure that is doing the work in this passage is. It is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ. This section of this Psalm should be preached so as to open a window into the character and mind of Christ. Notice the role of ‘his word’ in this passage and the power accompanied with it. Moreover notice the role of the Lord towards Israel, notice that he has dealt more thoroughly with them, he has come as one of them, for them, their rejection of him is nearly unthinkable, but it is that very rejection that opens the door for the gentiles to be grafted in.

Methodists are Mythical Creatures #1

2010-12-30T07:00:00.000-05:00

While doing a little research on the internet I came across a tract written by John Wesley called The Character of a Methodist which I found in many places to be a bit disturbing and very much counter to my understanding of the scriptures. If you do decide to follow that link, please note that what is written by Wesley is meant to point out what distinguishes Methodists, not requirements for salvation. Also note that this document is not a denominational standard for what it means to be a United Methodist. The following is an excerpt from the opening paragraph of this tract which will give you an idea of what it proposes to do.

SINCE the name first came abroad into the world, many have been at a loss to know what a Methodist is; what are the principles and the practice of those who are commonly called by that name; and what the distinguishing marks of this sect, "which is everywhere spoken against."

The rest of the tract seeks to answer question "what are the distinguishing marks of this sect?" Or as the title conveys, what is "The Character of a Methodist"?

This post really cuts straight to the heart of this blog. It shows the difficulty and tension of ministering within a body that finds guidance into the scripture from Wesley at its core of belief, while personally coming to a theology that is in numerous places at odds with Wesley. Also realize you do not have to agree with Wesley to be a member of the United Methodist Church, the point is that our system is Wesleyan at its core so though our thinking diverges at times from Wesley his theology still shapes ours significantly.

So without further introduction let's get into the body of this tract, which will take a few posts to deal with. Please note that I attempt to be honest a fair to the context of this tract as I pull various statements from it.

The first 3 paragraphs of the tract deny that a Methodist is a legalist, and affirms unity with those outside of the Methodist sect, and then we are met with these words at the beginning of the fourth paragraph.

4. Nor, lastly, is [a Methodist] distinguished by laying the whole stress of religion on any single part of it. If you say, "Yes, he is; for he thinks 'we are saved by faith alone:'" I answer, You do not understand the terms. By salvation he means holiness of heart and life. And this he affirms to spring from true faith alone.

This statement is troubling for a number of reasons. The first being that it gets certain categories wrong. I can certainly agree that Ephesians 2:4-10 express that much of the purpose of salvation is indeed to create a holy people, 'created for good works'. Let us not deny sanctification is a very intentional by-product of justification on the part of God. Let us also not deny the fact that our salvation is intended to have tangible results in this world, and it does not simply end with right standing before God. However if salvation is defined as "holiness of heart and life" then the category is wrong. Of course the true Wesleyan would say "holiness of heart and life" is a result of grace, but clearly "holiness of heart and life" is dependent in some measure upon the performance of man. Therefore if salvation is truly defined as "holiness of heart and life" it is syncretism and not at all "apart from works" (Eph 2:8). This also affects our assurance of salvation immensely. If you strip salvation of grace and render it to be a state of practical holiness of heart and life then nobody... NOBODY... experiences salvation. Essentially Wesley with this definition has said a Methodist is one who believes that salvation is the equivalent of Christian Perfection.

The reality is that salvation is our participation in the life death and resurrection of Christ by faith. In other words, our salvation is rooted in what Christ has done for us. Yes salvation does result in progressive sanctification and becoming holy in our heart and life, yet that is results of a finished action, not the action itself.

Another quote from this tract that I found disturbing (and there are many) was found in the very next paragraph. (#5)

Who is a Methodist, according to your own account?" I answer: A Methodist is one who has "the love of God shed abroad in his heart by the Holy Ghost given unto him;" one who "loves the Lord his God with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his mind, and with all his strength. God is the joy of his heart, and the desire of his soul; which is constantly crying out, "Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee! My God and my all! Thou art the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever!"

Essentially Wesley has said that a Methodist is one who perfectly keeps the Law of God, knowing that the sum of the Law is loving the Lord with ALL heart, ALL soul, ALL mind, and ALL strength. Here we see that Wesley has a very different understanding of the purpose of the Law than the reformers did, and that the Apostle Paul did. I believe this tract had its initial publication prior to Wesley's Aldersgate experience in 1738 but I am not sure. However I know that the version of this tract which is linked to above was the final publishing of it in 1777 some 40 years after Aldersgate. The reason I mention Aldersgate is that the above portion of this tract runs completely counter to Luther's preface on the Romans which Wesley was 'strangely warmed' upon hearing. I would contend that, by Wesley's definition, other than Christ there has never been a Methodist on the face of the earth.. A Methodist (by Wesley's definition) is a mythical creature.

Essentially Wesley's argument is that a Methodist is one who has been perfected. So to my Methodist friends who have read this far... I hope you are not reading this blog to kill time, or for simple recreation, because if you are... then ALL your mind has not been devoted to the love of God and you are no longer Methodist!! at least according to Wesley. But don't worry, we still love you, and you are welcome to explore with us the possibilities of unmerited favor of God based on what he has done for you in Christ. Even if you aren't living with perfect "holiness of heart and life".

I will continue this in coming weeks. Expect updates to the blog on Mondays and Thursdays. I am working at getting ahead and scheduling the posts to drop on those days. By the time this posts I should be a week or two ahead.

Blog Plan 2011 - Missing Link Mondays

2010-12-27T00:27:00.002-05:00

I am not preaching January 2^nd or the 9^th so I have a little bit of time freed up for blogging, and I have a plan for what to do with it. I am going to start a new segment on this blog that works off of the revised common lectionary, and post every Monday regarding the previous Sunday’s two Old Testament readings. The goal is not to give teaching on each text as that would be a far bigger endeavor than I care to undertake, but the goal will be to show the clear link from the lectionary reading to the work of Christ on our behalf. Jesus made it clear on the Emmaus road that all scripture points to him, so it is safe for us to look for him in any and every segment of the word. So each Monday (starting January 3^rd) will be “Missing Link Monday”, and I will endeavor to make clear the link from the OT readings to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The reason I call it “missing link Monday” is that this practice of linking all OT scripture to Christ is sadly a practice that is missing in much of Christendom. So often we will hear sermons from Nehemiah about rebuilding your life, or from Song of Solomon about spicing up you love life, or from Joshua about conquering life’s trials and so on, yet rarely do we look at any of these texts a passages fulfilled in Christ, and yet these passages offer little more that nice ethics unless they are used to proclaim Christ. So that is what Missing link Monday will be all about.

My plan is to post other posts on Thursday, and those posts will be similar to the posts I have done recently. Hopefully with two weeks out of the pulpit I can get ahead of the game and schedule the posts a couple weeks in advance so that I don’t have any problems keeping up. Stop back and keep posted.

Funeral Assurance

2010-12-19T00:09:00.000-05:00

The preaching assurance post from last week seemed to generate a little interest and I have been thinking much about this topic lately. I thought I would go a step further in this post and up the ante a bit more. It seems to some people absurd that you would ever preach in such a manner as to give your congregation assurance. The objection is that the preacher has no way of knowing who believes and who does not so there is no way the preacher should ever give assurance, it is not his to give. We talked about that in the last assurance post, and I don’t care to explain myself again. I would say that the possibility of giving false assurance frightens many people, so they end up withholding assurance from everyone.

Like I said I am going to up the ante a bit. I have had the privilege of officiating 7 funerals in my first 5 months as the Pastor of Delta UMC. At funerals even if the one who has died apparently died in unbelief, and the majority of the family assembled seems to not be believers I still preach assurance. Let me rephrase, I preach assurance at a funeral regardless of the circumstances surrounding the funeral, and regardless of who is in attendance. This must bother a reader or two, but I cannot think of a better place to preach assurance. I think that one of the great confusions that people have in this issue is that preaching assurance and pronouncing someone to be redeemed are two very different things. I preach with full confidence at every funeral that Christ has lived, died, and rose for us, and that because of the work of Christ we can have confidence in sin forgiven. I make no statement with regard to the eternal destiny of the dead, or the living, yet I do proclaim the sure work of Christ on the cross for those in attendance, and for the one who has died.

Of course the Calvinist asks how I can do that if I believe in a limited atonement. My answer is pretty simple. Christ died for all, the atonement is only applied to the Elect by faith. The atonement is limited, the sacrifice was not. I certainly do not go so far as to give full peace regarding the deceased, but I also do nothing to withhold peace. Now the Arminian of all people should have no problem with this because of their staunch belief that Christ died for all. Yet it seems that the Arminian is the first to shy away from this type of funeral proclamation.

So what of you? How would you preach a funeral? Would you dangle a carrot out and tell people if they only do this or that then they can be redeemed? Or would you tell them that Christ has lived, died, and resurrected for them. Again I ask the question, what are you afraid of? Are you afraid that someone in faith would actually believe those words to be true and receive assurance?

(btw, see comment policy on right sidebar)

The Gospel is Old News

2010-12-15T14:54:00.001-05:00

The Gospel is not happening as we speak. Nobody in this world is being the Gospel, living the Gospel, or anything of the sort. The Gospel is by definition good news of past events as well as the announcement of a future return of Christ. None of the Gospel is in the present tense. Getting this right might be the most important challenge the Church faces in our day. The implications of a wrong view of the Gospel as history are wide and varied.

To the individual mistaking the Gospel as something we participate in leads to despair. Eventually we come to a point when we look at our lives and what we have done as Christians and realize that our actions are not “good news” in fact often times we find ourselves in struggles we had long before we believed. We look to ourselves as an example of the Gospel and realize there is little good news there to celebrate.

To the church it leads to all sorts of strange concepts. If we are to live the Gospel, then spreading the Gospel means either to bring people to us, or take ourselves to people. We end up (though we would never say it) believing that what the world needs is more of ‘us’. It is highly narcissistic. A lot of Church growth, attractional mentality is built on the premise that exposing people to ourselves will expose them to the Gospel as long as our people are ‘living the Gospel’. It also leads to this idea that “we need to be Christ for someone” or “the only Jesus some people may ever see is you.” Again, I understand the motive here and it is not all bad, but at its heart it is narcissistic. This confusion of the Gospel as something we do, has driven much of the church’s mission, and largely has caused us to lose our theology that is foundational to our mission. That theology being that Christ has already done and completed a work for you.

To the world the implications of believing that the Gospel must be lived is enormous. The Gospel ceases to be good news for a perishing world if it includes a mandate. The greatest hope for a dying humanity is that a work has been done in history for them and that they can look back with assurance knowing that work (Christ’s life, death, resurrection) was completed for them. If the Gospel is a new lifestyle of good works and service it offers wonderful ethics to a perishing world, but it offers nothing by way of salvation.

When the Gospel becomes a present tense activity it becomes reduced to humanism. Humanism includes self sacrifice, it involves the golden rule, it includes honor, it includes caring for the poor, in includes all sorts of wonderful things that the scriptures include in its laws. You do not need Jesus to have solid ethics. As far as that is concerned I am not really “anti-humanist”, in fact I am pretty much good with humanism. It is an attempt to live out the law which is already written on the heart of man, and it benefits society when people do that. However, humanism always fails at the personal level. No person lives to the ethics they espouse, all people commit the injustice they abhor, the real problem is sin and it cannot be labored away, and ethics do not cure it. Only the Gospel offers salvation, yet if the Gospel gets confused with the ethics and good deeds even that “Gospel” ceases to offer anything more than despair and condemnation.

Yet, if we recall that the Gospel indeed is a historical transaction occurring in real time with a real body, and real blood, real wood on a real cross, and real tomb that was empty because our real savior rose from the dead... if we can recall what has been done for us we no longer need to approach the Gospel as what we must do, we approach it with gratefulness knowing we are redeemed. We are freed for joyful obedience to a law that no longer has the power to condemn.

Preaching Assurance

2010-12-11T15:44:00.001-05:00

It is a job of preachers of the Gospel to give their congregation assurance of sins forgiven. A number of people have a huge problem with that statement, and I wonder why. Of course the common objection is “only God can give assurance of sins forgiven”, or there is the fear that a preacher would give someone assurance who really should not have assurance. Certainly I understand the objections, but I am not convinced that they are biblically founded. The question comes up, “How can you know they are forgiven, or how can you know who to assure and not to assure?” The simple answer is that I do not know, nor do I need to. Yet this begs the question, “Jay, if you do not know who is redeemed and who is not, how can you attempt to give blanket assurance to an entire congregation?” This is a reasonable question, but it is not a question that is scripturally informed. Consider when Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved Jesus, and three times he was met with “Feed my sheep”. Question; who was Peter to determine who Christ’s sheep were? Nonetheless he was give the command. Or what about Paul’s blanket statements of blessing to the churches he wrote to? Were there not bound to be unbelievers gathered in their midst? If Paul can write words of assurance to a group of people he has not even met, how much more appropriate is it for preachers of the Gospel to seek assurance for their congregations!

Unfortunately a lot of preachers, many who are rising greatly in popularity are making a great name for themselves in doing the very opposite of what I propose here. Now I have a great respect for men like Paul Washer and I certainly would agree that he possesses a great gift for preaching. His stuff on marriage and manhood has been indispensible to me, his preaching on Song of Solomon is some of the most beautiful preaching I have ever heard. Moreover when he preaches the Gospel, and paints a picture of the magnitude of the cross and the substitutionary work of Christ of Christ on behalf of the believer I would contend that there are few who are more gifted than him. Nonetheless I greatly diverge from Washer and others like him when it comes to preaching assurance. I am not sure if people would consider Washer reformed or not, he is certainly a Calvinist when it comes to his soteriology, but not sure beyond that. He calls himself a “5 point Spurgeonist” which I think means a Baptist with a soteriology that mirrors Calvin. You can, however, see that he diverges from reformation theology when it comes to assurance, and the role of ecclesiastical authority in giving assurance.

Now, whether you know of Washer or not, the issue at hand here is whether or not the church, specifically the preaching pastor, should attempt to give assurance to the congregation. The reason this post is pertinent to this blog is that the conservative or ‘confessing’ Methodist is typically very Washeresque when it comes to giving assurance. Of course the favorite passage is “examine yourself to see if you are in the faith, test yourselves, or do you not know this about yourself that Christ Jesus is in you, unless of course you fail the test.” The very conclusion of that chapter, which is the last chapter in II Corinthians, is a passage of assurance. When looking at this passage in context you will see that Paul is giving assurance to the weak, not calling to looking inwardly at the strength of your profession or the fruit of your life to determine whether or not you are really a believer. The other text that seems to always come up when folks who hate to give people assurance take to the pulpit is the end of Matthew 7. The beginning of the Sermon on the Mount (which concludes at chapter 7) establishes assurance for the disciples who were listening. The clear wording of Matthew 7 is ‘beware of false prophets’ and that passage qualifies the later words ‘many will say unto me Lord Lord... and I will say depart from me I never knew you.’ That passage in Matthew 7 is a very powerful means of making people question their assurance and I have preached that text myself to do just that. However the force of the text has nothing to do with your personal assurance (which you should go to the beginning of Matthew 5 to get) instead it is to put you on your guard against false prophets. Preaching that portion of Matthew 7 and making it about biblical assurance is out of bounds.

The point is that the role of the pastor is to shepherd the sheep, grow the sheep, and lead them to take comfort and refuge in their king. It is about proclaiming grace to them, and ASSURING them of the work which Christ has done for them. Pastor, your job is not to get into the pulpit and make people question their salvation, it is to get into the pulpit and remind them of the salvation which is in Christ for them. Don't beat up the sheep by misappropriating 2 Corinthians 13:5 or Matthew 7:21-23 to be passages designed to cause believers to question assurance.

I am not sure why people fear giving false assurance. What is it? Are we afraid that someone might actually believe that Christ died for their sins and then trust him as their redeemer? Isn’t that kind of the point? The problem with preaching 2 Corinthians 13:5 and Matthew 7 as a means to bring us to question our assurance is that we are always left looking inwardly to determine whether or not we are saved. We are always looking to our work, our desires, our evidence, to see if we indeed are Christian. The only reason we have for assurance is an external work of God in Christ for us, that we are given belief in by the work of His Spirit.

Hymns the UMC Catechism

2010-12-06T14:44:00.000-05:00

If there was ever a tradition that should have violently held to their traditional hymnody it would be the Wesleyan tradition. Let me be clear, I am not a hyper-traditionalist, there are good a number of contemporary hymns, praise songs, and choruses that I like and think are valuable to the church. This posting is in no way a rant against contemporary worship per se. I’ll admit that I personally find myself annoyed with most contemporary worship, but I will be the first to admit that there really is some lyrically excellent music being produced in our day and being used in the contemporary setting. Nonetheless the trend in the UMC toward using more contemporary popular worship songs is a huge problem for Methodism, larger than it would be for a Lutheran, Reformed, or even the Catholic Church.

Awhile back I posted regarding Creeds and Catechisms, and expressed my disappointment in the fact that the UMC is very sporadic (at best) in their use these historic statements. I stand behind that post, especially in the way we see the UMC’s incredibly (dare I say fatally) broad theological spectrum. Methodism has not always been that way. The Wesley’s were adamant about ‘catechesis’ yet their method was music. Consider the thousands of hymns written by the Wesleys alone all with the purpose of expressing doctrinal truth in a repetitive and memorable manner. They wrote the hymns to the tune of familiar entertaining pieces of the day which served to enhance the ability to memorize the key doctrine which the hymns were to communicate. The Wesleys were specific in how hymns should be sung, and adamant about not taking artistic license to improve upon them, knowing that artistic license created individualism out of what was meant to be community worship and dare I say a form of covenantal catechesis. In many ways this method of songs, hymns, and spiritual songs as a method of catechesis could be seen as having more biblical support than the standard question and answer format of the reformation and catholic traditions. Clearly the Hebrews did this with their Psalms, and Timothy was commanded by Paul to continue in this vein.

The point is that in Methodism our entire ‘indoctrination system’ hinges upon hymnody. Other traditions continue to recite creeds, catechisms, and so on, but we rarely do so. Instead historically we have been a people who use hymns for that purpose. Now as we see Methodism going contemporary and choosing songs based partly upon doctrine, partly upon singability, and largely upon popularity we have created a more appealing worship setting but have removed our primary method of indoctrination. (I use the word indoctrination in the instruction sense, not the propaganda sense). This is a serious problem for us.

Whenever you attempt to address this you will find Methodists telling you “we originated the contemporary scene when Charles and John started putting all their music to the tune of popular tunes sung in the pubs”, or they say something similar to that. However they miss the original intent of this. ‘Pub music’ was not used to make hymn singing popular and fun, in fact the Wesleys put very stringent guidelines as to how hymns could be sung, and it was clear they were not doing it just to be attractive. The reason for using the bar tunes was because they provided an already clear framework for memory of doctrine.

Now that we have forgone an intentional hymnody and replaced it with a series of contemporary songs that people enjoy, we fail to commit our whole theology to memory. Again, much of the new music is doctrinally excellent, but it is not intentional in the same way that the early hymns of Methodism were, and the newer music has not been written with the same intent that the original Methodist hymns were written.

Other traditions can survive being loose with their music because there is a consistent system for imparting their theology to their adherents. Methodists’ music is our system, so we do not have the liberty to be loose with it.

Recent Reading

2010-12-01T12:07:00.000-05:00

First, please understand the tenor of this post, I am not trying to show off a list of books that I have read, nor am I trying to impel you to read them. When I read a book that I really enjoy or find insightful I always look in its bibliography, or make a note of the authors that are quoted in the book. Then I chase the rabbits and read the other books. I do the same with books I do not like. I believe this is a good practice. Now I wish that all bloggers would occasionally give a bibliography or a list of what they recently read which could give us insight into how there thoughts are being shaped. Anyway, here is a list of books I have read or partially read over the last 12 months or so. Again, this is not to make you think positive or negative about me, consider more of a bibliography for a blog. These are in no particular order. And note that a few of these books I did not like at all.

Theology
Heaven Misplaced - Douglas Wilson
Law and Gospel - Walther (I have only read about 1/10th of this book)
Desiring God - John Piper
The Attributes of God - AW Pink
Christianity and Liberalism - J.Gresham Machen
The Heidleberg Catechism
Luther's Small Catechism
Spiritual Depression - Martyn Lloyd Jones
Exposition of Romans 6 - Martyn Lloyd Jones
Christless Christianity - Michael Horton
Attributes of God - Stephen Charnock (I have only read about 1/3)
Seeing with New Eyes - David Powlison
Preface to the Romans - Martin Luther
Concerning Christian Liberty - Martin Luther
The Deeper Journey - M. Robert Mulholland Jr.
The Certain Sound of the Trumpet - Samuel D. Proctor
The One True God - Paul Washer
The Truth about Man - Paul Washer
Justification and Regeneration - Charles Leiter
Institutes of Christian Religon - John Calvin (picking thru this on occasion probably read 3%)

Fiction
Uncle Tom's Cabin - Harriet Beecher Stowe
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer - Mark Twain
Robby Braveheart - David Krewson
The Grapes of Wrath - John Steinbeck (got to bored about halfway and quit)
Les Miserables - Victor Hugo (read for about 8hrs on my iPod kindle app, realized it was the unabridged version which was 1600 pages and quit.)
Screwtape Letters - CS Lewis

Commentaries Used
Mathew Henry
JC Ryle - Expository Thoughts on the Gospels
John Wesley's notes on the bible
CH Spurgeon - Treasury of David
John Calvin - Commentary on the Psalms
John Calvin - Commentary on Philippians
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown
Alec Motyer - Commentary on Isaiah
John Oswalt - Commentary on Isaiah

Thoughts?

Our Non-Missional Christmas

2010-11-29T12:34:00.000-05:00

This Christmas I will celebrate what has been done for me, and for my family. For at least a brief portion of time I will cease to be concerned about the rest of the world, about my neighbor in need, and about the problems others face, and I am just going to focus on what has been done for us. I know this flies in the face of the new missional Christmas where we all try to give as much money to feeding people as we do giving presents to each other, and to many people the Miklovic selfish Christmas seems to be the very antithesis to what Christmas should be, but I disagree.

I was born in sin, and have sinned since my earliest of days, so has my wife, and my two young children. We have known right, and chosen wrong. We have had God’s law revealed to us, and chosen disobedience to it. The Miklovics without any outside intervention are a pretty hopeless bunch. I could take Christmas and turn it into a time to pour blessing upon the world and make it a time of monastic self denial, but I am not going to. Christmas is about the redemption of the Miklovic family by our Lord who saw it fit to be born in human flesh in a manger. Christmas, is all about undoing that curse that the Miklovics were born into because of original sin in Adam. Christmas, the celebration of the advent of Christ was for the Miklovics and we are going to view it in that light, as something done FOR US. You say yes, but was it not for the rest of the world too? Of course it was, and I encourage you and the rest of the world to celebrate Christmas in the same manner, as Christ coming FOR YOU. Yes, we will still give our traditional gift to our kids that they are required to use to serve someone else, yes we will still lead youth on food drives, and give to those in need, because that is a part of who we are... but that is not, nor will it be the focus of our Christmas.

Let me give a little more explanation. During the mega-church or church growth movement we had a horrible streak of selfishness driving evangelicalism. Everything in churches was to be carefully crafted to make congregants happy with the style, and comforts of modern worship. Of course most of us are now ready to admit that this consumeristic mentality is the wrong way to go, and that people should not be drawn to the church simply to be given coffee, tips for life, and good music. Yet how have we responded to the consumerist failure? We have turned around and created the missional movement to curb our self absorbed appetite. We have taken the growth model which tells vistors “we are all about you, be comfortable enjoy yourselves” and replaced it with the total opposite “it is not about you, get out of your ‘comfort zone’ and join us in mission.” The growth movement catered to the consumer, and the missional movement caters to the wannabe superhero. Both movements at their heart are consumeristic trying to create what people want to consume. Neither movement offers comfort with regard to our own fallenness. The growth movement was to capture those who remember nothing but dead fundamentalism and wanted something more joyful. The missional movement is for those who grew annoyed with the growth movement and wanted their life to mean something and to make a difference. In either case, both movements addressed and are addressing the desires of the consumer of the day. (This is why people are so unfortunately infatuated with Barna polls.) The problem is that in reaction to the growth movement, the missional movement has thrown out any notion whatsoever that Christ has done a great work FOR YOU. It quickly forces you to reach out to others while never receiving anything yourself. The growth mentality was all for you, yet it did not placard the Christ which died for you and the implications of that, it instead structured the church experience ‘for you’ with all the amenities of your local shopping mall. The ‘for you’ of the growth movement is not the ‘for you’ of the gospel, yet in the rejection of the growth movement, the actual Gospel ‘for you’ has been placed on the back shelf by the missional movement. Essentially in an effort to get out of one ditch we have fallen into the ditch on the other side of the road.

That is why my family, which is a mission minded family, will see Christmas not as a call to mission, but a call to receive with gratitude once again that Christ was incarnate FOR US. This is not selfish, this is receiving and appreciating a gift that was given to us. Not in the form of good coffee and a Christmas ham, but as Christ incarnate FOR US. Enjoy the gift and the giver, certainly you will go out on mission, and certainly you will serve others and certainly your living faith will propel you into works, but take time to see that the gift is FOR YOU.

Love -- Law or Gospel?

2010-11-26T14:32:00.000-05:00

In Wesleyan theology there is a large emphasis placed on love, and many in the Methodist movement would go so far as to say “the Gospel in one word is love.” I could agree with that statement if what is meant is that the Gospel is that God has so loved us that Christ had our sin imputed to him and his righteousness imputed to us that we would receive the benefit of righteousness while Christ endured the curse of the law for us, and that this actually took place in history as an actual event. In other words, I can agree that our theology should be all about love if you are speaking of the love of God for us. However if the Gospel is that we are to love God and love others because of what Jesus did then we are greatly confusing the Gospel and the Law.

Let me be clear, we should love others and love God, and in light of the Gospel we should be driven to love, I do not intend to negate that, nonetheless the Gospel has nothing to do with our love... in fact as far as action is concerned the Gospel has nothing to do with us. The Gospel is news of a completed work, a work that was for us, but that was not carried out by us. This is a very important post for this blog, because in Methodism as well as most of evangelicalism we are getting this confused. As the veil has been pulled of my eyes regarding this tragic confusion of love being the Gospel instead of law I have been liberated and able to share this liberating Gospel others. The reality that love is law not Gospel (in the sense that we are called to love) is a reality that we need desperately to discover in the UMC.

Just to get the terms right here, the Law is what we are commanded to do by God. The Gospel is the work God did for us in Christ. Law, our doing... Gospel, his doing.

Romans 3:19-20 ESV Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. (20) For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

Galatians 2:15-16 ESV We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; (16) yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

The scripture is crystal clear that we will not and cannot be justified by obedience to the Law, because we have already disobeyed it, and have the propensity to continue in disobedience toward it. To attempt justification by the law is an uphill battle that produces a life of despair and leads to an afterlife of torment. It is essential that we understand that we will not be justified by our obedience to the Law, period. We also must understand that the Gospel is about Christ’s fulfillment of the Law for us, both the righteousness demanded by it, and the curses required for transgression of it... for us.

Which brings us to this:

Deuteronomy 6:4-5 ESV "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (5) You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.

First off notice that the above quote is given from the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy. This is not a New Testament call to Gospel love, this is an old testament statement of Law.

Leviticus 19:17-18 ESV "You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. (18) You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.”

Again, notice this is from the Old Testament book of Leviticus, this is not some New Testament paradigm introduced by Jesus. This is the Law. When you read the above verses from Romans and Galatians (and there are many more similar passages) which state we will not be justified by the Law they allude to these passages from Deuteronomy and Leviticus as well as any other passage from the Law. Moreover we find Jesus quoting these passages directly when questioned what the greatest commandments are. Jesus affirms that love of neighbor and love of God is the summation of the Law. Jesus calls love the great LAW, not the Gospel.

The Law of God shows us our need for grace, it is a school master leading us to the foot of the cross. When we take our call to love and put that call in the Gospel column instead of the Law column you create a huge problem, the very commandment which was meant to drive you to the cross instead becomes something altogether different. It loses it’s power as love, yet gains nothing because it is not Gospel. Our command to love is the Law, it is not the Gospel, and if you look at your own life, see the lack of love toward neighbor, and the lack of loving God with your entire heart soul strength and might you should be driven to see your need of Grace, and see that in Christ we have that grace given to us. Yet if you refuse to see love as law, your lack of love will never drive you to grace.

Current trends in almost all of evangelicalism, and the long time trend in Methodism is to confuse love as Gospel instead of Law. The surveys all tell us that if we focus on love we will grow our churches, and that what the world wants to see is love, and that is true. If we make our entire focus on love than we will be the most excellent of all Law based religion, but we will cease to be Christianity. The Jew, the Muslim, and every other major faith can claim its ethic to be love without any Gospel at all. If we view Jesus only as example and not as sacrifice, if we see him as our best example of loving, and not as the one who fulfilled love for us, then we become no different than all other religion except that we have a better example to follow. Yet if we see love as the law, and see the Gospel as something altogether different then and only then will we see the marvelous grace which has been given to us in Christ, and actually be freed to love from gratitude instead of loving because we are duty bound to do so.

There is a reason that even the most conservative Churches (Wesley and the Methodist church was ‘conservative’) eventually become liberal in the long run and it is because of this confusion. With love as your Gospel you eventually end up with a religion that is entirely Law. You can find common ground with every religious institution, every social service agency, every government, and every other humanistic endeavor because essentially they are all built on the same ethic... that is to love others and the to love the God of your understanding. Christianity is altogether different, because Christianity alone knows that love is the summation of the law that we have been completely unable to keep, and that our lack of complete love necessitates a savior, and that Christ himself fulfilled the Law, that is fulfilled love, on our behalf and we stand on his merit, not our love.

I’d love to hear a few Methodist friends weigh in on this.

Creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms

2010-11-23T16:16:00.000-05:00

The idea of this blog is to express the implications of a Methodist discovering of the reformation, and one of the things we find very common in both Lutheran and Reformed churches is the extensive use of catechisms and creeds. In the Methodist Church, at least in our day we see creeds going the way of the dodo bird, and I know of nobody using catechisms in the UMC, and I am unaware (I have not researched) if there is such thing as a Catechism approved by and readily used in United Methodism. If there is, I have never seen or heard of it in my 20+ years as a United Methodist. I, along with most other conservative United Methodists have insisted on scripture memorization as paramount for our confirmands and youth, yet have spent little time on creeds, and even less on catechisms. Many fundamentalists would celebrate that "scripture only" focus, but I think it is horribly flawed.

Scripture memorization is an important discipline, but I would contend that it is a less important discipline than catechesis or the memorization of the creeds that accurately depict the faith. Now I can hear my fundamentalist brethren getting really bent out of shape with that statement and I can certainly understand why. What I am essentially saying is that you would be better off to memorize a creed which is not inspired, than to memorize portions of the inspired word of God. At the outset it seems like an absurd argument for me to make, but it is not.

The simple reality is that verses individually taken outside of their context have no meaning. A verse without its context is just a phrase dangling in space. However a creed or a catechism that honestly deals with the entire cannon of scripture provides an overall context which an individual verse can be understood within. This is incredibly important to see. Confusion around many doctrines exist because the debates always seem to float around one isolated verse being quoted against another isolated verse. How many times have you heard someone say “this verse presents a real problem to the insert particular theological view point here.” Yet often times if you read the entire context that contains that particular verse you will see that it actually supports the view point being argued against. My point is that you cannot make a biblical theology with a simple list of verses.

This is why creeds and confessions are so valuable, yes you should test them against the whole cannon of scripture, and yes you should not just assume the creed writers got it perfect, but at the same time you should realize that the historic creeds and confessions have been based off of scripture in its entirety and are not easily sunk by one verse here or there.

A quick scan of the evangelical landscape will show you a lot of people who know bits and pieces of Christian teaching, and most people know a few verses, and can tell you that God loves the world or that you should not judge others... yet the sad reality is that it is a small percentage that can actually articulate what the entirety of scripture is about. Few can look at the whole history of redemption with Christ at the center and just see it for what it is. Everyone is so used to regurgitating particular new testament comfort verses that they cannot show how God’s goodness was displayed even in Israel’s slaughter of the people who dwelt in the promised land.

Preachers need to take heed here as well. When I am expositing a passage of scripture to our congregation I am always directly quoting the scripture I am presenting, and continually coming back to it throughout the message. Yet, as I preach and pull in different events from the biblical narrative, or pull in different teachings from other portions of scripture, I am not so concerned with direct quotation and giving a chapter and verse, instead I am concerned with pulling the common theme of the passage being exposited by pulling in examples from other places in scripture. The point is that as preachers and teachers we need to be preaching and teaching the whole counsel of God, and that means to preach it as a whole.

Catechisms, and creeds are wonderful ways of teaching the whole counsel of God without having to memorize all 1100+ chapters of the scripture, and is more profitable than only taking bits and pieces of scripture to heart. As I teach confirmation this year I will be using the Heidleberg Catechism, though I will omit a couple of sections near the end, but I trust that it will be more profitable to the students in the long run than if I had them memorize 50 isolated scriptures which I deemed were important.

Lutherans and The Lord's Supper

2010-11-17T21:42:00.000-05:00

I have had a running conversation with a confessional Lutheran friend regarding the Lord’s supper for two or three weeks on twitter, and because so many rabbit trails have been chased in this conversation I sensed that it is time to take it to the blog. The conversation is fitting for this blog as it falls within the context of a Methodist dealing with doctrines of the Reformation, specifically Luther’s view of ‘Real Presence’ in the Lord’s Supper. I would highly recommend that you follow Dawn on twitter ‘@rumor99’ and visit her website here. Moreover you can see the Lutheran view defended at here by Todd Wilken, of Issues Etc, or an interesting and seriously humorous defense of confessional Lutheranism against Calvinism at here by Rev Fisk.

Our conversation has centered around the Lord’s Supper and whether the ‘real presence’ of the Lord is in the bread and the wine. Now this is a friendly discussion, and I do not sense that Dawn doubts our union in Christian fellowship and as far as internet twitter dialog goes I would consider Dawn a friend who has sharpened me in many ways. Nonetheless, as cordial as this may be, it is not a trivial issue, and in many respects the Gospel itself is a stake, especially from the Lutheran end of the argument, as they are apt to argue that “the Sacrament is the Gospel”, their verbiage not mine. Also note that we are dealing with Confessional Lutheranism here i.e. LCMS, not ELCA, I imagine Luther himself would not recognize the ELCA as Lutheran by any stretch of the imagination.

I argue as would nearly all Protestants that the bread and the cup of the Lord’s Supper are not literally/physically the body and blood of our Lord, but instead are figures of his body and blood. The Lutheran appeals to Matthew 26:26-28 and simply says “This is my body... This is my blood...” means exactly what it says in the very literal sense. As you debate this with a Lutheran they will continually come back to the fact that Jesus said “this is...” and if you are not careful arguing from the other side you begin to sound like Bill Clinton asking ‘What is ‘is’?” Nonetheless, the question “what is meant by is?” is indeed an appropriate question. Yes, I can hear you Lutherans chuckling right now.

Jesus uses ‘is’ in other places in a figurative manner, I can think of Mark 3:34-35 off hand, when he affirms that his disciples are his mother and his brothers. I would never hang an argument about the Lord’s Supper upon Mark 3:34-35, nonetheless that is a clear example of when “is” does not mean “is” in the literal sense. There are other places as well. Moreover we hear Lutherans appeal to the “how would a five year old understand it?” argument so as to prove that the simple reading is that Jesus is actually calling bread “His Body” in the most literal sense. My three year old will often pick up a ‘little people’ toy and say this *is* my daddy, and this *is* my mommy and then proceed to act like they are Kristin and I, even 3 year old Joey understands the figurative sense of *is*. Sure that is simple make believe and all kids do that, and I am not trying to use a profane argument, but the simple truth is that even a three year old knows how to use *is* figuratively. There is ample precedent for *is* being figurative in language. The traditional Passover Seder itself is filled with figures and metaphors, in fact the Passover meal itself is a metaphor.

The other, and maybe most silly argument you hear is: “When it comes to judgment day I would rather stand before Jesus saying I believed you when you said *is* than to stand there and be wrong and have to say to Jesus that you didn’t believe Him when he said *is*.” That same argument can be turned completely around pretty easily. I would not want to stand on judgment day and have to give an account for why I worshipped bread when I had a clear understanding of the different and obvious uses of the word is.

The thing is that this is not a trivial argument. I am not willing to break fellowship with confessional Lutherans over this, and frankly I am very thankful for a lot of Lutheran’s and their theology. At the same time given the stance I take that *is* indeed is figurative in Matt 26:26-28 I must say that confessional Lutherans are heretical with regard to the Lord’s Supper, and they too must, because of their belief, see me as heretical with regard to the Lord’s supper. This is slightly more problematic for the Lutheran, because they believe that the sacrament indeed is the Gospel, so my stance is to say they get the Gospel wrong. This is not to be harsh, but it is healthy for us to be honest.

The other argument that comes up is why would Paul use such grave language with regard to the Lord’s Supper if it were a mere figure? The same question could be asked about why God was so specific in laying out various feasts, and the Passover meal, the temple, etc... if these things were all figures of the Christ to come. They must be handled with gravity because the One that these figures represent is the Christ Himself. Say Joey, my son, picks up a Lego man and says “this is my Daddy” and then proceeds to through it against the wall, bite its head off, or mistreat it, I would be upset. The way he treats the figure is indicative of his regard for me. The same is true with the Lord’s supper, the way the figure is treated evidences the disposition towards what the figure is of. It makes perfect sense that Paul would speak with such gravity.

Hopefully I have been thorough enough as to how “is” can be figurative. However even if ‘is’ can possibly be figurative I still must be able to give solid reason that *is* is being used figuratively in Matt 26. It is pretty obvious that in the Lord’s supper, Jesus says this is my Body while holding the bread. His physical body was present, yet he held the bread as he made the announcement. Nobody sitting around that table would have thought this to be a literal statement because obviously his real body was present. Moreover each breaking of bread during the Passover meal had significant symbolic meaning. I will not get into the Seder meal (I am not an expert) but regardless the disciples were already looking at this bread figuratively before Jesus even said *this is*. Moreover Jesus now sits at the right hand of the Father, not here in a loaf.

The only thing left to appeal to is paradox. The Lutheran must simply say all these things are paradox, Jesus being both at the right hand of the Father and in the loaf is paradox. Jesus being present with the disciples and yet also physically/literally present in the bread he handed to them is paradox. To me it seems more like Luther was not ready to separate from Catholicism when it came to sacrament.

One thing I love about Lutherans is that they love to live in paradox and do not feel bound to reason everything together, whereas many a Calvinist try to systemize things so far as to subject all scripture to their reason, I do believe this is a strong point in Lutheranism. At the same time some things are clear and shouldn’t be considered paradox, which is the case here. We cannot subject God to our reasoning, yet He has communicated to us by His Word using language and it is reasonable that we would give some effort into knowing what the language is communicating and not rushing to put our fingers in our ears and yelling “paradox.”

I will leave this hear for now, and post a follow up, if there is significant interest in the comments.

Luther and Wesley - Strangely Warmed

2010-11-15T11:18:00.000-05:00

In the United Methodist Church you will find many congregations named 'Aldersgate UMC' and likely if you have been around the UMC for a significant amount of time, or studied the life of John Wesley you have come across what has been deemed Wesley's 'Aldersgate Experience'. Wesley records this in his journal:

In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther's preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while the leader was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ alone for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away mysins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.

I have began to ask a few pastors within the UMC if they had ever read, or been required to read 'Luther's Preface to the Romans' and have found that the vast majority have not. Now certainly one does not have to read Luther's preface to understand Paul's Epistle to the Romans, but being a 'Wesleyan' denomination that appeals frequently to Wesley for it's understanding of scripture, you would think it would be incumbent upon UMC pastors to read the document which finally gave Wesley assurance of sins forgiven. The 'Aldersgate experience' gets mentioned frequently when talking about Wesley, yet few dare go to the source which precipitated the experience.

The emergent and missional movements have found a warm reception in the United Methodist Church, and one of the reasons they are so welcome there is because of how missional Wesley was. The missional mindset has been in the UMC since day one, and continues in it today. While I am not against all things missional, I do find it unfortunate that as a church we have failed to see that Wesley was missional, long before he was strangely warmed. What I mean is this, Wesley took huge risks traveling as a missionary, setting up societies, fighting against slavery, building orphanages, among many things, before he ever happened upon someone reading Luther's preface to the Romans there on Aldersgate street. Wesley did countless acts of piety and yet had no assurance of sin forgiven. Wesley did countless good things but had come to the point where it all seemed meaningless and that he wondered if he was still lost. This is where the missional movement leads its people, eventual despair. 'Missional' Christianity leads people to associate their status in the kingdom with their works in this world, and eventually when a person has a strong sense of their sin the goodness of their works is no longer a source of hope. The missional movement thrives on Matthew 25 when Jesus speaks of sheep and goats, yet never reads the text carefully enough to see that the sheep were unconscious of their piety while the goats put their hope in theirs. They miss the fact that the sheep and goats are separated in that passage prior to their works being evaluated, not on the basis of the work. We could go on an on here.

Anyway, I plead with Methodists who may come across this post to pick up a copy of Luther's Preface to the Romans, or read it online here. It is not long, and is well worth your time, and maybe you too could be strangely warmed. Here is an excerpt.

You must get used to the idea that it is one thing to do the works of the law and quite another to fulfill it. The works of the law are every thing that a person does or can do of his own free will and by his own powers to obey the law. But because in doing such works the heart abhors the law and yet is forced to obey it, the works are a total loss and are completely useless. That is what St. Paul means in chapter 3 when he says, "No human being is justified before God through the works of the law." From this you can see that the schoolmasters [i.e., the scholastic theologians] and sophists are seducers when they teach that you can prepare yourself for grace by means of works. How can anybody prepare himself for good by means of works if he does no good work except with aversion and constraint in his heart? How can such a work please God, if it proceeds from an averse and unwilling heart?

But to fulfill the law means to do its work eagerly, lovingly and freely, without the constraint of the law; it means to live well and in a manner pleasing to God, as though there were no law or punishment. It is the Holy Spirit, however, who puts such eagerness of unconstained love into the heart, as Paul says in chapter 5. But the Spirit is given only in, with, and through faith in Jesus Christ, as Paul says in his introduction. So, too, faith comes only through the word of God, the Gospel, that preaches Christ: how he is both Son of God and man, how he died and rose for our sake. Paul says all this in chapters 3, 4 and 10.

That is why faith alone makes someone just and fulfills the law; faith it is that brings the Holy Spirit through the merits of Christ. The Spirit, in turn, renders the heart glad and free, as the law demands. Then good works proceed from faith itself. That is what Paul means in chapter 3 when, after he has thrown out the works of the law, he sounds as though the wants to abolish the law by faith. No, he says, we uphold the law through faith, i.e. we fulfill it through faith.

Peace Friends.

Infant Baptism

2010-11-11T17:00:00.000-05:00

Acts 11:14 ESV "...he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.'

Acts 16:14-15 ESV One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. (15) And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.

Acts 16:30-31 ESV Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" (31) And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

Acts 18:8 ESV Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

One of the great divisive issues in the Church of Jesus Christ is the baptism of infants. In the United Methodist Church we firmly believe in infant baptism, and I am thankful for that. However, while growing up in the Methodist Church infant baptism was the one doctrine that I could not come to grips with. Whenever I would bring infant baptism into question I was always met with the "Jesus loves children" response, or with the "you don't know whether or not infants were a part of the 'households' mentioned in acts." (You can see the passages above.) Neither of these arguments ever satisfied me.

The fact that Jesus loves children in no way necessitates their baptism and though Jesus called the little children to come to him, he never called them to come to him for baptism. The "Jesus loves the children" argument just rings hollow. I have never met a baptist that would deny the love of Christ towards children, and because Christ loves children we should do all in our power to assure that children are afforded the opportunity to hear the Gospel of redemption. Nonetheless it is not adequate reason for infant baptism.

The other argument that "There may have been infants in the 'households' mentioned in acts" is an argument from silence. There may have been... that is true... and there may not have been. It seems absurd to base a doctrine as important as baptism on a "might have been" type of argument. Arguments from silence are used constantly in liberal Christianity, because you can argue anything from silence. For instance, Jesus never spoke on homosexuality, and homosexuals existed then, therefore because Jesus never said anything it is ok. That is an argument from silence, yet you can make the argument then that everything which Jesus never spoke about is permissible, which is a foolish stance to take. I bring this up, not to make a point against the homosexual, but to make a point against arguing from silence.

In the setting I grew up in, these two primary arguments for infant baptism were the only arguments I heard. While listening to friends from believer baptizing churches speak I sensed that their arguments were far stronger than the ones I had heard, therefore it was settled in my mind that infant baptism was not biblical. So how did I ever come to the understanding that infant baptism was indeed proper, and even biblically normative? It was not through what I heard in the UMC. I will say that the term 'infant baptism' is not really a term I like, I prefer 'household baptism'. The reason for baptizing infants is not because "there might have been infants in the household", the reason for baptizing infants is that it was and is biblically normative that entire households be baptized when the head of household comes to faith in Christ. It is difficult to refute. We have no instances of explicit infant baptism, yet household baptism is clearly a biblical norm. Why do I baptize infants, because I baptize households, and the infant happens to be a part of that household.

This is completely consistent with the old testament as well, when a non-Jew converted, they and their household would be ceremonially washed (baptism) and circumcised. You cannot get through either the Old or the New Testament avoiding th reality of the household as a single unit. How many promises of God must we read that are for you and your offspring before you will begin to see that the physical family has spiritual covenant implications. God makes promises not only to us, but to our children as well, which by that promise makes them a part of the covenant of promise. Does that mean our children will be automatically redeemed, no, not at all, but it does mean they are a part of a covenant family because their heads of household believe. Did all circumcised Jews follow the Lord? Of course not, yet they were all a part of the covenant of circumcision. Baptism is no different. Baptism is all about a covenant relationship with God through Christ, families enter into this covenant together. Is the entire baptized family secure, no, salvation is by faith, not baptism, yet baptism is entry into that covenant community. Are all members of your church saved? Probably not, but they are all members of your covenant community.

Methodists, we have good reason to baptize households, including their infants, but the reason is not 'Jesus loves kids', and it is not that "there might have been infants in the household", our reason is because it establishes those in the household as members of the covenant community of faith.

A Methodist's Discovery of the Reformation

2010-11-11T09:54:00.000-05:00

Well, I am dusting off the blog and beginning to post again, only now with a very specific purpose in mind that will hopefully at least intrigue a couple of people. I have grown up in the United Methodist Church, and have been employed by the United Methodist Church for the last 4 years of my life, 3 in youth ministry, and now as a Sr. Pastor in a mid-sized congregation. Over the course of these last four years I have experienced a drastic shift in my theology as I have discovered the doctrines of the reformation.

This blog's new intention is to document some of the things I wrestle with as my belief becomes increasingly reformed, yet while I also minister in the UMC, and how I minister in the UMC in a way that does not violate my core 'reformed' beliefs. My goals are in no way to disparage the UMC, but to offer a unique viewpoint that might be intriguing both to my Methodist and 'reformed' (Lutheran and/or Calvinistic) brothers and sisters.

Peace,

Jay Miklovic

Cultural Context

2010-08-09T15:49:00.001-04:00

Context is everything. Culture is not necessarily immoral, but it is also not necessarily amoral either, for instance, the goofy large sunglasses that girls are wearing now and the aviator glasses that the guys wear, these styles are culturally driven, and are completely amoral. You would have to be a legalist of the worst sort to pronounce condemnation on someone for the type of sunglasses they wear. This is a cultural fad with no moral implications. At the same time, we must also recognize that not all cultural issues are amoral, for instance the cultural tendency to mock father figures in popular television shows is immoral. The issue is not a mere issue of cultural preference but is an attack on God’s created order, and an undermining of the systems of authority He has set up. So it is never safe to say that something is acceptable because culture accepts it, and at the same time it is never acceptable to condemn a cultural fad solely on the basis that it is a culture issue. Acceptable practice must be determined by the word of God, and not culture.

The legalist screams ‘separate’ with regards to all culture... and if they decide to be completely consistent in their separation they will eventually be Amish (few dare to endeavor to be that consistent.) At the same time those who try to contextualize everything to the culture will begin using material that is clearly immoral in their presentation of the Gospel, ie certain movie clips, tv shows, music... etc. The point is that culture is merely the accepted practice of the populous, that’s it. Sometimes it is perfectly legitimate, other times it is sin, and all of the time we must be wise in our discernment of culture.

What is said above is pretty obvious, but there is a much more insidious danger caused by culture that goes largely unnoticed. The effect of culture on the population whether it is immoral or amoral can and does cause deception beyond what we can imagine. The effect that culture has on every one of us is beyond our own comprehension, and if we do not consider it while reading the scriptures we will misunderstand nearly everything we read.

For instance a common verse used in youth ministry is 1 Tim 4:12

Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. (1 Timothy 4:12 ESV)

In our American ‘don’t tread on me’ thinking this verse takes on a meaning that has been accepted as orthodox by almost all of the professing church in America. The verse is understood to mean that our youth should not let people look down on them, and that they are equal parts of the kingdom, and that they need to be empowered, and they have a say... etc. Our culture of ‘nobody walks on me’ thinking has led us to see this verse as a youth empowerment verse. However that is nearly the opposite of the actual meaning of the verse. Paul is warning Timothy to give the Church no reason to despise His youthfulness. He is commanding Timothy to so order His life that He would be an example of maturity that the older congregation would be able to pattern themselves after. This verse is not an affirmation of the value of youthfulness, instead it is a command to leave youthfulness and to live as a mature man before the Church. The actual meaning of this verse is the opposite of what is for the most part taught, and it is because we have viewed this passage through our context and not its original context.

The whole of John 3:1-21 we do the very same thing. In America born-againism is a cultural norm. We have preached ‘ye must be born again’ to the point where many Christians identify themselves as ‘born-again Christians’, as though ‘born-again Christian’ is the standard term for an orthodox believer. This discourse of Jesus to Nicodemus in John 3:1-21 also includes the famed John 3:16 which in and of itself is a verse that is engrained in our culture.

But what is happening in this discourse? Jesus is affirming that all people must come into the New Covenant in order to be saved, specifically that Nicodemus’ Jewish ancestry was not sufficient to save, but that He must be born of water and spirit... that is He must be born again because His first birth into Israel is not sufficient. Do you see what is happening here? This verse John 3:3 which says ‘you must be born again’ is specifically laid forth to establish that the Jew cannot rely on His lineage to save Him. This was not some universal call out to the world, this was a midnight discourse between Jesus and a Pharisee. Context is everything. Now must everyone be born again to be saved? Well what to do you mean? It is a bad term to use with regard to “everybody”. This discourse was not a blanket command to everybody. We may also look at John 3:16. What is the purpose of this verse... again it is Jesus saying that God’s love and salvation is not limited to the Jews, but that He so loved the world, that whosoever (Jew or Gentile) believed shall not perish. The thrust of John 3:16 is similar to the thrust of John 3:3, and that is that the Gospel is effective and necessary for the Jew, and is also inclusive of the Gentiles. Moreover in John 3:17-18 we see that Jesus is showing that not only gentiles, but Jews also will be condemned for unbelief.

Instead of taking these texts in their original context, we have put them in our own and it has distorted the whole thing. We think that John 3:3 is a universal call to all to be born again and we miss that it is more about the establishment of a new covenant between God and all people. Moreover we misread John 3:16 when we take it to be God loving this whole world just waiting for people to believe in Him so that they may be saved. This is not the case, what the text is saying is that salvation has gone out beyond the Jews only, but even into the world. It is as though Jesus is saying “For God so loves the world, Nicodemus, not only the Jews that whoever believes will not perish but have everlasting life.” Moreover Jesus goes on “And those who have not believed, well they are condemned already, whether you are Jew or not doesn’t matter”.

Can you see how our culture causes distortion?

The scriptures certainly speak to us today, but they speak to us from their original context. The scriptures still communicate the same truth they always have and in order to understand the original truth they spoke you must be willing to look at the original context they were spoken in.

a great word from JC Ryle

2010-03-18T12:49:00.001-04:00

Writing on John 1:29 from ‘Expository Thoughts on the Gospels’

“Let us take heed that in all our thoughts of Christ, we first think of Him as John the Baptist here represents Him. Let us serve him faithfully as our Master. Let us obey him loyally as our King. Let us study His teaching as our Prophet. Let us walk diligently after him as our Example. Let us look anxiously for him as our coming Redeemer of body as well as soul. But above all, let us prize him as our Sacrifice, and rest our whole weight on his death as an atonement for sin.” – JC Ryle

I am finding JC Ryle’s expository thoughts to be indispensible in sermon prep when preaching out of the Gospels. What a blessing... plus you can get all 4 vols for under $40 on amazon. Would recommend Ryle to anyone in ministry, from the 4^th grade Sunday school teacher to the nursing home chaplain, really a tremendous resource.

Jay

Posted via email from jmiklovic's posterous

This might be it for the tenth letter

2010-03-01T15:29:00.000-05:00

I think the tenth letter may be finished...

I think this is my 206th post at this blog, which began a few years back at SermonAudio, and then migrated here, and I think it might be the last post as well.

I am currently serving as the Pastor of a rural Church outside of Fostoria, as well as being the Youth Pastor of a Church here in Maumee full time, of greater importance than those two vocations I am a husband (my primary ministry), a father (my secondary ministry).

Blogging has been a great outlet for me to work through things theologically in a public venue. This has served its purpose but really is not the venue I feel called to work things out in anymore. Underlying my blogging has been a desire to heard, and respected. I'm done with that, and am seeking contentment in laboring in obscurity trusting the Father to illumine His Son through me outside of this, and other venues that could lead to self glorification. I'll still tweet @yfmumc but that is as close to blogging as I plan on getting for awhile. If the Lord impels me again to publicly blog I will. I am grateful to faithful bloggers who provide me much encouragement.

What my wife needs is a husband who seeks hard after God to know him intimately even when the rest of the world thinks he is going to deep to be practical. What my son and daughter need is a father who seeks hard after God to know him intimately. What the youth ministry at Maumee UMC needs is leadership that seeks hard after God to know him intimately. What the congregation at Rehoboth UMC needs is a Pastor who seeks hard after God to know him intimately. Currently, blogging does not fit into the 'seeking to know Him more intimately' mission for me. Someday blogging may again serve that purpose but not now.

Currently I am laboring over a number of classic books on the 'Attributes of God' (right now I am bouncing between Stephen Charnock and Pink) and will continue with others. I also have a couple systematic theologies I desire to be looking at. Of course underlying a lot of this is attempting to understand my direction in ministry (both family, and institution) which must be rooted in nothing less than the character of God. (thus the study of attributes and systematic theology.) Of course undergirding all of this is meditation upon the scriptures and reading and also listening through the entire cannon repeatedly on the iPod.

I guess what I am saying is... see ya it's been real.

So for anyone who happens to stop by, read the archives if you want... but you would do better to pick up some of the classics written by men and women far wiser than me.

#77 – What the Gospels Teach – The Disciples Sent – Matthew 10:1-8

2009-12-04T22:37:00.000-05:00

Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed Him. These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. "And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.' "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give. (Matthew 10:1-8 NASB)

Jesus gathers the twelve, gives them authority, and sends them. First realize that they are not sent to perform miracles because of some level of piety or faith that they have acquired. They are given authority by Christ, because Christ chose to give them (the twelve) authority. This may seem trivial, but it’s not. This text must never be used to promote healings, recitations of the dead, and casting out of demons, on the basis of faith and righteousness. It was not by the working of the twelve that any of these things happened, it was merely by the authority Christ gave. Again these things only happen by the authority given by God, and in the case of this passage it was unique to twelve individuals (who might I add did not yet realize that Christ was even the Son of God.) The other thing interesting about this passage is that Christ did not send the Disciples to the gentiles. Now if this is the normal Christian life, raising the dead, casting out demons, healing every kind of sickness, then is the normal Christian life also only to go the lost sheep of Israel? Of course not! The point is that this sending is unique... it is not the Christian standard.

This is a short post, but it is important when you read a text like this to take it at face value. First, this was authority given by Christ to twelve men, and not universally to all the disciples who followed Him around. Second it was authority given by Christ not on the basis of merit, prayer life, piety, faith, or anything else other than the will of Christ. Finally this mission was only to the lost sheep of Israel.

There is a lot more to say in the upcoming posts, but I did not want to bite off more than 8 verses for 1 post.

#76 – What the Gospels Teach – The Compassion of Christ – Matthew 9:35-38

2009-11-19T15:31:00.000-05:00

Jesus was going through all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. Seeing the people, He felt compassion for them, because they were distressed and dispirited like sheep without a shepherd. Then He *said to His disciples, "The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. "Therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest." (Matthew 9:35-38 NASB)

This is an important text to consider and a simple reading of it may reveal some areas of failure in American Christianity, especially within the Church growth movement, and prosperity movement. Jesus is traveling as an itinerate preacher from synagogue to synagogue preaching the gospel of the kingdom (repentance and faith). Moreover He is healing sickness and disease. I have labored much over this on this blog, but it is critical to see the balance of Christ’s ministry, teaching and preaching the Gospel and service to the sick and in need. It is always both and. If you neglect proclaiming the gospel you are a humanist service org, and if you neglect service you are a resounding gong. We read that Jesus sees the people and has compassion on them... what people? The distressed and dispirited... In response to what He sees He tells the disciples that the harvest is plentiful and to seek God to send out workers. Who is the harvest? The distressed and the dispirited.

The reason I say this text has serious implications to American Christendom and particularly the Church Growth movement is that in most Growth focused ministries it is not the distressed and dispirited that are harvested. People take surveys, find the growing areas, look at financial statistics, and so on, then they plant a church where it is most likely to grow. Look! The Church is not about growing, it is about harvesting. Jesus did not say look there is fertile soil, go plant... He says there is a harvest go pluck. Again, in our strategizing we look for people who will be able to financially support growth, once that is shored up we will go to the distressed and dispirited, and we end up harvesting the wrong crop into our barn.

Does God desire that those who are affluent be redeemed? Well He certainly does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, but if He desires the affluent, spirited, and non-distressed to be redeemed, He will redeem them thru the witness of the Church going to the distressed! Our job is to seek conformity to Christ in all things, and that includes serving and seeking those whom He commanded us to serve and seek. I could ramble on forever on this. For instance, we go all seeker sensitive, should we be the seekers of the lost. We know from scripture that no one seeks God, but instead that God seeks them, and He sends us into the harvest for that.

I have to end here due to time.

#75 – What the Gospels Teach – The Accusation Against Christ – Matthew 9:32-34

2009-11-12T22:07:00.001-05:00

As they were going out, a mute, demon-possessed man was brought to Him. After the demon was cast out, the mute man spoke; and the crowds were amazed, and were saying, "Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel." But the Pharisees were saying, "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons." (Matthew 9:32-34 NASB)

This passage gives us a little bit of insight into how Jesus was received, and we would do well to understand this little bit. First, when the crowds saw what He did they were amazed, seeing that one who was possessed was exorcised and could speak again. The initial reaction of the people was positive to Christ’s ministry. At the same time the Pharisees injected doubt into their minds, saying that it is by the ruler of the demons that Jesus cast out demons. Notice that the Pharisees cannot deny what Christ has done, but they can deny how and why He has done it. Ultimately the Pharisees stance on Christ will gain more adherents than the truth about Christ will gain, and He will be nailed to a cross in light of that. There is a lot to be considered here.

First, we need to have a biblical understanding of persecution. Christ clearly was being persecuted by the Pharisees for the entirety of His ministry on earth, but notice how the persecution came. Jesus was not persecuted overtly for righteousness sake, instead the Pharisees conjured up doubt in the minds of the people around Him. It was not at all that they were opposed to the works of Christ, they were opposed to the person of Christ, and more than that the Father who gave Him the authority to perform those works. If we are to be persecuted we will not be persecuted as ‘Christians’, or ‘for our good deeds’. We will not be persecuted on the basis of truth, but on the basis of lies. Jesus did not cast out demons by the ruler of demons, but that was accusation. Unfortunately Christians have a very false sense in these days of what persecution is really going to be like. We have a thin skinned view that somehow taking ‘In God We Trust’ off money, or removing the pledge of allegiance from the schools somehow amounts to persecution. We are too busy fighting the wrong battles.

Real persecution when it comes will come more in the form of lies. Maybe we will be accused of being pedophiles, or murders, or homophobes or whatever. When you see people talking about how Christians are out shooting up abortion clinics, even though the death of Dr. Tiller was the first clinic shooting in nearly 10 years, that is a form of the persecution that is to come. When everything said by the secular and unbelieving religious community about genuine Christians becomes lies then we know real persecution has arrived. We need to shed this romantic view of persecution that we have, because it is not the biblical view. When we are persecuted it will not be some glorious suffering in the eyes of the world, or even our brethren, no it will be embarrassing lies, half-truths, and misconceptions that are spread about us.

Jesus was not criticized for what He did, instead He was lied about. We ought to expect the same.

#74 – What the Gospels Teach – Jesus not Stopping - Matthew 9:27-31

2009-11-11T13:45:00.000-05:00

As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed Him, crying out, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!" When He entered the house, the blind men came up to Him, and Jesus *said to them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" They *said to Him, "Yes, Lord." Then He touched their eyes, saying, "It shall be done to you according to your faith." And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly warned them: "See that no one knows about this!" But they went out and spread the news about Him throughout all that land. (Matthew 9:27-31 NASB)

This text brings forth a couple interesting points. First, notice that the blind men were following Jesus, and followed Him all the way to a house. The chronology of this, can be missed if we read it too quickly. We have this assumption that Jesus sees these two blind men has mercy on them and heals them, but the passage says something altogether different than that. Two blind men were following Jesus and crying out “Have mercy on us, Son of David!” We have no indication of how long they followed, or how far this house was away, but we do see that at the house they caught up to Him, and then He healed them. It is important to notice the unique nature of all of these healings. In one case we have a woman touching the garment of Christ, another where a man calls Christ to His home to raise His daughter, some healing of the unclean, and other miracles performed for Roman leaders, the healings are all very unique. In the case of this healing the blind men had to pursue Jesus crying out, and eventually had to catch up to Him. This is not the typical image we get of Jesus, normally we think of Him stopping to serve all and not walking on to His next stop while people in need are crying out. You cannot call this healing the ‘normal’ method, but at the same time you cannot call it abnormal either. The point is that there is no standard protocol for healing. God is not going to be manipulated or convinced to heal based on your 12 steps, or your specific program. Healing is unique and not bound to a system.

The second point is Jesus’ stern warning. “See that no one knows about this!” Why was Jesus stern? Was He avoiding these people for a reason, and then giving in and healing them, but not without issuing a stern warning? Why would He give a command He knew they wouldn’t keep? Was it sin when they went and spread the news? The sternness of Jesus’ warning should at least give us a clue that He meant business, this was not a trite, “let this be our little secret” type thing, but instead it was a forceful command. This healing is enigmatic to me, the only compassion Jesus’ offers is the healing itself, but the time leading up to the healing He is walking away from them, and the time after the healing He is issuing a stern warning. There is no forgiveness of sin mentioned, no looking upon them with compassion, it was more of a cold healing. Did these men ‘use’ Jesus? Did Jesus know that these men were yet unregenerate and did not want them proclaiming Christ so as to cause His name to be blasphemed? Obviously these are questions I have no answers to, but I do think this healing deserves more than a cursory look, as its uniqueness is important to the Gospel narrative.

On a side note, I have been posting much less lately and I really miss it. Writing has kinda fallen out of my routine as I have begun pursuing Greek. At the same time Greek has fallen out temporarily too, and I have been wasting time laying in bed until 7 or later. Lack of discipline leads to all sorts of malady and lack of joy so I resolve by the grace of God to shed this temporary apathy. Not promising more posts, but hopefully that will be a result of this resolve.

#73 – What the Gospel Teaches - A healing within a healing – Matthew 9:18-26

2009-10-30T17:28:00.001-04:00

While he was saying these things to them, behold, a ruler came in and knelt before him, saying, "My daughter has just died, but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live." And Jesus rose and followed him, with his disciples. And behold, a woman who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, for she said to herself, "If I only touch his garment, I will be made well." Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, "Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well." And instantly the woman was made well. And when Jesus came to the ruler's house and saw the flute players and the crowd making a commotion, he said, "Go away, for the girl is not dead but sleeping." And they laughed at him. But when the crowd had been put outside, he went in and took her by the hand, and the girl arose. And the report of this went through all that district. (Matthew 9:18-26 ESV)

There are so many facets to this narrative it is hard to handle in one post. At the same time the resurrection of the dead girl cannot be separated from the healing of the woman who touched His garment considering the touching of the garment is a narrative within the narrative. Let’s take the two miracles together; the resurrection miracle was precipitated by a ruler addressing Christ face to face. The curing of the hemorrhage was precipitate by a woman secretly touching the garment of Christ. The resurrection miracle was a miracle requested on behalf of a daughter, the hemorrhage miracle was requested by the one being healed. These two miracles are very different in many ways, and yet they exist right here within each other, and in the divine plan of God we presume it is this way for a reason.

People’s propensity towards Pharisaic thinking was known by God. God is immutable, and yet humanity at large, as well as on a personal level are constantly in a state of flux. Our tendency is to swing from complete and utter immorality as an unbeliever into a gracious appreciation for Christ as a new believer, and then often we swing past gracious appreciation in order to create rules and regulations to impose upon people beyond what the bible imposes. What does this have to do with this text? Everything! Had Christ performed these miracles in separate contexts one could be led to believe that it is either the faith of someone else that must heal you, or that it is the faith of yourself that brings you healing. Had Christ performed these miracles in separate contexts someone could assert that Christ has a preference towards rulers and people who can stand face to face with Him, or on the flip side that He only regards the poor who are afraid to be seen by Him. Throughout the scriptures we find instances like these where the Lord is working in two or more very different ways simultaneously with two different types of people. Certainly I do not want to get all post-modern here and say there are not absolutes regarding how God acts, God forbid that I would give that idea. However, texts like this remind us that it is He who defines those absolutes in His word, not us. Many in the emergent movement would (though not vocally) have preferred that Christ would not have responded to the ruler’s faith but only responded to woman, this could justify their ‘social justice is everything’ mentality. On the flip side many fundamentalists struggle with the idea of this woman being made whole coming in through the back door and then facing Jesus. (See Luke 8:44-48 for a more in depth narrative.) The beauty of this passage is that the one healing is encapsulated in the other making them forever inseparable even though they are very much different from each other.

Of course there are many other important truths that can be gleaned from this passage. For instance, Christ is about bigger things than healing a hemorrhage that could obviously be lived with right? I mean it is more important to raise the dead? No, not at all, Jesus stops for the ‘lesser’ healing. Personal application here is pretty obvious, just because God is about dealing with bigger things in this world than your life, does not mean He is not about dealing with your life. Or what about the laughter of the people in the midst of the death of this girl, and their utter brazenness and lack of compassion, and yet the desperation that led the ruler to believe on Christ for the miracle. Of course what about how foolish they must have felt when she walked in on her own funeral... alive. There is a lot of good stuff here, but I will stop right here and move on to the next passage in the next post.

It has been difficult posting lately. I hope to ramp it back up a bit, as I have found that writing through this gospel has been a great help to me, cannot promise to be daily though.

#72- What the Gospels Teach – New Cloth and Wine – Matthew 9:14-17

2009-10-23T17:36:00.000-04:00

Then the disciples of John *came to Him, asking, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?" And Jesus said to them, "The attendants of the bridegroom cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast. "But no one puts a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and a worse tear results. "Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved." (Matthew 9:14-17 NASB)

Ok, I want to tread very carefully on this passage. Please note at the very outset that I have a lot of trouble understanding this text. While one could argue that this entire Gospel of Matthew Series is a matter of my personal opinion (I would not agree that it is) I will confess that in this post I am stretching to make a connection and this is more of an opinion than a proclamation of an absolute.

It would be inappropriate to take this passage in two sections as it is clear from the context that the parable concerning the unshrunk cloth and the new wineskins are meant as explanations as to why the disciples do not fast. The text is inseparable, and to preach the parable of the wineskins and the cloth outside of the context of fasting would be dishonest. Now in the text we find that the Pharisees fast and the disciples of John fast but the Disciples of Christ do not fast at all. We also see with clarity that after Christ (the bridegroom) is taken away from them they will indeed fast. Of course mourning and fasting cannot occur in the presence of the bridegroom while they are yet together because it is to be a time of joy and not of mourning. Now Jesus gives this parable in order to explain what the results of His disciples fasting would be if indeed they fasted before His death, resurrection, and ascension.

Jesus knows full well that in the fulfillment of the Law, with the kingdom of God at hand, the ritual of fasting takes on an entirely different meaning. The disciples will fast because of the absence of the bridegroom, they will fast as a sign of their longing for the presence of Christ. They will fast as ones seek Christ, not out of religious obligation or to display righteousness, but out of honest longing for the Lord and His presence and out of honest gratitude for what He has done. Now, in light of that, it would make no sense that they would fast while in His presence if the reason for their fasting was to be His absence and gratitude for what He had done. If the ‘new’ reason for fasting is a longing for the Lord we cannot fast with the ‘new’ reason by performing the old ritual. In other words, the legalistic once or twice a week fast of the Pharisees did not reflect honest gratitude for what Christ has done, and pain of missing Christ. So you have the rough unshrunk and scratchy cloth of missing Christ along with the wine of gratitude for what He has done... you cannot sew the loss of Christ to the fabric of a ritual, or fill a wineskin of obligation with the wine of Gratitude. If you try, you will lose the wine of gratitude when the ritualistic skin cannot contain it and you will be left with nothing. And when you sew that rough new cloth of longing for Christ to the old smooth cloth of ritual the longing for Christ will be destroyed and you will be left with damaged ritual. The new fast has a new reason, and the old ritual cannot be made one with the new fast.

Again please understand that I took some liberty with this text, and I hope that I did not go too far in making it say something that it does not really say. I am open to your thoughts on the passage if you have any. Please correct me if necessary.

The Semantics of the Tulip

2009-10-19T16:21:00.001-04:00

I have debated whether or not to write on this topic, or whether or not it was appropriate for this blog, especially as this blog has migrated more towards begin a reflection of my reading through Matthew. Nonetheless as trivial as this deviation from Matthew may seem to some, it does seem rather important to me. So being as this is my little public venue I suppose there is no better place to put this then here.

In recent months I have found myself aligning more and more with a Reformed understanding of the Christian faith, and have come to believe that for the most part the ‘Reformed’ position seems to be the biblical position. I know this is a bit of an over simplification as there are many breeds of ‘reformed’ Christians, and that to simply say ‘Reformed theology is biblical’ is really not saying anything at all unless you define that theology. Now please understand I write this in humility knowing that I am no scholar. I will address the 5 points of Calvinism known by the acronym tulip. Personally I do not know the entire history of these points, except that they were a rebuttal to the theology of Amininus. Specifically the five points of contention that the Arminians had with Calvin which they presented at the Remonstrance of 1610. Again, I am open to correction on any of this. So in preparing this post I looked into the Canon’s of Dort and realized that there is no express ‘tulip’ anywhere in it... TULIP seems to be the summary of what the Synod of Dort came up with in rebuttal to the Remonstrance of 1610. ANYWAY... most of us who have never done the major research on this simply know Calvinism as the acronym of TULIP and we accept it or reject it based on an oversimplified summary of the Cannons of Dort. (Again if I am saying anything wrong, please, please, please... correct me, I really do not feel like looking like an imbecile on the web.)

So, in light of the fact that the majority of Christians (Calvinist or non-Calvinist) understanding of Calvinism is reduced to the simplified TULIP acronym I plan to share how I initially accepted Calvinism, then rejected it altogether, and have returned to accept it. Moreover I propose to explain why semantics of the TULIP drove myself and others away. Also, I do not propose to change these points, and fully recognize that many scholars have labored over these points many years even lifetimes and I am not a man who has earned any standing by which to say this system is all wrong.

Total Depravity

Unconditional Election

Limited Attonement

Irresistible Grace

Perseverance of the Saints

Beginning with TOTAL DEPRAVITY, I would say this is the one point of the five that I personally have never taken issue with. Even in the Articles of Faith of the Methodist Church penned by Wesley (an inconsistent Arminian) asserts the total depravity of man in a way that even the most reformed of theologians would gladly accept. While I have never looked at the Remonstrance of 1610, I am curious as to how they differed on this. It is however popular today for people to ‘try to find the good in others’ and if indeed the person is unregenerate that good will never be found, and if they are regenerate the only good that will be found is the Christ Himself who dwells within them. I like the term Entirely Fallen even though I think total depravity is an adequate expression of the same thing. Entirely Fallen makes the logical connection to the fall and how it has completely effected us in our entirety.

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION. This is the second place where I began to struggle against Calvinism. In the scriptures we find conditions upon salvation... mainly repentance and faith without which no one will be saved. The word unconditional taken at face value seems unbiblical and provides the non-Calvinist, or even the weak Calvinist a reason to reject this point. It would be better if ‘unconditional’ were left off of this point, or replaced with the word Sovereign. Sovereign Election communicates the simple fact that it is entirely the working and will of God which elects a soul, but does not raise the question about conditions. Again, there are conditions to election, conditions which the Sovereign God has determined to fulfill in us and through us, entirely of His working an power. I know this sounds nitpicky or whatever, but when I hear unconditional my gut response is that ‘unconditional election’ negates any requirement for repentance and faith which indeed would go against scripture. (Just a reminder that this is me explaining the difficulties I have had with Calvinism because of semantics, not because of the actual doctrines meanings.)

LIMITED ATTONEMENT. This is the doctrine that most non-Calvinists and some 4-point Calvinists take the most exception to. I also for a long time rejected this doctrine based on the words ‘Limited Atonement’ however today the my understanding of limited atonement brings me tremendous comfort and peace with God. The difficulty for me was with the term ‘limited’. How can anything having to do with Christ the infinite God be limited? Even the atonement itself has resulted in benefit to all people regardless of whether their sins have been atoned for or not. It is because of the atonement that the benevolence of Christians has benefitted and salted the entire earth. In that sense there is no limits to Christ’s atonement. I prefer the term Specific Atonement to that of limited atonement. When I realize that God with all of time laid out before Him, and all the actions and sin that man would ever commit before His face knowing full well who His children were... that He would then look at all the sins of His children (elect) and pour His wrath out specifically for those sins on His Son... well I find great comfort knowing that my sins have specifically been atoned for... every single one. Specific atonement in my limited opinion is a far better way of communication what the 3^rd point of Calvinism is attempting to communicate. There is a lot peace and gratitude for Christ that comes when you consider a Specific atonement... however when you consider ‘limited’ atonement it seems that you consider a ‘limited’ Christ. Again, it is semantics, but semantics do matter as they have caused my doctrines to move all over the place over the last 8 years.

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE. If there were any point that has made me question Calvinism it would be the point of irresistible grace. The simple praxis of life and the evidence of every believer and non-believer alike seems to scream of resistance against grace. The term irresistible grace seems to be a contradiction to total depravity. Again, when you reduce the five points down to a simple acronym this type of confusion is bound to arise. Grace is resistible in the sense that fallen man, and even the redeemed man have a propensity towards resisting grace. The point is not that one cannot resist grace, the point is that resistance is futile. Again, this is semantics, but I cannot be the only person who has struggled much with these things because of semantics. In the Specific Atonement Christ indeed died for the sins of the ‘Elect’ all of the sins, so for a man who has been ‘Elect’ to die unregenerate is indeed an impossibility. The conditions of salvation will be met by all who are elect and specifically atoned for... the conditions of faith and repentance. Resistance of Grace must be futile, and the power of Grace must be supreme because it is only by that Grace that the specifically atoned for are saved. I guess my proposed rewording would be Omnipotent Grace. Again, the reason being that grace can be resisted, but grace cannot be overpowered, resistance to grace though possible and even probable is still none the less futile.

PERSERVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. There are definitely some difficult passages that at face value speak against the perseverance of the saints, the classic passages being in Hebrews 6:4-6 and Hebrews 10:26. At the same time we find other passages that seem to speak to the fact that those given to Christ will never fall away, or will indeed be preserved. The difference is in practice and reality. Those who have made a strong profession of faith, who seemed to follow hard after Jesus, but never truly believed will be case hardened against the Gospel after they formally reject the Gospel they merely thought they believed. Those who have come to true repentance and faith will indeed persevere. Of the 5 points I think this is the one that I would not think to suggest a different name for. It seems to communicate it just fine. However, because I renamed the others I will do so here for the sake of consistency and say the Continuance of Salvation. This communicates that a believer will not only be preserved but the fruit of salvation will also continue because of their regenerated nature. It changes from Once Saved Always Saved, to Once Saved Continually Saved.

So Jay’s points of Calvinism (which I think say the same thing as the actual cannons that the TULIP is a simplification of) would be ESSOC, well that isn’t too memorable.

Entirely Fallen

Sovereign Election

Specific Atonement

Omnipotent Grace

Continuance of Salvation

#71 – What the Gospels Teach – Not the Righteous but Sinners – Matthew 9:9-13

2009-10-19T11:46:00.000-04:00

As Jesus went on from there, He saw a man called Matthew, sitting in the tax collector's booth; and He *said to him, "Follow Me!" And he got up and followed Him. Then it happened that as Jesus was reclining at the table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were dining with Jesus and His disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to His disciples, "Why is your Teacher eating with the tax collectors and sinners?" But when Jesus heard this, He said, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick. "But go and learn what this means: 'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners." (Matthew 9:9-13 NASB)

This is a passage that has been abused so often by the Church as a means to justify licentiousness and folly. How often do we hear some evangelical say ‘where would Jesus hang out, and with who’ and everyone chimes in ‘He would be in the bars, and with prostitutes, and at the night clubs.’ Of course they will site this passage and others that on the surface seem to support their proposition, and in some sense I agree entirely with what they are saying. Jesus indeed would have hung out in the night clubs... with harlots and drunks. Now the next logical step is always to say that we need to be like Christ... to walk as He walked, and to do the things that he has done. Therefore logically we too must go to the night clubs, visit the drunks and prostitutes and so on. Again, I would agree with this as well... but it is not the complete story.

What was Christ’s purpose of reclining with ‘sinners’? To call sinners... to call them to what? Well what is Christ’s consistent call throughout the Gospel narrative? Repentance and faith! Jesus reclines with sinners, not as if He is one of them, He does not lower Himself by any means or become a sinner, but He enters the situation as a physician not as a sick man. He enters with the intent of healing to call sinners to repentance. His intent is to call those who are in sin to follow Him. Now are we to go to these places as Christ has gone? Of course... but only if we go with the purpose He went with. Our problem is that we will use this passage and others to justify worldliness as opposed to reading this passage and being empowered as missionaries to these environments. You see, if you are in this environment participating in sin you miss the point. Who wants a physician who is always sick? And if I am always sick do you really want to see my doctor? Of course not, yet if we drink down sin like water our message of a savior that leads us out of sin becomes invalid. We are called to be in the world, are not called to be like the world and there is all the difference in the world.

Now one of the other problems with the interpretation of this verse is that whenever a believer is rebuked for participating in ungodliness the will accuse the one rebuking of being like the Pharisees who questioned what Christ was doing. However, the accusation against the one rebuking is entirely out of bounds unless the Christian is in the environment of sinfulness as an intentional missionary bringing the healing message of the Gospel.

Also, one think you may consider, the Pharisees approached the disciples and asked why Jesus was in eating with the sinners, do you notice that the disciples were not in eating with them? Did you notice that it was Christ in there calling them out to follow Him, yet the disciples were on the outside being approached by the Pharisees? Now do not take this too far either. As believers we are not called to stand on the outside and wait for Christ to go in. We have been given the Holy Spirit and may indeed be called to go in and proclaim the salvation Christ offers if that is the Spirit’s direction. At the same time the Spirit never impels us to sin so that grace may abound.

Ok I suppose I have beat that into the ground enough.

Giving vs. Generosity

2009-10-15T22:59:00.001-04:00

I came across this article at Dan Dick’s United Methodeviations blog and it got me thinking. I confess I did not read much of the post, but what I read was eye opening and got me going a little bit, and I would like to comment a bit on it.

So here goes a quick break from the gospel series. Giving is an action born out of obligation, just like every other act of the law. The law is only fulfilled when the fulfillment of the law, or righteousness becomes the desire of the person, not the duty of the person. Of course the only way to shed the duty of the law and have it replaced with a desire for the fulfillment of the law is by regeneration. Regeneration is the gracious work of Christ that converts our hearts from feeling the obligation to work, to the desire to work out of gratitude for what He has done. In other words, the righteous actions that were once laborious become our joy, and the sin which we once enjoyed has become a thorn.

What does this have to do with giving? Most churches spend so much time on convincing unconverted church members to fight against their unregenerate nature in order to fund and continue doing the various ministries of the church. Campaigns are set up to make people feel good about doing what they really do not want to do, and getting them excited to participate and commit to something they lack desire to participate in. The problem is not that people are stingy the problem is that they are unconverted. One of the marks of true belief is a generous spirit that feels a healthy indebtedness to Christ who has given all. Generosity is the natural outflow of the converted man. The generous man has no problem giving from his abundance and it takes little convincing to get him to participate in something when he is sure it is the Lord’s will. However for the unregenerate you must dangle some carrot of ‘what you get in return’ in order to get them to give. Whether it is a new building, the promise of great new ministries that they could us, a bigger and better staff, or something as simple as being able to run the AC in the summer, and clear the snow of the lot in the winter. The point is that the unregenerate must know what they are getting in return because they are giving out of obligation, their desire is not to give, but they may indeed give if they realize that their giving ultimately has personal benefit to them. It is the difference between someone who eats broccoli because they know they should, and someone who eats it because they love it. The regenerate man gives because it is in his nature, and is his desire to do so, the unregenerate gives because they believe somehow it is good for them.

So how does a church become financially healthy? Faithful proclamation of the Gospel... period! Regenerated people will be generous and support the Godly mission and vision of a church. If the members of your church never step up... maybe it is because they have yet to truly believe unto salvation. Now a word of caution, if your church is in the middle of all sorts of projects that may not be of the Lord, do not expect the people of the Lord to give generously to that which is not His will. If God indeed gives a real vision, He will also supply the means for that vision through His people... not by begging campaigning and coercing, but by bold proclamation of the vision and biblical support for the vision.

Ok that is enough of a rant for now. Back to the gospel series tomorrow.

#70 – What the Gospels Teach – The Miracle of Faith – Matthew 9:1-7

2009-10-15T15:59:00.000-04:00

Getting into a boat, Jesus crossed over the sea and came to His own city. And they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, "Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven." And some of the scribes said to themselves, "This fellow blasphemes." And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, "Why are you thinking evil in your hearts? "Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, and walk'? "But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--then He *said to the paralytic, "Get up, pick up your bed and go home." And he got up and went home. (Matthew 9:1-7 NASB)

In this passage we find three miracles, two which are obvious and one which is implicit. The first miracle which is implicit is the faith of the paralytic and those who brought him to Christ. Recall that faith is a miracle and a gift from God. That miraculous faith, given by the Father, then afforded Christ the opportunity to pronounce the second miracle “your sins are forgiven.” You must recognize the miraculous nature of the forgiveness of sin. If the forgiveness of sin seems natural to you, and not a supernatural happening it would do you well to spend much time studying the attributes of God. Now in some sense we must sympathize with the scribes here, as they have just seen a man pronounce forgiveness over someone, something we too would shudder at. What they had not realized and come to believe was who that Man was, the Son of God Himself. The third miracle was an act of compassion for both the paralytic and the scribe, ‘get up and walk’. It was an act of compassion for the paralytic obviously, but it was for the scribes as well to provide them with the knowledge ‘that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.”

What is the application? First, the greatest miracle in this passage is faith of the paralytic and his friends. Without the initial miraculous faith the second and third miracles do not occur. At the same time the greatest miracle is also the least visible, and the least sublime. When reading the passage we certainly get excited concerning the forgiveness of sin, and then when the physical realm is altered and a paralytic walks we become very much enamored with the work of Christ. However we miss the point, because as believers if indeed we are believers, the greatest miracle of this passage is one that we share with this paralytic and that is the miracle of having a heart set against God being removed and replaced with a heart that desires God, ultimately leading to the forgiveness of sin. The greatest miracle is the one all believers share and that is the miracle of faith. Realize that doctors have duplicated that miracle of getting a paralytic to walk, moreover we have even gone so far as forgiving those who have sinned against us, but no one has ever been able to speak the right words do the right things and act the right way to give someone faith. It is always the result of the miraculous. So what is the point? The point is to put it in perspective, too often in charismatic circles there seems to be this need for the paranormal to validate the presence of the Spirit. Yet, in many non or even anti-charismatic circles faith and forgiveness are relegated to a mere mental ascension or ability to wrap one’s mind around the gospel. The truth is that faith is supernatural, and the primary miracle of the Christian life, which results in the miracle of the forgiveness of sin. Realize the ‘sign’ of the healing of the paralytic was not for the believer, or even the paralytic himself, it was for the unbelieving scribe.

Christ made it clear that He had done enough by forgiving the paralytic, but performed the miracle to reveal His own glory. Oh, we could go on and on here. Do you realize that the paralytic was the beneficiary of Jesus getting glory for Himself? Do you realize that the atonement offered at the cross was to glorify the Godhead, and we are beneficiaries of God getting glory for Himself? Any miracle performed in a manner that is not primarily and obviously to the glory of God is either false, or worse, actually being carried out by the forces of darkness. I will stop here, I have probably already run further than this text allows.

#69 – What the Gospels Teach – The Preference of People – Matthew 8:28-34

2009-10-13T11:55:00.001-04:00

When He came to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two men who were demon-possessed met Him as they were coming out of the tombs. They were so extremely violent that no one could pass by that way. And they cried out, saying, "What business do we have with each other, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?" Now there was a herd of many swine feeding at a distance from them. The demons began to entreat Him, saying, "If You are going to cast us out, send us into the herd of swine." And He said to them, "Go!" And they came out and went into the swine, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea and perished in the waters. The herdsmen ran away, and went to the city and reported everything, including what had happened to the demoniacs. And behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus; and when they saw Him, they implored Him to leave their region. (Matthew 8:28-34 NASB)

Obviously there is a lot to cover in this passage and there are countless applications and implications that will not be addressed here, however one observation about this passage is absolutely startling and has received little attention, at least in my experience. If you read the last sentence in this passage you will find the words “And behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus; and when they saw Him, they implored Him to leave their region.” This idea that the people came out of the city to convince Christ to leave their region shows that He had done something which they felt threatened by, or uncomfortable with, at the very least what He had done had troubled them deeply. Why?

Jesus shows up and a couple demon possessed guys who were incredibly violent come out of the tombs, the demons fear the Lord, the Lord casts them into a heard of swine (unclean animals) the swine kill themselves. The demon possessed men are healed, the swine are dead, and the people have had enough and implored Christ to leave. There is a major contrast here, first why are the people mad? The herdsman kept a flock of swine, and the swine got killed. Needless to say this had to have been pretty rough on the herdsman, Christ allowed their heard to be destroyed, which indeed would destroy the livelihood of those herdsmen. The people of the city received the news about Christ from the herdsman who had already lost their heard and were obviously distraught and disturbed, and most certainly biased against Jesus when they reported to the city. At the same time they also reported what happened to the demoniacs, the very men who were so possessed that nobody could even pass them without being injured. In one sense, this event was tragic, as the livelihoods of those herdsmen were destroyed, yet in another sense this was miraculous as these two violent demoniacs were restored.

The reaction of the people shows just how far from righteousness, and how hardened they really were. First of all, why were the people herding swine in the first place? Second, why would the people not rejoice at the restoration of fellow man? The people had become so callous that they preferred the preservation of evil demons, and unclean beasts, over the restoration of fellow man and the end of their violent possession. The people preferred violence and uncleanness over righteousness and restoration so “the implored Him to leave their region.” These people had drifted so far from the righteousness of God that they preferred the preservation of evil, and were very much against the casting out of it. When Christ came and healed these men and put an end to an unclean practice of herding swine the people preferred the demons over the Christ, and people do the very same thing today.

When a person is converted, genuinely, and they begin to reject the practices of the world, the television, the magazines, the novels, the smut, even the gluttony, immodesty, and other vices of the sinful world they are not viewed at all as recipients of a miracle even though that is exactly what they are. Instead the world, and often the Church alienates and isolates the truly zealous convert who is altogether reformed into something far more pleasant, kind, generous, and caring. Why? Well for one thing much of the world makes its living off of vice, and the convert no longer contributes to their occupational well being. Just like the herdsmen did not profit from the demons being cast out of the violent men. The second and maybe the primary reason is that the tangible ‘cleanliness’ or righteousness of the believer is evidence that there is an actual attainable superior morality to that of their own. Of course that superior life is available through Jesus Christ and living into that grace filled life threatens those who are content to live with unrighteousness. This reminds us of the rest of the city who came out to tell Him to leave, not because He had done anything wrong, but because His righteousness and ability to destroy evil threatened them.

The bottom line is that when Christ acts in righteousness the non elect will implore Him to leave, while the elect will be converted and choose to follow Him. (I do not mean to open a can of worms about election, free will, etc..., maybe some other time.)

#68 - What the Gospels Teach - A faithless plea - Matthew 8:23-27

2009-10-02T15:35:00.000-04:00

When He got into the boat, His disciples followed Him. And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being covered with the waves; but Jesus Himself was asleep. And they came to Him and woke Him, saying, "Save us, Lord; we are perishing!" He *said to them, "Why are you afraid, you men of little faith?" Then He got up and rebuked the winds and the sea, and it became perfectly calm. The men were amazed, and said, "What kind of a man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?" (Matthew 8:23-27 NASB)

This passage is difficult for me to comment on, because on the surface it appears to fly right in the face of much of what we have been taught about Christ. Notice the words of the disciples, “Save us, Lord; we are perishing!” What greater affirmation of truth and of faith is there than that? Is that not the very beginning of faith in Christ? Is it not the acknowledgement that we alone are insufficient, perishing, lo even condemned that begins the humble and joyful walk with the Lord? “Save us, Lord; we are perishing!” ought to be the unbelievers cry when their eyes have opened to their own moral bankruptcy. Now I realize the context is that of a storm, but suffer me to go on a minute or two longer. Notice the response of Jesus, “Why are you afraid, you men of little faith?” The response is one of rebuke, or at the very least a stern question. The disciples went to Christ with knowledge that only He could save, and rightly so, but they are met with a response that was harsh. Why? Should they not have been rewarded instead of chastised?

First, these disciples have already dropped everything to follow Him, they are (with the exception of Judas) genuine believers in Christ. They have experienced the perfect love of Christ which casts out all fear. Now, genuine believers still fear, especially in the middle of a stormy sea, but believers are not perishing. The disciples made a very wrong statement when they said ‘Lord we are perishing’. Moreover, they were with the Christ who could not die until His time was accomplished, how could they be in danger if He was in the boat? There fear in this case was evidence that they had not yet realized who Christ was. While the multitudes would come to Christ realizing He had authority to heal and cast out demons, His very disciples lacked the faith to believe a storm was not going to kill Him. Now I hate to speculate, and I do not know if the original Greek communicates this better or not, but when they address Jesus and say ‘we are perishing’ does that ‘we’ include Jesus or not. Do they have concern for Christ and the future of His mission, or just trying to save their own skin?

Of course we know that Jesus rebukes the winds and the sea showing His authority over all things and amazing the disciples and ultimately granting them more faith. Moreover the Lord uses these men to turn the world upsidedown, our lack of faith in difficult situations certainly does not negate our ultimate calling, but does expose our weakness in the faith.

#67 – What the Gospels Teach – Jesus never comes next – Matthew 8:21-22

2009-09-30T13:25:00.000-04:00

Another of the disciples said to Him, "Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father." But Jesus *said to him, "Follow Me, and allow the dead to bury their own dead." (Matthew 8:21-22)

This is one of the more difficult texts in Jesus’ teaching, but it must be considered and taken at face value. First and foremost realize that the apostle Paul reminds Timothy that if someone does not take care of their family they are worse than an infidel, moreover throughout the Old Testament we see the will of God is clearly that our fathers and mothers must be honored and cared for. I would even contend that one of the things that angers God tremendously in our day is the disregard for parents. Our media downplays fathers and mothers, kids are encouraged in school to think outside of the value systems their parents have imparted, and are even taught often that they are growing up in a different world and they are more intelligent and essentially superior to their parents.

What then is this text teaching? Is Jesus contradicting the perfect Law of God? Is He speaking differently than His apostle taught Timothy and Us? Absolutely not! The term ‘go and bury my father’ does not refer to a dead father, but to a dying father. The disciple is requesting to be able to go and be with his father until he dies. This seems to be a reasonable and even Godly request, however Jesus responds by commanding this disciple to follow Him and to “allow the dead to bury their own dead.” We also see similar commands in the other Gospel accounts as well. Jesus is teaching that he never comes next. The disciple was not at all wrong about his desire to bury his father, the disciple’s error was in the words “Permit me first...” Jesus had to be harsh on this command, though in our eyes it may seem over the top, even a ridiculous demand, we must see it from the other side.

I would contend that “permit me first...” is at the root of every single sin without exception. Permit me first to serve myself, permit me first to get my house and my car, permit me first to get married, permit me first to watch some TV, permit me first to have my best life now, permit me first to win this argument, permit me first to get myself pleasure, permit me first to... do whatever, and immediately Christ then becomes second at best. Following Christ entails caring for our dying relatives, it does, but caring for our dying relatives without doing it in service to Christ is mere works and not faithful righteousness. The late Vance Havner preached a sermon on this text and it really is worth a listen. It can be downloaded here.

Jesus knew full well that “permit me first” would cause more damage to His disciples than anything else, even violation of the Law. Christ knew that at the heart of lawbreaking was the ‘permit me first’ attitude, therefore even in the most innocent of situations such as aiding a dying father the notion of ‘permit me first’ being acceptable had to be destroyed.

On a side note: I hope to be posting more often again, but with summer being over and youth ministry being in full swing I have neglected setting the time aside for this blog. No promises, but now that everything is up and rollin’ again for the year there should be more frequent postings here.

Message preached 09.06.2009

2009-09-22T23:28:00.000-04:00

This is a one post break from the gospel series to share the message I preached on September 9th of this year. The audio of me preaching this can be found here... http://s3.amazonaws.com/mychurchwebsite/c1420/message-09-09-06.mp3 remember this was preached audibly, there are a lot of typos, and little mistakes in the text below, but the text was a mere guide in the preaching. (ie one spot should say self-righteous not just righteous, there are a few other spots where words are missing, misspelled, etc...)

By your standard of Measure

Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye. Do not give what is holy to dogs; and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under foot and turn and maul you.” Matthew 7:1-6

Let’s go to the Lord in Prayer:

The most memorized scripture in the bible is typically thought to be John 3:16 – “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” What a wonderful blessing that passage is to the believer, however it is doubtful that is the most quoted scripture we hear. The scripture most quoted by unbelievers to Christians is this “Judge not lest ye be judged.” Granted very few people realize that they are quoting Matthew 7:1, but they know it is in the bible and they know they can quote it every time they sense that they are being judged. This is an important text to consider being as the primary beef the world claims to have with the church is that the church is too judgmental. This morning we are going to dive in to this passage to find out what it really means, and how difficult of a passage it really is. Moreover we are going to consider whether we must heed to the criticism of the world and consider their rebuke as though it were from God, knowing that God has often used people outside of the faith as an instrument of rebuke for those within the faith, or whether we can dismiss their claims against us knowing that the scriptures also promise we will be accused falsely for His sake.

One of the best places to go to get understanding of this text is the end of time, Judgment Day itself. Fast forward to Revelation 20:11-12

Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. (Revelation 20:11-12 NASB)

John the revelator is receiving the vision of the end of time and he sees the dead lined up before the throne, a huge mass of humanity standing before the King of Kings, and there in that crowd John sees you. Realize that you are there, you are in the bible, physically pictured in Revelation 20:11-12. Why are they gathered? Judgment! Books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. You will stand before God, and you will answer according to your deeds. Realize this is not just some apocalyptic revelation theme throughout the scriptures final judgment is referenced, a good portion of the parable reference judgment, many of the teachings of the apostles reference judgment, and we also find this judgment referenced in the Old Testament as well. Let’s just nail it down right here, we will stand before God for judgment. Now in light of that truth let’s read Matthew 7:1-2 -

"Do not judge so that you will not be judged. "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. (Matthew 7:1-2 NASB)

In light of Revelation 20 think about the words ‘the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.’ Do you see where this is going? Listen to how practical this teaching becomes if just apply it as it is written.

Let’s start with Politics.

For eight years the President of the United States of America was George W. Bush. During his time in office and even still today we heard countless people call George W. Bush a moron because of his inability to pronounce words correctly and fashion grammatically accurate sentences before millions of viewers. In light of this passage the people who made those judgments have agreed to stand before the throne of the Most High God and be judged according to their public speaking ability. “For in the way you judge, you will be judged.”

Currently many people have a beef with our presiding President. It is ok to have a beef with Obama, or Bush, but people make claims that President Obama is such and idiot when it comes to Healthcare reform and its economic effects. In light of Matthew 7:1-2 and Revelation 20 the people who say such things have agreed to stand before the throne of the Most High and be judged based on their own knowledge of healthcare and economics.

Odds are that some of us are already writing these two examples off... but I challenge you to apply the passage to the situation without righteously asserting your views.

Let’s move on, I mean we have already mentioned politics, let’s go into another taboo subject... this may be the last time I get to preach, but let’s speak a moment about human sexuality.

We hear countless derogatory blasts against homosexuals, especially from within the professing Christian community. Let me ask this: Judgment made against the individual homosexual is based on what? Sexual sin. (Now I am not going to open this can of worms too far, the bible speaks clearly on this issue and I will leave it at that.) However be very careful before you judge someone based on sexual impurity. Are you willing to stand before the Most High, in light of Matthew 7:1-2 and be judged on your own sexual purity? Really? After all your second glances at girls on the street, all the filth on your Desparate Housewives, Grays Anatomy, CSI, and every other show, after all the smut novels, profession football cheerleaders, internet pornography, second glances at billboards with sexual content, fantasies that only you know about... and you are going to make a judgment based on someone else’s sexual purity? Or what about all the relationships you had before Be careful. That standard you have set... you will be held to.

How about at Church? We have all been part of conversations where we stand in judgment of our church leaders, and how we feel things should be done and how they are failing, and how they need to get a life and see things the way we do. In light of standing Judgment before the Most High according to your own standard how does that play out? You are a leader in your home, are you leading perfectly? You have tremendous resources, are you using them how God wants? As Christians we are all ministers, how is your ministry going? The very standards you have set for others... they will be raised against you.

Listen, I have a tendency towards being judgmental, and I know it. This is something I must constantly seek guidance on, and constantly seek repentance from, and to be honest this text is a touch frightening to me. I also know that there are many others, if not everyone in this place, that if they are honest with themselves they will find this text to be difficult as well.

So where do we go from here? Are we to just sit back and have nothing to say about anything? Of course not, but Jesus gives us pretty clear direction.

Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye. – (Matthew 7:3-5)

We are to not judge, however we are to discern. The scriptures speak often about discerning good and evil, and we are not to lay back with an anything goes attitude, but discernment and judgment are two entirely different things. To judge is to usurp the authority of God who alone is judge. When you make character judgments against people you have assumed a position that only God is allowed to occupy. To discern is altogether different than to judge. Discernment is born out of humility, and the first step to biblical discernment is to acknowledge your own sin. You see that speck in your brother’s eye? What about the log in your own? This is an exaggerated contrast, the difference between a speck and an entire log is nearly infinite, and you are called to first pull out that log before dealing with the speck. What does this mean?... It means that the depth of sin within you is far greater than anything you have ever seen in someone else. It really is. The sooner you come to grips with your sinfulness the sooner you will have the ability to not judge. To begin to remove the log of iniquity from your own eye get alone with God and ask Him to reveal your sinfulness to you. Seriously, seek Him to show you what your ways are really like... trust me, if you honestly do that, He will show you sides of your own self that you never knew existed, and you will realize the foolishness of judging another. You will also be humbled, and know that the proverbs say “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”

You see, once you are humbled by your own shortcomings, you will see that speck in your brother’s eye, you will not see it with a critical spirit, but you will see it as it is, a speck. Now specks are not trivial, if you have ever had a speck of something in your eye you know that it causes pain and annoyance. If you humble yourself before the Lord you will see your brother’s speck and realize that whether they know it or not, it is causing them blurry vision and annoyance, and out of love and a desire for their well being you will gently remove that speck from their eye. You will give a gentle rebuke, or teaching, or exhortation. Discernment, and biblical rebuke and correction are born out of humility and love.

With all that has been said so far, be very careful. We are not to judge people, we are to hate sin, sin in our own lives, sin in the world, sin everywhere. We are not to stand in support of sin, to justify sin, to promote sin, or to embrace sin. We ought to hate our own sin, knowing that the sin of ourselves and of this world has cause our savior to die, and that God is holy and has a fierce indignation against sin. We are to be open to people, and never stand in judgment of others... but be careful to accept every activity and be so open minded that your brains fall out.

This is the exact reason Jesus gives us this next verse. “Do not give what is holy to dogs; and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under foot and turn and maul you.” (Matthew 7:6) It is as though Jesus has said to us... Listen up! You cannot judge others, you are in no place to judge others, you are a log eyed people and are in no way capable or worthy of casting judgment on anyone... at the same time be careful, do not just go throwing what is holy to dogs, and giving pearls to swine... you must have humble discernment or else you are just going to let anything go, and your lack of discernment will allow the world to tear you to shreds.

We must be so careful. One of the reasons we Christians seem so judgmental to everyone else is not because we have taken such a hard line on sin, in fact the opposite is true. We have chosen to allow various sin and we sweep it under the rug and say it isn’t so bad, yet at the same time we choose other sin to be greater and we draw a line. As though we were Catholic and believed some sin to be mortal, some to be menial. Listen, the wages of all sin is death. We are to hate all sin, and should hate to see sin promoted... and be especially repentant when we ourselves are promoting sin. The mark of true belief is a love for Christ that plays itself out in tangible ways, one of which is repentance from sin and not the promotion or acceptance of it in our lives. By grace, if you have true belief, your mind has been regenerated with a desire to turn from sin and pursue righteousness.

Judge not... please... in light of the fact that you too will be judged on that day... judge not. Discern, with humility, honest humility not some mock contrition, discern right from wrong and in light of your own shortcomings come to the aid of your brother in removing that annoying speck from his eye. Come to me in humility and help me get the specks out of my eyes, as I too will do the same for you. Let us not stand in judgment over each other any longer, but let us rebuke, exhort, encourage, teach, and help each other with an honest and enduring love.

AMEN.

#66 – What the Gospels Teach – Nowhere to lay His head – Matthew 8:18-20

2009-09-21T23:41:00.000-04:00

Now when Jesus saw a crowd around Him, He gave orders to depart to the other side of the sea. Then a scribe came and said to Him, "Teacher, I will follow You wherever You go." Jesus *said to him, "The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head." (Matthew 8:18-20 NASB)

Jesus saw the crowd and gave orders to go to the other side of the sea. This is not a case of Jesus neglecting the crowd, this is important to see. Certainly He already knows what He is going to encounter on the other side, but He is also using this moment to make a clear point about the cost of discipleship. We will see this in this posting as well as the next. Jesus sees this crowd and announces that He will be heading across the sea (large lake)... and a Scribe quickly chimes in with, “Teacher, I will follow You wherever You go.” Jesus does not rebuke this man, but instead responds by telling the scribe that He is homeless, and will continue to be homeless. In other words Jesus tells the scribe that there is nowhere to follow Him to, there is no earthly destination to Christ’s journey, no earthly home in which He plans on settling.

Another important aspect of this section is how the scribe addresses Christ. He says ‘Teacher’, if you recall from previous posts about the centurion and others, Jesus was addressed not as teacher, but as Lord. There is a great difference here, and it is still the difference between genuine and false professors today. Jesus indeed was a great teacher, but His teaching was not mere transmission of information, it was authoritative commandment from the Most High God. Indeed many great historical figures could teach, but they lacked authority. To view Jesus as ‘teacher’ is to sell Jesus short, He is teacher, but more than that He is Lord.

If your lord commands you to follow him though he has no home, and no earthly destination, you have no choice but to go because the word ‘lord’ implies this man is your master. If your ‘teacher’ commands you to follow, it is still up to you because the teacher has no authority. Yes they can teach you all the benefits of following them, and they can transmit all sorts of information, but they are not your lord, and ultimately do not carry the same authority. Jesus gives this scribe the opportunity to accept the Lordship of Himself, but not without first explaining some of the cost.

Again, realize Jesus gave orders to go to the other side of the sea knowing that some would step forward and profess that they wanted to follow. Jesus set the stage for teaching about costly discipleship.

#65 – What the Gospels Teach – He Took our Infirmities – Matthew 8:16-17

2009-09-21T23:11:00.000-04:00

When evening came, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed; and He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were ill. This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES." (Matthew 8:16-17 NASB)

Jesus was simply amazing, and while we know this, it would serve us well to dwell on that for a moment. The first thing we must recall is that Jesus is indeed God the Son, nonetheless He came and dwelt in human flesh, which comes with all the difficulties of humanity. Jesus indeed was tempted often, and had to deal with the same nature that we also have to deal with. Consider that... we often will write off our sinfulness to our human nature (which is the legitimate cause) but Christ also had that same nature and yet did not sin, utterly sin free, and yet dwelling in the same sinful flesh which all men must dwell in. Now with Christ and our common humanity let’s look into this verse.

“When evening came...” Evening is when we cease to work, when we want to stop and rest. We deal with our issues all day, and we look at the evening as time to slow down. “They brought to Him many...” Christ was constantly bombarded with people who had needs, and people who knew He was their only hope. Now knowing that Christ indeed is God, and while in the flesh was God we can see that He would be all compassionate and never tire of doing what is right. Nonetheless Christ who also was 100% man would have His entire humanity railing against Him and tempting Him to send the people away. Of course Christ has indeed overcame the flesh and was victorious over it, but if we place ourselves in His sandals at the point of this verse we can see the struggle it must have been to continue to deal with “MANY who were demon-possessed...” and to deal with them into the evening. You and I have trouble dealing with our own neighbors, parents, children, spouses, and such into the evenings, we tire we get irritable and are constantly tempted to sin and disregard our duties toward them. Here you have Christ with everyone’s problems, and many people coming to have them dealt with, and He was tempted in all places just as we are, meaning that He had to overcome the same temptations to neglect the duties His flesh would not have wanted to perform. Can you see how this is amazing? Christ dealt with the same tiredness, headaches, hunger, and so on.

“He Cast out the spirits with a word, and healed ALL who were ill.” He did not leave anyone behind... you do not see instances of Jesus not healing, or not serving. He stayed the course and served in the entire capacity of His human flesh. The point is this: His entire life was a sacrifice, every single minute of it... not just the crucifixion... all of it. He suffered not only on the cross, but His entire life was suffering. “He was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief...” (Isaiah 53). The last section of Matthew 8:17 says, "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES." Which is a quote from Isaiah 53. Typically in our reading of Isaiah 53 we focus on the crucifixion sequence, and consider the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, but we fail to focus on the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ in His life. We focus on substitutionary death, which we should, but we neglect His substitutionary life. Paul reminds us that Christ has imputed His righteousness too us... how? By giving us credit for, not His death, but His life! Our life was imputed to Him which resulted in the cross... His life was imputed to us which results in life everlasting.

This account of Jesus healing the MANY demon-possessed into the evening is important. The life Jesus lived was just as critical to your salvation as the death Jesus died.

I hope I have not taken too much liberty with this passage but what is said is important.

#64 – What the Gospel’s Teach – Peter’s Mother in Law is Healed – Matthew 8:14-15

2009-09-15T08:07:00.000-04:00

When Jesus came into Peter's home, He saw his mother-in-law lying sick in bed with a fever. He touched her hand, and the fever left her; and she got up and waited on Him. (Matthew 8:14-15 NASB)

Often times we look at healings in the scriptures and they seem so amazing, because they are, but we miss some of the more simple healings, especially this one. We cling to stories about lepers, paralytics, the blind, and others... yet when we read of Jesus healing a fever we just gloss over it. This is tragic on our parts. The reality is that every one of us will have a fever at some point, even a sever fever that leaves us bed ridden, but very few of us will ever be blind, leprous, or paralyzed. This is one of the healings in the scriptures that all people could relate to, but because it lacks a high profile disease we gloss over it.

I do not want to get into healings, how they happen, why they happen, what role faith has in them and so on... we will look into that at some point, but not this post. What should be noticed and dwelled on in this passage is why she was healed, and what her response was. Jesus came into Peter’s Mother-in-law’s house, when a guest came into the home they would be waited upon and served in some way (this should be the standard practice of any decent person even today... especially in a Christian home). In the context this passage it was the duty of Peter’s mother-in-law, whether it was Christ or anyone else came in, to wait upon them and serve them. Peter’s mother-in-law could not serve the Christ because she was bed ridden with a fever, so Christ healed her so that she could. Do you see what is happening here? Jesus performs this miracle in order that this woman would be free to serve Him. In one sense this seems awfully arrogant and even selfish, but when you know who the Christ is and recognize that service to Christ is the privilege above all privileges you will see this healing as a great grace afforded to Peter’s mother-in-law.

What is the application? The reason for healing of any magnitude is for the glory, honor, and service to Christ. We are not healed or delivered from various maladies solely, or even primarily for our own benefit, but instead for His benefit and our freedom to serve Him. To the unbeliever this is absurd, because the unbeliever desires God to be at their disposal to perform their needs. Unfortunately many within the professing Christian community will present God as though He really is at people’s disposal to meet their needs, and they do this in the name of attracting people. The unfortunate truth is that these ‘Best life now’ type leaders are not presenting the real Christ, but attempting to create a God who is palatable to the masses. So why are we healed? Why are we even saved? Why are we delivered from various trial and even temptation? One reason... to serve the Most High God. Remember God does all things for His glory, which is ultimately to our benefit as well, but the primary reason for God’s action in your life, is that you would honor and glorify Him in this world and in the world to come.

As a final aside on this passage, and don’t get too caught up in this, realize that Peter was married, which obviously is why he had a mother-in-law. The Roman Catholic Church asserts that Peter was the first of an apostolic succession of Popes. This should bring into question their requirements of celibacy for Popes, Priests, and such. If their original Pope was married, what exactly are they doing now? Do not dwell on this, but realize Peter was not a Pope, the scriptures never allude to any Popish type office in the Church, and it is doubtful that any man who actually believes the Holy Scriptures and honestly loved the Lord with any humility would even dream of assuming the role of a ‘Pope’.

#63 – What the Gospels Teach – The Centurion’s Faith (Part 2) – Matthew 8:5-13

2009-09-10T10:26:00.000-04:00

Jesus takes this opportunity to make clear that He is indeed a light to the gentiles, but He goes even a step further to give warning that the ‘sons of the kingdom will be cast into the outer darkness...’ We can only imagine the tension this must have caused. For the Jews to hear from the prophets of old that the Messiah would be a light to the gentiles would have not have been difficult. In fact it would be a joyous thing to consider that God would do a work among all peoples. However, when the Jews were under the oppression of the Roman Empire and Jesus holds a representative from that empire in high regard it becomes much more personal for the people around Him, and far more difficult to swallow. While Jesus was doing exactly what the Old Testament scriptures promised He would do, the emotional impact of this to the Jew would have case hardened their heart against Christ. If Jesus would have said "I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven;” In any other context, it may have been very palatable for the Jew. However when Jesus places their enemies on the pedestal and essentially proclaims that some of the Romans themselves will recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob the tension must have begun to rise. Recognize that I am reading into this a bit, there is no direct reference to mounting tension here, but as this progresses through the next few chapters we will see it clearly.

Again the Jews would have known that the Messiah was going to be a light to the gentiles, and that nations which they did not know would flock to Him, and that would have been something they embraced. It is very easy to love from a distance, and to enjoy the idea of many people groups coming together under the Messiah. It is no different than loving people in Africa and China and wanting them to hear the Gospel. However when you meet the people directly, and realize they are just a depraved as you were prior to conversion, and you have to deal with their vice, hatred, covetousness, and idolatry they are not nearly as easy to love as they were when they were a mere evangelism target. It is easy to see how many Jews would become progressively more against Christ as they saw Him being a light to the people they despised.

In this text you can see the breaking off and grafting in that is explained in Romans 11:17-25. It is easy to see the hardening effect that Christ’s ministry would have on the Hebrew people, and moreover you can see, as in the case of this centurion how the gentiles would be grateful just to be grafted in and be nourished from the Holy Root. More on that someday when this blog addresses Romans... like 20 years from now at the rate we are going!

#62 – What the Gospels Teach – The Centurion’s Faith (Part 1) – Matthew 8:5-13

2009-09-09T07:46:00.001-04:00

And when Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, imploring Him, and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, fearfully tormented." Jesus *said to him, "I will come and heal him." But the centurion said, "Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. "For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, 'Go!' and he goes, and to another, 'Come!' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this!' and he does it." Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who were following, "Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel. "I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." And Jesus said to the centurion, "Go; it shall be done for you as you have believed." And the servant was healed that very moment. (Matthew 8:5-13 NASB)

In the last passage we see a leper cleansed, and we notice that leper immediately acknowledges the authority of Christ, and places himself at the mercy of the will of Christ. Moreover we notice the end of the Sermon on the Mount, just preceding these happenings where the crowds stood astonished... why? because Christ taught with authority and not like their scribes. As it has been stated before in this series, the way Jesus did ministry was to preach hard with authority, and also to serve with compassion, He was balanced, not some liberal serve only mentality, and not some fundamentalist preach only mentality. It should be noticed though that both His teaching and His healing highlighted His authority.

The centurion comes to Christ with compassion for his servant and tells Jesus of the situation. Now, as a centurion this man had authority, moreover he would have been a man despised of the Jews. You can imagine the Hebrew people hoping that Jesus would really lambaste this guy, so it was a major disappointment to them when Jesus says “Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel.” What caused Jesus to marvel at this man’s faith? First off, this is a man who is used to having authority and used to being able to do whatever he wanted or need to do. He expresses this to Jesus saying “...I say to this one, ‘Go!’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come!’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this!’ and he does it.” Moreover as a roman centurion he also had authority over the Hebrew people around him. For a centurion with this type of authority to call someone else Lord publically was an enormous step of faith, it is a public admission that he is not the ultimate authority, moreover that he would call a Hebrew Lord only amplifies the humility of this admission. Jesus marvels at this man’s faith. This centurion has the force of the Roman empire with the ‘lord’ Caesar at the top of that empire on his side. Effectively in this moment the Roman Centurion makes a recognition that Christ is a greater authority than the roman empire.

Jesus said He hadn’t seen that type of faith in all of Israel. The people of Israel did not tangibly believe that God had authority over the Roman Empire... the centurion recognized Christ had that authority. Of course the theology of the Hebrew people was such that they intellectually recognized the power and authority of God, but when it was placed before them they could discern it. We see the same thing in ‘Christian’ America today. So much fear among Christians about politics and choosing the lesser of two evils, so much fear about being relevant no matter what it takes, so much financial worry, and so on. Our theology teaches us that God has control and authority and that He is ultimately good, but an honest inspection of American ‘Christianity’ shows that it is no more faithful than the established synagogues of Christ’s day. “I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel!” Ultimately Christ would be condemned by the Roman leadership and the Hebrew leadership together... the Hebrew people would appeal to the authority of the government in order to slay their own messiah who is a higher authority... do not believe for a minute that the largely unconverted professing church in America with its obsession over politics and desire to use the government to accomplish ‘God’s will’ is not doing the very same thing.

I guess I’ll leave it there, this post disintegrated into a rant, which was not the original intent.