Are We Truly Being Disciples?- Baxter on the Necessity of Christian Studies

October 14, 2008

And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’” -Matthew 28.18-20

For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.” -Hebrews 5.12-14

This is a pet peeve of mine, and maybe I get a little too harsh on it sometimes, but I was excited to see Richard Baxter address it in his book The Reformed Pastor. The issue is that of Christian brothers who are not interested, sometimes even disdainful, of studying the deeper things of God.

Maybe you know who I’m talking about. Those brothers and sisters who week in, week out want to come to church to hear the same old message on John 3.16 or Philippians 4.13 or Jeremiah 29.11, a message of encouragement and self-esteem, and maybe even a word or two about someone else’s sin. The ones who get mad at you or think you are trying to act smart when you use words like ‘justification’ or ‘penal substitutionary atonement.’ The ones who put books like Your Best Life Now and The Shack on the best-seller list while skipping over more edifying works such as Don’t Waste Your Life or Knowing God. On this, I know I have much to say, but I really liked the way Baxter said it, with all his Puritan tongue-in-cheek:

Convince [the church members] what a contradiction it is to be a Christian, and yet to refuse to learn; for what is a Christian but a disciple of Christ? And how can he be a disciple of Christ, that refuseth to be taught by him? And he that refuseth to be taught by his ministers, refuseth to be taught by him; for Christ will not come down from heaven again to teach them by his own mouth, but hath appointed his ministers to keep school and teach them under him. To say, therefore, that they will not be taught by his ministers, is to say, they will not be taught by Christ; and that is to say, they will not be his disciples, or no Christians.

As I finish The Reformed Pastor and as I move on into Light and Heat: The Puritan View of the Pulpit, I am becoming more and more convicted of the need of strong, deep, challenging Biblical teaching from the pulpit and Sunday School classes of our churches. As a Sunday School teacher myself, I see the tendency of church-goers to slip into a humanistic coma, unaware that the doctrines of God’s majesty and man’s total inability to reach him are just as applicable as passages on prayer and the Proverbs.

More importantly, the church continues sliding away into liberalism and pluralism, neglecting the Word of God, because, I believe, they see so much of the Word of God as unnecessary. What matter is it if we deny a fifth of the text when we see half of the text as being of no use to begin with? The battle for the authority of Scripture is more than just a battle over inerrancy, it is a fight over the proper purview of the Living Word in our everyday lives.

We can no longer be satisfied being Christians that aren’t disciples of Christ. We must be committed to the study of the Word or else we might as well neglect the whole thing!


Welcome Words from the 1600’s- Richard Baxter on Every Generation’s Battle

October 8, 2008

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” -2 Timothy 3.16

As I have written before, echoing the words of men like Al Mohler and John Piper, it is every generation’s battle to determine whether they will stand on the authority of Scripture or not. In light of this thought, I found it refreshing to see the call to arms for standing on God’s One Inspired Word, turning away the philosophies and ponderings of imperfect man, tucked inside of a classic work of Christian thought.

The piece I am talking about is Richard Baxter’s The Reformed Pastor. I am about two-thirds of the way through this treatise right now and already I know that it will be a book I come back to for years as a guide on the pastoral ministry. Baxter speaks with such clarity and passion on the issues he sets out to deal with that it is hard to imagine him fitting the mold of the cliched stuffy-shirt Puritans.

In the close of his discourse on how ministers should exercise the oversight of their flocks (taken from Acts 20.28) Baxter says these words:

The Scripture sufficiency must be maintained, and nothing beyond it imposed on others; and if papists, or others, call to us for the standard and rule of our religion, it is the Bible that we must show them, rather than any confessions of churches, or writings of men.

This is such an incredible declaration. How often do we find Christians trying to define their faith by pointing to the current fad in Christian publishing (think Blue Like Jazz, Velvet Elvis, A Generous Orthodoxy, or The Shack) when all that is need and sufficient is the collected Word of God in the Bible? Or even among my own Calvinist friends, how fast are we to want to bind people by their confessions of faith, the same confessions which Baxter is decrying here (This book was published in 1656, the Westminster Confession of Faith was written in 1646)? This is a stern reminder that there must never be anything which we would refer to in place of the Bible when we are looking to defend or guide or lives as children of God.


For the Benefit of the Son- A Fresh Perspective on the Doctrine of Adoption

October 4, 2008

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. . . . In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.” -Ephesians 1.3-6, 11-12

For whatever reason I am convinced that the first sermon I get to preach should be on the doctrine of Adoption. Adoption is such a wonderful blessing from God, described succinctly as “an act of God’s free grace, whereby we are received into the number, and have a right to all the privileges, of the sons of God” (Westminster Shorter Catechism). It is expounded upon biblically in places such as Romans 8, Galatians 4, Ephesians 1, and 1 John 3. In regards to this doctrine, I have recently been reading Joel R Beeke’s book Heirs with Christ: The Puritans on Adoption (which I highly recommend) and something I read in it really struck me for the first time.

While discussing the relationships which are transformed by our adoption, Beeke (in summarizing the teachings of Puritan John Cotton in 1 John 3) makes the point that one such transformed relationship is that of our relationship to the church as the family of God. Of course, we are aware that the church is frequently referred to as “the body of Christ” (Romans 12.3-8, 1 Corinthians 12.12-31, Colossians 3.15), but it is also shown that the church is the family of God, brothers and sisters with Christ (Romans 8.17, Hebrews 2.10-18), sons and daughters of the One True God (John 1.12, Romans 8.14, 16, Galatians 4.4-6).

It is in this family relationship which Beeke (or Cotton) said something which hit me differently than I had ever thought of it. He said,

God’s purpose in adopting children is to create a family in which Christ will be glorified as the firstborn among many brethren.

This thought, which I gather is a joining of Romans 8.29 and Ephesians 1.3-6, 11-12, blew me away. To think of our adoption not as a blessing to us that we may be satisfied, but as a gifting to Christ that he may be glorified in the presence of his brothers and sisters, took root in my heart. It feels so frequently that we focus on what we get from being saved, and yet spend so little time directed to the task of what Christ gets from our salvation, not that he lacks anything, but that he is worthy of our praise. Ephesians 1 paints for us the picture of God selecting us as a reward to Christ for his sacrifice in humbling himself and dying upon the cross (compare this with Philippians 2.5-11).

I share this with you guys just to ask you to meditate on it yourselves. Our adoption into the family of God is a magnificent blessing, one which we have never and will never deserve. And yet it is also for the benefit of God and Christ, that our place at the dinner table, as fellow heirs of Christ, further serves to glorify the Son as the sacrifice for sins, the one risen Lord, and the Father as the gracious bestower and securer of all mercies (1 Peter 1.3-5)!


The Great Propoganda- A Review of Phyllis Tickle’s New Book “The Great Emergence”

October 1, 2008

Since established churches . . . could not accommodate such an ill-defined and amorphous presentation of the faith [as the emerging church], the new faithful began to meet among themselves and hold worship services among and with those of like spirit.” -Phyllis Tickle, The Great Emergence, p.134

And these emergents, whose numbers increasingly included the white-haired as well as the young, could now use the term inherited church to name the goods being placed on the rummage sale table. Inherited church was that from which they had come and to which they, literally, now had no means of returning, let alone any desire at all to do so.” -p.136

The cub has grown into the young lion; and now is the hour of his roaring.” -p.163

The premise is interesting enough: “Every five hundred years, the church cleans out its attic and has a giant rummage sale.” And the sample, though small, can pull you in (Gregory the Great/The Council of Chalcedon, the Great Schism, the Great Reformation). But in the end, I think a discerning reader must come away from Phyllis Tickle’s book The Great Emergence feeling slighted at a lack of real evidence for this cataclysmic change that she purports.

In fact, what I think most people who are not already dyed in the wool of the whole Emergent Village/post-modern subculture will find is that this book is more an apologetic for the emerging church than it is good sociological research. The authors allegiance to this movement is unquestionable when she says things like “In the hands of emergents, Christianity has grown exponentially, not only in geographic base and numbers, but also in passion and in effecting belief in the Christian call to the brotherhood of all peoples” (p.121) or “It is not unreasonable to assume that by the time the Great Emergence has reached maturity, about 60 percent of practicing American Christians will be emergent or some clear variant thereof” (p.139). There certainly has been a re-energizing of “Christianity” focused around the EV, but to say it is “exponential growth” is a bit of hyperbole. The resurgence of Calvinism in recent decades has rivaled this emergence all the way and any look into the increased growth of Christianity in America can not deny that obvious fact.

But the real problem I see with Tickle’s argument is two-fold: one, the lack of a genuine opponent which the Great Emergence must arise as a response to; and second, the mere dismissal of sola scriptura as being sufficient for Christianity.

In every case which Tickle presents to advance her semi-millennial argument we see a clear dichotomy of two choices. Yet when we get to the so-called Great Emergence there does not seem to exist this major conflict. Tickle even asserts this herself by saying “There is simply no grand framing story or even unanimity of opinion yet about when precisely it was that this new thing- this new, emerging way of being Christian in an emerging new world- became so clearly distinct from what had been as to be worthy of a name of its own” (p.124). In effect, this movement just arose as a response to nothing-in-particular, an almost adolescent expression of angst and rebellion. Tickle tries her hardest to equate this movement with the Reformation, but simply put that idea falls flat. The Reformation was driven as a response to widespread religious oppression of the people, a desire to educate the masses, promoting literacy as well as a return to a biblical instead of extra-biblical practice of the faith. The environment surrounding the Reformation was ripe with church corruption and a manipulation of the people. Where is this today?

Of course, Tickle “perceives” much oppression in the church and uses $10 words like ‘hegemony’ to conjure up feelings of fear and distrust (surprisingly, I do not recall reading the word ‘hubris’ in here though). Some examples of this oppression, and the emergent solution, are her unsubstantiated charges of colonial injustice, sexism, and status quo theology on the church:

But the more or less colonialized Church that Reformation Protestantism and Catholicism managed to plant was, obviously, more or less colonialized, with all the demeaning psychological, political, cultural, and social overtones and resentments which that term brings with it. One does not have to be particularly gifted as a seer these days, however, to perceive the Great Emergence already swirling like balm across that wound, bandaging it with genuinely egalitarian conversation and with an undergirding assumption of shared brotherhood and sisterhood in a world being redeemed. (p.29)

In a relatively short time, women got the vote, and men got their suppers hot and on time again. It was hardly a religious solution, but nonetheless it was a very welcome one. (p.99)

When the country preacher of the mid-twentieth-century America decried divorce as a threat “right at the heart of America,” he was neither in error nor benighted. He may not have been arguing from religious conviction so much as from his own private unease about what a Pandora’s box there was for the status quo at the end of that road; but he was still right. (p.112-113)

This type of fear-mongering does not get very far when you are trying to argue for a position, and in fact, when you misrepresent or over generalize things it could be termed as misleading or even lying. It suffices to say that the lack of a propelling force (outside of personal malaise) combined with the inaccurate portrayals of Protestantism (which I take to be the intended Satan here) is argument enough that “the Great Emergence” is not so inevitable as we are being led to believe.

The second issue I have with Tickle’s argument is her haphazardness with the authority of Scripture. As she says on pages 150 to 151,

The new Christianity of the Great Emergence must discover some authority base or delivery system and/or governing agency of its own. It must formulate- and soon- something other than Luther’s sola scriptura which, although used so well by the Great Reformation originally, is now seen as hopelessly outmoded or insufficient, even after it is, as here, spruced up and re-couched in more current sensibilities.

The authority of Scripture is “outmoded or insufficient”!?! Why is this the case? Oh, well, as we see, it is because of the mood of “current sensibilities.” So, the Word which is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work,” which is “breathed out by God,” who “do[es] not change,” is usurped by the authority of humanistic philosophy (2 Timothy 3.16-17, Malachi 3.6)! But Tickle does not stop there:

Now, some five hundred years later, even many of the most die-hard Protestants among us have grown suspicious of “Scripture and Scripture only.” We question what the words mean- literally? Metaphorically? Actually? We even question which words do and do not belong in Scripture and the purity of the editorial line of descent of those that do. (p.46)

When it is all resolved- and it most surely will be- the Reformation’s understanding of Scripture as it had been taught for almost five centuries will be dead. . . . While the erosion of sola scriptura is clearly an erosion of the base of traditional denominational Protestantism’s authority, we must remember that it is a corporeal, not a spiritual or moral, issue. (p.101)

So, not only is the authority of Scripture outdated, but that’s not such a big deal! And it’s not a spiritual or moral issue if we are questioning the Word of God as revealed to us, it’s just a corporeal matter (which is a fancy way of saying a matter of taste)!

This truly is incredible. Tickle’s advancement of the whole monster is that Scripture is no longer sufficient for us because we have changed (or as she would argue, grown and become more aware). Yet, it’s funny what God’s broken Word has to say about such dependence on intellect:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Romans 1.18-23)

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1.20)

Clearly those are the uninspired parts though (having been written by that misogynist Paul).

In the end, I find Tickle’s book to be nothing much more than propaganda in an effort to prop up a movement which is all-too-quickly being played out. Her friendliness with the emergent “conversation,” at times referring to them as “the new faithful” and with other pious platitudes, undermines any credibility she would have as a disengaged informer of the masses. Rather, in the way that traditionalists have been accused of covering up the warts in order to push their agenda, Tickle shows that the emergent crowd is not above this dishonest self-aggrandizement either.

Is the church changing? Sure. The expression of the church is constantly changing. Is there anything inside this emerging movement which is good? Certainly, I believe that the move to a more authentic worship and a destruction of the white-washed tombs which have adorned many a sanctuary for the past hundred years is a welcome change. But is it necessary for us to adopt the radical authority denying theology of “the Great Emergence”? Most assuredly not. Some pieces of church corporeality may need to change, but the casting off of sola scriptura as just another oppressive arm of Protestantism, a step which Tickle giddily takes in this book, is a step too far.


Looking Back, Turning Back- An Apology for Previous Words on Dan Kimball

August 26, 2008

Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.” -James 1.19-20

A while back (January 4, 2008) I posted this which was a critique of some issues I had with a statement written by Dan Kimball in his book They Like Jesus but Not the Church. The excerpt in question dealt with Kimball’s personal feelings towards homosexuality and my post covered a few exceptions I took to the things he said. I attempted to do this with as much fairness as possible while still expressing my particular misgivings for what was in the quote.

However, several months removed from this, I have taken time to reevaluate what Kimball said and more importantly the larger body of what he was saying and would like to offer an apology for my quick judgment. Though I do believe that the critiques I had are valid issues with some people inside Christian circles, I no longer feel that they apply to Kimball and would like to admit this for future reference on my blog.

In all actuality, though I still have some uneasiness at the title of a few of his works, I am finding Kimball to be a welcome voice of reason inside the ranks of emerging Christianity. His boldness and devotion to teaching the Word of God over the philosophies of man are wonderful traits which God has graciously blessed him with and has led him to use in reaching Christians in the postmodern context. Unlike certain peers such as Brian McLaren and Rob Bell, I find Kimball to be committed to finding the truth in the Scriptures and sober-minded enough not to be swayed by the all powerful arm of culture and stardom which has gripped so many of these teachers.

I pray that this apology can be accepted by any who I have displaced by my comments and I thank God for leading me back into seeing the work that Kimball has done for the Church and how God is using him in our culture today. I would also like to recommend his book They Like Jesus but Not the Church to you guys because, even though I find the title to be less than desirable, the contents reveal a very necessary insight into emerging culture which all leaders of the church in America can benefit from reading.


The Emergent Invitation to War- What Post-Modernism Does to Christianity

August 7, 2008

Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.” -1 Peter 3.13-16

I first became a fan of Natan Sharansky after reading his widely acclaimed book The Case for Democracy in early 2005. The unashamed way in which he spoke right to the heart of the matter of fear and freedom in our societies greatly influenced my outlook on the practices of governments around the world. Thus, when he released his most recent book, Defending Identity, I knew that I would eventually want to read it, regardless of the subject matter. However, when I began reading the reviews I saw that this was a book I would be interested in even if Mr. Sharansky had not been the author.

Why is that? Because, in this book which focuses mostly on the need for strong identities to coincide with strong democracies, I saw a deeper message pertaining to the struggle between strong identities and strong Christianity going on within the Church in our present emerging culture. Go onto any emergent blog, read any emergent book (say the upcoming Jesus Wants to Save Christians by Rob Bell for example), or engage any emergent thinkers in your congregation, and you will see this idea of a strong Christian identity being the cause of great travesties throughout the world and a drive to neutralize that identity and try to appeal on a broader range of issues which seem more agreeable to more people and thus promoting more “peace”. This all comes from the “perfectly compelling” syllogism of post-modernism, namely: identity causes conflict; conflict is evil; therefore, identity is evil. It is this false argument which I believe leads emergent Christianity down many a dangerous path in its theology and application, and it is that which Sharansky’s book, when read with a properly discerning eye, argues wholly against.

Below are a couple of quotes which I found particularly striking. In reading them, try and cast the ideas of war and totalitarian forces into the mold of religious conflict and Satan, and see for yourself if you can find the parallels which I was drawn to:

“Post-identity (post-modernism) weakens identity to decrease tensions between people, but doing so leads to vulnerability, threats, blackmail, and ultimately to an inability to defend against aggression. That is why post-identity is an invitation to war.” (Natan Sharansky, Discovering Identity, p.205

“People are willing to make sacrifices when the choice is clear, when they know what is right and what is wrong. yet, if nothing is right, if no value judgments can be made, then nothing is wrong. Post-identity has created a world in which there is no right. But if there is no right, why fight?” (ibid., pp.100-101)

“It should be obvious that wagging a struggle against totalitarian forces first requires moral clarity. Unless you recognize evil, you cannot begin to fight it. But this is where the champions of post-identity have done the greatest damage.” (ibid., p.221)


Be Killing Sin Always!- John Owen on Mortifying Sins

July 18, 2008

“For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” -Romans 8.13

If you have been reading my recent posts on Jeremiah and others you may have noticed occasional references to John Owen and the idea of “mortifying sins.” These thoughts have been coming out of an amazing book I read recently by Owen titled Of the Mortification of Sins in Believers. The words in this treatise really cut to the center of my idea of how a Christian should view the handling of their own forgiven sins. The phrases and ideas, which came from the mid-17th century, were incredibly pertinent to me here in the early 21st century. It truly is a wonder how God-filled works have this ability!

Because of the effect this book has had on me I would first like to recommend it to you guys and then lay out some quotes which I found particularly strong. The book, which is available in various forms, I would like to recommend as a part of the volume Overcoming Sin & Temptation, which contains two other Owen works on sin as well, and was compiled and notated by Justin Taylor and Kelly M. Kapic a few years back. Many people will complain about the difficulty of Owen’s writings, but if you are ever to read him, this volume would certainly be the best place for you to go. The editors did an excellent job of smoothing language and providing helpful footnotes to ease the reader through various rough spots.

Now, onto some quotes:

Unless a man be a believer- that is, one that is truly ingrafted into Christ- he can never mortify any one sin.

This is very challenging. So frequently we see our friends in need of help with some sort of addiction or harmful lifestyle choices and we want to help. However, the truth of the matter is that unless that person is a genuine disciple of Jesus Christ they stand no chance of ever truly killing off that sin.

There is no death of sin without the death of Christ.

This is so easy to forget and so often denied these days, but is there any honest argument which shows it to not be true? Of course not. Thus, we must be convinced and humbled by this amazing reality.

Do you think he will ease you of that which perplexes you, that you may be at liberty to that which no less grieves him? No. God says, ‘Here is one, if he could be rid of this lust I should never hear of him more; let him wrestle with this or he is lost.’

The fact that God sometimes leaves difficult sins with us in order to further our sanctification and obedience to him cannot be denied. There are many smaller sins which I have noticed as a result of the battle I have fought with the larger ones, that I probably would have just glossed over otherwise.

Such a man as opposes nothing to the seduction of sin and lust in his heart but fear of shame among men or hell from God, is sufficiently resolved to do the sin if there were no punishment attending it.

Ooo, this hurts! What is my motivation to avoid a sin? Is it my desire to be obedient to God or is it my desire to avoid the adverse consequences of my actions? This seems such an easy answer, but in practice it is so hard. I have to be focused always on maintaining the right motivation in my adherence to God’s commandments.

“Lust is such an inmate as, if it can plead time and some prescription, will not easily be ejected. As it never dies of itself, so if it be not daily killed it will always gather strength.

This gets to the heart of the issue. If there is a sin which I still struggle with, I must be in the habit of daily killing it because otherwise it won’t just go away but will only grow stronger with each moment spent ignoring it. When the first inkling comes to sin I must be prepared to kill it or else soon my flesh will grow weary of fighting the temptation and would rather give in than be obedient. Be killing sin or else it will be killing me!


Throwing Out Jesus with the Bathwater- The Tragic Tale of Trucker Frank

April 11, 2008

“The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.” -1 Timothy 3:1-7

“Although he planned to attend seminary, Frank got work as a pastor immediately out of college, first at a small fundamentalist church and then at a larger Mennonite church in Salem. Both pastorates were short-lived…. A stint as a carpenter followed and then Frank and his wife moved to Missouri to be closer to family. he was driving a school bus and teaching high school when yet another small Baptist church in the country asked him to serve as the part-time pastor, which he did for six years until his marriage broke up…. In the midst of the divorce, he swallowed a bottle of pills.” -Tony Jones, The New Christians, p.87

“But because anyone, including Trucker Frank, can speak freely in this emergent church, my seminary-trained eyes were opened to find a truth in the Bible that had previously eluded me.” -Tony Jones, The New Christians, p.92

In reading through Tony Jones’ new book “The New Christians” there was a particular passage which really struck me as being the summation of the whole book. It revolves around a trucker and recently acquired member of Jones’ church named Frank. Frank has been a pastor at three different denominational churches, at least two of which he was forced out of, and for a time was a local celebrity at a Christian bookstore in Minneapolis before the management was tired of his distracting employees from their work.

However, the crux of Frank’s story, and in parallel the main message of the book, comes out when we are given witness to a Sunday night service at Solomon’s Porch. As Jones makes abundantly clear throughout, the sermons at most emerging churches are not in the traditional expository style, but instead revolve around discussion of the text and allowing members to bring their own perspectives into the message. This night is no different, and as the message turns towards accountability in the church, one of the participants asks the group “What would it take for someone to be excommunicated from this church?” Specifically the question revolves around Jesus’ words in Matthew 18.

Now, there is no disagreement about the first three steps, but when it comes to the passage “And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector (v.17)” Frank decides to turn the traditional understanding on its’ head. Traditionally people have interpretted this as saying that we should excommunicate the person at this point. However, in Frank’s interpretation he asks, “And how did Jesus treat tax collectors and pagans? He welcomed them. He didn’t excommunicate or ban them.” This new interpretation, as Jones states, takes the scales off his eyes:

Frank was right! This saying of Jesus doesn’t call for excommunication at all but rather for opening the church doors wide, welcoming even those who’ve committed sins against people inside the church. (Jones, The New Christians, p.91)

Now, if a truly new interpretation was brought forth which enlightened the scripture in a way we had never seen this would be something to wonder at. The only problem is, Frank wasn’t right! By definition, the word “excommunicate” means to “deprive or suspend membership in a religious community.” And taking this further, if we were to treat someone who was a brother (i.e. fellow church member) as a tax collector or Gentile, what would we be doing? That’s right, we would be removing them from membership in the church! So, this actually IS about excommunication.

But, if Frank is wrong, why was everyone so adamant that he was right? Because he spoke with (false) authority. And why was Frank so sure himself? Well, as Frank says, he had been meditating on this passage in light of the fact that he had been excommunicated from churches in the past (motive?), when he came to the conclusion that his interpretation must be the corret one. Then, to top it off, “Frank then went looking for versions of the Bible that corroborated his thoughts. (p.91)” So, not only did Frank have his own special revelation, but he was kind enough to make sure that some translation of scripture somewhere showed some semblance of agreement with him! That Frank is so great!

Really though, this is the problem. When we let just anyone come in off the street and have “conversation” with the church during the sermon, we are bound to find the inmates running the asylum before too long. It only takes the slightest bit of charm and charisma to advance the most half-baked ideas, even among the most “discerning” of people. Hitler didn’t work alone, he duped an entire nation (or world if you want to go that far). Jim Jones led 900 people to suicide/murder. And, oh yeah, in Genesis 3, the devil conned two people into ruining Creation for all of us!

There is a reason the Bible gives specific qualifications for leadership in the church. Reasons why Paul is so stern with Timothy about how to select deacons and elders. It is because this church is Jesus’ church, not ours, and there are too many wolves and lions seeking someone to devour for us to leave the doors of leadership swinging open. The gift of teaching, as we are warned in James 3, is not for everyone, and it is a dangerous thing to try and assume that role upon yourself.


The Nonsense of Biblical Compromise- A Quote from Timothy Keller

March 8, 2008

Recently I read an excellent book on modern/postmodern apologetics entitled “The Reason for God” by Timothy Keller. In this book Keller devotes the first half to giving a Biblical defense against many common objections to Christianity by the younger generation, and in the second half he develops arguments for the foundation of major Christian doctrines.

One particular passage in the chapter concerning the inerrancy and infalability of Scripture really made me think. In discussing the fact that many people in the modern world want to dismiss the Bible as an authoratative text because some of its teachings aren’t PC enough, Keller makes the following observation:

“To stay away from Christianity because part of the Bible’s teaching is offensive to you assumes that if there is a God he wouldn’t have any views that upset you. Does that belief make sense?”

…Well, does it?


Why It’s Increasingly Important to be a Revolutionary Christian- A Book Review of “unChristian”

February 18, 2008

“These days nearly two out of every five young outsiders (38 percent) claim to have a ‘bad impression of present-day Christianity.’ Beyond this, one-third of young outsiders said that Christianity represents a negative image with which they would not want to be associated.”

“The most common ‘favorable’ impression (for outsiders) is that Christianity teaches the same basic idea as other religions; more than four out of every five young outsiders embrace this description.”

“In fact, we discovered that one-fifth of all outsiders, regardless of age, admitted they ‘have had a bad experience in a church or with a Christian that gave them a negative image of Jesus Christ.’ ”

-Dave Kinnamen, in unChristian

Present-day Christianity is shooting itself in the foot. That was one of the big take home messages from the book I recently read, the book “unChristian” by Dave Kinnamen. This text, based on surveys administered and data collected through the Barna group, is a broad base look at self described non-born-again Americans between the ages of 16 and 29 (aka. the outsiders) and how they view Christianity as it stands in America and the world today. The results are none-too-flattering.

Of course, to myself, and probably most others, the general results were not surprising. However, what is surprising, and even more so very convicting, is the high percentage of like minded abashment’s of Christians behavior and the detail of their distaste in our actions. Throughout my reading I was continuously questioning myself, seeing how I felt my lifestyle stacked up against the charges that were being brought. As well as bringing out the complaints, the author and his various contributors from the American church provide suggestions and encouragement for ways in which we can break through all of these negative barricades being built against the Christian message.

To myself, one of the most wrenching sections was on the views of outsiders that Christians are only interested in creating new converts and not necessarily in actually knowing and loving the people who they witness to. On top of this, Christians are oblivious to this disconnect with the younger generations. The author reports that 64 percent of Christians believe that outsiders perceive their efforts in evangelism as genuine, while only 34 percent of outsiders actually do. Also, he notes that we fail to continue in discipleship, as demonstrated by the fact that a majority of people who make a decision for Christ are no longer connected to a Christian church within 8 to 12 weeks following their decision! This is a big problem. This means that we as Christians are failing to both demonstrate and communicate the revolutionary nature of the decision to believe on Christ and seeking to be sanctified into His image.

In all, I found this book somewhat depressing, though in a welcome sense, and very helpful in preparing myself to engage those in my generation who do not know Christ as Lord of their life. Moreover, it strengthened my conviction for the need of revolutionary Christianity, for a lifestyle which represents a drastic difference from the world in which we live, adhering to the holy and inerrant direction of God’s word.

If we as Christians stand any chance of reaching the future generations of Americans it is clear that we can no longer live the blase, lukewarm life of the last 20 to 30 years. We must stand on scripture, we must seek holiness, and most importantly we must humbly proceed in love towards the lost, willing to lay down our lives in sacrifice so that they may come to know Jesus as the Savior of their souls.