The Third Party Vote Fallacy

We've all heard the claim that a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the least desirable major party candidate. A related claim is that not voting at all is a vote for the least desirable major party candidate. Well, these claims are fallacies and I will show that here.

I will set up an election with candidates A, B and C, voter V, and claim maker K. A and B are the major party candidates, and C is a third party candidate.

Let's say voter V votes for candidate C. The claim is made by K that a vote for C is a vote for A. V casts a vote for C, so C gets one vote. But A also gets a vote? How did that happen? A vote must magically appear out of nowhere for this to be true. One vote is cast, but two are received! K needs to convince V of the mathematical equation 1 = 2. But this equation is false, and so is the claim that a vote for C is a vote for A.

Similarly, let's say V does not vote for any candidate. The claim is made by K that not voting is a vote for A. No vote is cast but A gets a vote that, again, magically appears out of nowhere? The equation that must be true is 0 = 1. But this, too, is false, and so is the claim that not voting is a vote for A.

As a result of the above, I would propose the following axiom: Candidates only receive votes that are actually cast for them.

Now, for a slightly different claim, I will add a piece of information that says that both candidates A and B are very undesirable candidates, and that B is "the lesser of two evils" in the eyes of K. K makes the claim that not voting for B is a vote for A. The error that K makes here is that K has already attributed V's vote to B according to K's own election plan. K is then guilt-tripping V (because K is attempting to be the lord of V's conscience) for failing to vote according to K's plan. Because a vote is already attributed to B, K believes he can take liberty to subtract a vote from B and claim that it goes to A. This is similar to the bookkeeping practice of subtracting from one column and adding it to another on a ledger. The money was already in the first column and was transferred to another column. But if no money was in the first column to begin with, it cannot be transferred to the second column. This claim is especially pernicious as K need to convince V that both equations of 0 = -1 and 0 = 1 are true. But they are both false, and the claim that not voting for B is a vote for A is doubly false.

One last scenario, the one in which we find ourselves today. We have two candidates, A and B, that are each perceived as being very evil, but with differing opinions as to which is the greater evil. Voters are taking such a stand against the candidate they perceive to be the greater evil that they create a motto such as #NeverA or #NeverB. They will voluntarily vote for a known evil just to prevent another evil from being elected. What is missed in all this is that #NeverA and #NeverB combined is a guarantee that an evil candidate is elected. No such guarantee exists for voter V that does not vote for either A or B, or who votes for a third party candidate. So, #NeverA and #NeverB are greater promoters of evil than the one who refuses to vote for a known evil. It is my hope that people can recognize the common fallacies presented to them each election season and reject them.

Matthew 18: Principles and Not Procedures

An old blog post I remember (after long forgetting) has just resurfaced. Kevin Johnson at the old - and no longer available - Reformed Catholicism posted about understanding the meaning of Matthew 18. His contention is that most people are not aware that Matt 18 has a specific context - church leaders dealing with each other. And, that many people are taught, unfortunately, that Matt 18 is a procedure to follow for laymen in dealing with sinning brothers, even when abused people try to confront their abusive religious leaders.

But, as Johnson points out, we are a people that live by wisdom and principles, and not detailed formulas. Neither Jesus nor Paul followed this pattern when rebuking the religious leaders of their day. We don't have to, either. It is odd that the Matthew 18 Nazis of today expect even abuse victims to follow Matt 18, especially in light of the fact that one of the possible outcomes Jesus assumes in telling this to his disciples is repentance. Something that well-oiled religious systems and their rigid leaders show very rarely.

Read Johnson's old post, preserved and re-posted by the Under Much Grace blog.

Ezekiel 34 (Part 1)

Then the word of the LORD came to me saying, "Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. Prophesy and say to those shepherds, 'Thus says the LORD God, "Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flock? You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat sheep without feeding the flock. Those who are sickly you have not strengthened, the diseased you have not healed, the broken you have not bound up, the scattered you have not brought back, nor have you sought for the lost; but with force and with severity you have dominated them. And they were scattered for lack of a shepherd, and they became food for every beast of the field and were scattered. My flock wandered through all the mountains and on every high hill, and My flock was scattered over all the surface of the earth; and there was no one to search or seek for them." ' " Ezekiel 34:1-6 (NASB)

The first thing I see, besides the woe pronounced, is that the LORD criticizes shepherds for feeding themselves instead of feeding the flock. I admit I'm a bit puzzled by this, as he says just after this that the shepherds eat the fat, and slaughter the fat sheep. How did these sheep get fat if the shepherds were not feeding the flock? Maybe the were feeding a select few in order to slaughter them? Maybe they were getting fat simply by being where they were in the field? I don't know. I will give some more thought to this as this series develops, and skip to the next group of issues for now.

Ezekiel then brings an accusation against the shepherds based on the lack of fulfilling their responsibilities. They were supposed to, as shepherds, strengthen the sickly. They were supposed to heal the diseased. They were supposed to bind the broken. They were supposed to bring back the scattered. They were supposed to seek for the lost. But they did none of these things. Then, an accusation of doing something they weren't supposed to do...dominate the flock with force and severity.

I believe that these failures of shepherds today are as true as they were in Ezekiel's day. Failure of shepherds to know their duties is widespread. I have experienced these failures personally at the hands of a number of shepherds over my 20+ years as a Christian and have read countless testimonies of others. Reading this passage and looking back at the churches I attended, I would barely know from the teaching I received that these are responsibilities of shepherds. But here, God lists them so that there is no question as to responsibility.

The Voice of One Crying Out in a Closed Communion

Should communion (i.e. Lord's Supper) be an open or a closed thing? Arthur Sido at The Voice of One Crying Out in Suburbia does some reasoning with the bible in mind in his post, The Communion Default. I agree that it should be open to all Christians because it is, after all, the Lord's table, and not ours. And as one who has been humiliated by closed communions, I have experienced the damage that a closed communion can cause. Give it a read.

The Church and a Crisis of Relational Righteousness

Recently, in a blog post at Internet Monk that dealt with church growth and church decline, I added a comment that told part of my story. What I noted was a widespread lack of loving one's neighbor as one's self, in the context of the church. Here's my comment in its entirety:

Relationships are very important to my family, as they are to many. But one factor that has big impact is how one is treated. We left the last three churches we attended basically due to 1) neglect, 2) abuse, and 3) indifference. We haven’t been to a church in a while. In each of these cases, there was a significant lack of caring from the body while we were in our greatest crises in life. This included people we knew personally (and knew very well, at least we thought so) for over ten years.

I believe there is a crisis in the church of what I might call “relational righteousness.” If you make a promise to somebody, keep it. If somebody is in need, help. If you can’t help, pray with them. Invite people over for a meal. If somebody else invites you over, go. If you place somebody in charge of a ministry, let them be in charge of the ministry, and don’t meddle. Associate with the lowly. Show the most honor to the least in your midst. Actually practice the one-anothers. Stuff your choir/worship band for a while and let the addict you saved out of the gutter play “Amazing Grace” on his harmonica. It won’t hurt. Suffer not little children to be part of the church family. Really. And here is a big one…if somebody offers you help, let them help, even if you don’t need it. It may make their day. Practice and teach these things.

For my family, it is going to take a church that practices this relational righteousness for us to attend.

In light of my last post on The Dones, it is easy to see why so many people are deciding to leave a church they have attended, even for years.

The Dones

Church attendance in the US has been in steady decline for decades. We all know about that. Researchers have noted that many people have given up on church altogether. We hear about their loss of faith, no longer having anything to do with religion.

But some researchers are digging deeper and finding out that many are leaving the "church," but these many are NOT leaving the Christian faith. They are simply exiting the doors of the visible church building. They still believe in God, the bible, and the one-anothers of the Christian life.

These people are not the group known as the "nones" (i.e. those who no longer profess allegiance to any denomination or even religion), but can be identified as the "dones." These are the people who are done with church. They have become fed up with the status quo. They have been ignored, neglected, used, abused, or have had any number of other things happen to them while attending their church. Now they are done.

Here is an interesting blog site called The Dones (hat tip to Eric Carpenter) that takes a look at Christians who have left the institutional church, but not Christianity.

Ezekiel 34 Series - Coming Soon

I have been reading and pondering Ezekiel 34 lately (the last year or so) and have decided to make a series of blog posts on the chapter. (Click here for Ezekiel 34, NASB)

I have long understood God's judgment against shepherds for neglecting their duties toward their sheep in this prophesy, but there are other actions of God as well. God judges between sheep; the fat and lean sheep. I will strive to touch upon the duties of shepherds in this passage and how this relates to today in America. I will also look at the distinction between fat and lean sheep. I see a parallel between ancient Israel and today's evangelical/Reformed church.

Stay tuned for the Ezekiel 34 series.

Book Almost Out: Simple Church: Unity Within Diversity

The forthcoming book I wrote about a few blog posts ago will be out in just a few weeks! With that, I will be a published author.

The final title of the book is, "Simple Church: Unity Within Diversity." Twenty-four contributors each write a chapter, with the goal of telling what we're for rather than what we're against. I have not read the book in advance, but am eagerly looking forward to all the other authors' contributions. I understand that the book will be available on December 2.

If you are interested, the book is available for pre-order either at Amazon.com (here  http://amzn.to/1oH3HKh ) or from the publisher, Redeeming Press (here http://redeemingpress.com/authors/eric-carpenter/simple-church/ ).

The Lack of Respect for Authority

We live in a time where there is a great lack of respect for authority. Or so the somewhat tired cliché goes. I was reminded of this recently while reading a letter from a former major league baseball player to prospective players and parents in a youth sports league he is affiliated with. Kids have a lack of respect for coaches. Parents have a lack of respect for umpires. He has experienced this for years. Well, on his sports teams, he will not tolerate such things, and will teach the players - and expect from parents - respect for authority. He also identified his Christian faith as a basis for his views on youth sports.

I have no problem with his desire to teach these things to the kids on his team. A baseball manager should teach these things. And, yes, there is a lack of respect for authority in many other areas of life as well: politics, religion, law enforcement, family. But as I thought this over, I realized that the lack of respect for authority we so often see around us could actually be due to a lack of respectable authority to give respect to.

The greatest lack of respect for authority comes from those in authority who abuse that authority. They do not respect the limits of their authority. They do not respect what is right, and will therefore use their authority to dominate others.

With the growing effect of the internet and social media in our culture, it may be becoming more difficult to be an abuser of authority. People are learning that they can tell their stories to many people that they never could before, and they are taking advantage of the technology to set things right. This should be viewed as a positive thing.

I'm wondering if the result of all this will be a cleaning of house of sorts, with bad holders of authority eventually being replaced by people who are actually trustworthy with authority. Only time will tell.

Jesus: A Disembodied Head?

"But we shouldn't worship the church. We worship Jesus."

I have heard this sentiment a few times and once as a direct quote when discussing shortcomings of the church and what the church should be doing, in the context of what type of church I'd like to attend. While it is no doubt true that many people place far too much emphasis on the church - or their own church - this response I believe reveals how some people think about the church.

If I wish for the day when I can attend a church where there is fellowship like in the bible, and the church practices the one-anothers like in the bible, and when I'm down in life people in the church will help me (and vice versa) like in the bible, and where we have real meals together like in the bible, why would somebody think this is me worshipping the church? There is such an emphasis on not having others connected to you at the same time as there is such an emphasis on relying totally on Jesus, I have to ask a question. Is the Jesus that I am being shown by the churches I have attended a Jesus that is a disembodied head?

The bible shows us that we are all connected together, by joints and ligaments and that we are all members of one another. We are the body of Christ, so we are actually part of Jesus. Saul persecuted Jesus himself by persecuting the church, and Jesus will judge based on what we do to the least of these, since we're actually doing those things to Jesus himself. When I am taught to rely solely upon Jesus for everything, I am being presented with a disembodied head, the only thing to which I am connected, rather than an entire body of which I am a part.

Forthcoming Book: "What We're For"

It's time to talk about a new book in the works. Eric Carpenter, blogger at A Pilgrim's Progress, and Jeremy Myers are putting together a new book, tentatively titled "What We're For." Yours truly will be contributing a chapter to that book. You can read a bit further about this project at Eric's blog here.

Eric and Jeremy have lined up about 25 people who will write a chapter each. This book will be about the positives of the "simple church" concept, hence "what we're for," rather than the negatives often written about institutional church.

My chapter will be about one of the things we're for, roughly, "a church that clings to Scriptural truth in all aspects of life." A broad topic to be sure, but limiting that topic to about 2000 words was an exercise in just about everything! My chapter was completed and submitted several weeks ago, and we've been through the editing. The book is scheduled to be out this fall. I've never been a published author before (in the traditional understanding, of course, as there's that "publish" button on my blog editor), so this is an exciting project to tackle. I will write more as the publish date approaches.

The Scandal of the Passively-Churched

I'm not merely arguing semantics here with my look at Kevin DeYoung's blog post The Scandal of the Semi-Churched at The Gospel Coalition site.  Yes, I do here look at the meanings of words.  But the reason I can say I am not merely arguing semantics is that the meaning of the following words do have actual application in the real world.

Consider the word "churched".  It has become quite the fad in Reformed churches in the last couple of decades to speak of people in terms of the extent they are "churched".  We have the "churched", "unchurched", "de-churched", "under-churched", and now here the "semi-churched".  I first learned this terminology in an Al Martin-style Reformed Baptist clone church in the mid-90's.  The "churched" were those who were full, practicing, formal members of a church.  The "unchurched" were those who attended every Sunday, listened and took notes of every sermon, attended all the church meetings, helped those members in need, brought great food to the pot luck, and outwardly lived and acted like true Christians in every conceivable manner...except that they had not signed the dotted line on the formal church membership papers (the true litmus test for salvation).

One thing to note about the word "churched" as it compares with the word "church", is that "churched" is a verb, while "church" (ekklesia in the NT) is a noun.  This is important.  In addition, the verb "churched" is in the passive tense.  Its meaning would be this: to have church done to you.  This is in stark contrast to the noun "church" that depicts a physical thing, as the actions relating to "church" are found in biblical imperatives and examples of actions in the Christian life.

There is cause for concern about the "semi-churched" because the semi-churched can only have church done to them when they actually show up.  It simply doesn't matter what other grand things for the Kingdom people may be doing, if they aren't in the one position of being churched, the ones doing the churching unto other people are SOL.  They are powerless.

The bible shows us a few metaphors that are handy in making my point here.  The church is linked to the image of being the family of God.  It is also a body which has members, and the members are individual believers.  Now, if somebody in my family didn't show up for dinner (my wife went shopping recently, and in other cases I worked swing shift), or was out of the house (my oldest son recently had a sleep-over at his cousin's house), all the others in my family would realize it.  The rest of us actually miss the one who is absent.  It makes a big difference in the dynamic of the family.  Sometimes, my wife has all the kids talk on speaker phone when I'm at work on swing shift and they say how they miss me.  Similarly, if my body suddenly was missing a body part, it would be known.  Its function would be missed the entire time the body part was missing.  As an example, a family member of mine woke up one morning deaf in one ear.  No cause was ever diagnosed.  Decades later, the effect is still dramatic.  It affects being able to hear clearly, where sound comes from, how to talk on the phone, on and on.

When semi-churched people are absent, does it make a radical difference in the dynamic of the church that day?  No?  In my experience, I've missed Sundays for various reasons (most of them valid, by the way), and nobody has ever said that my absence caused the body to function in a different way.  I've attended a handful of churches regularly in my life.  Each time I've left a church (for whatever reason), I've never received a call from a concerned soul asking why I was gone and how it is affecting the church.  The shepherd has never left the ninety-and-nine to come after the stray, me.

Maybe the semi-churched are realizing, even if they can't put their finger on it, that their church isn't like a family or a body, and that's why they can go missing.  Maybe they can't take consistent churching.  Maybe the lack of input as body members or family members is noticeable.  If your church doesn't treat you like family or like a body member, there's a problem.  Maybe the scandal of the semi-church is really the scandal of the passively-churched.

Harold Camping Dead

Harold Camping is dead.

False.  The bible is full, from beginning to end, of warnings and stories of the false.  False prophets, false teachers, false Christs, false apostles, false leaders, false doctrine, false teachings, false beliefs, false spirits, false believers.

In the Old Testament, God warns of false prophets, and not only that, but gives his people a test they can use to determine if a prophet is false.  False prophets are predicted many times.  In the New Testament, Jesus warns of the leaven of the Pharisees' teachings, their false humility, and pretty near curses them to their faces.  He warns of false prophets and false Christs to come, that they will come deceiving, and bringing amazing signs and wonders to lead many astray.  He warns of blind leaders of the blind.  He warns even of a false disciple in his own midst, one that will turn the very Son of God over to a death sentence.  The apostles warn of false prophets, false teachers, wolves in sheep's clothing.  Paul warns the elders at Ephesus that ravenous wolves will arise from their very own group of men.  John warns us to not believe every spirit, but to test the spirits.  Jesus commends a church in the book of Revelation for proving that self-proclaiming apostles are false.

Not only are there numerous warnings in the bible about those who are false, there are numerous mentions as to what these false people will do and how they will do it.  We are also told many times what to look for to determine if somebody is false.  These are dire warnings, given with the most extreme urgency and listing the most horrible consequences.  And to finish this, we are not only told about other people being false, we are given lists of sins that we can be tempted with that will take us down the same path.

If you ask me, this is a pretty amazing thing about the bible.  Think about it, and see if you don't agree.  If you question this, consider the following.

What other human group, organization or philosophy - no matter how good the cause may seem - takes such pains to warn others of false deceivers that will arise from within its own system?  Do political parties to this?  Do the Republicans and Democrats warn the public, saying, "hey, future candidates and office holders from our party will take illegal campaign contributions, have affairs with interns, be involved in scandals, take bribes and tell lies, and here are all the signs to tell if they are doing these things"?  Whaaa, heck, no!  Are you kidding?  How about groups that are opposed to, let's say, sexual harassment?  Are these groups going to inform the masses that there are false victims out there that will make up false stories to falsely incriminate somebody to further the cause based on false pretenses, and here are all the signs to look out for in case somebody does?  Again, are you kidding?  How about the police?  They warn all the time about what criminals do and what to watch out for, and they occasionally warn about what to look for when somebody is impersonating a police officer, but do they ever warn about rogue cops and bad apples and corruption from within the department and how to discern?  I can't remember this ever happening.

The bizarre thing is that when there is a big name within Christianity that is proven to be a scam artist, child molester or any other false professor of the faith caught in some huge scandal, or some seemingly innocent group turns out to act like some cult, people act like they're surprised.  People take it as reason to blaspheme God, to claim the bible and its teachings are false, to slander good Christians, to dismiss the whole of religion.  Why would the bible be false because of such things?  The bible predicted it, after all.  We've all been warned.  And it's not like all of Christianity is sweeping all of these things under the rug like other organizations often do.  True, there are cover ups and hiding facts and things like these (which is all part of the false), and there have been large scandals throughout history, but there are also numerous organizations and many more individuals that spend large amounts of time to investigate, uncover and expose the false teachers and such.  The bible even tells believers to expose these things.  Historians point out such things from the past and Christian publications document things happening right now.

Heeding the warnings and avoiding the pitfalls will go a long way to keep from being false.

Strange Fire Misfire

The "Strange Fire" conference held by John MacArthur and friends has caused quite a stir in Protestant circles.  But what is somebody like me supposed to make of all this?  Here it is.

John MacArthur is a cessationist, believing the gifts believed in by the charismatic movement have ceased.  I used to be a cessationist.  I was a cessationist, mainly, because I attended cessationist churches with cessationist leaders and listened to teachers that were cessationists.  The only arguments to the contrary were from continuationists - those who believed that the gifts in question continue to this present day.  Their arguments were mostly brought by the cessationists in order to show how they were wrong.  So, I had a biased view of the issues.

I'm not a cessationist

I stopped being a cessationist when I stopped listening to cessationist arguments and the proof texts they used.  I found that I could not support their arguments from the bible alone.  Their arguments were largely logical conclusions that they reached.  The foremost is the closure of canon.  The gifts of tongues and prophesy were used by God as new revelation because the bible wasn't complete yet.  The New Testament was still a work in progress.  Once the bible was complete, God stopped bringing new revelation because the bible is our final authority.  With the bible complete, we no longer need revelation.

But where does the bible say that all use of tongues and prophesy necessarily introduces new revelation not previously available to God's people?  If prophesy is declaring the word of the Lord, it certainly can include declaring an already existing part of scripture but simply applying it to a given situation.  Same with tongues.  Tongues were speaking to somebody who spoke a different language, but the hearer heard your words in his language.  Why does that necessarily mean new revelation?  In Acts, on the day of Pentecost, those who were speaking in tongues were simply "speaking the mighty deeds of God." Acts 2:11.  Additionally, Paul says in Corinthians that tongues shall cease.  But he doesn't say when.  So, I don't buy the arguments for a cessationist viewpoint.

I'm not a continuationist

But neither am I a continuationist.  By that I mean that I don't believe that these gifts are a normative thing for all believers in all ages.  I reject the idea that all true believers must speak in tongues or prophesy, and I also reject the idea that tongues are a second blessing that come at a later time than conversion.  One is baptised at conversion, then a second "baptism in the Holy Spirit" gives one extra gifts.  I don't believe this, and the arguments of the continuationists are the same as the arguments of the cessationists; logical conclusions based on their own interpretations.

I'm neither

I'm neither a cessationist nor a continuationist.  I hear of Acts-like conversion stories for Muslim converts in the Middle East.  I've heard of people claiming to speak in tongues.  But for me, experientially, I've never heard anybody speak in tongues, and I've never had anybody directly tell me they speak in tongues.  And I attended a Pentecostal church for two and a half years!  I'm open to God being God and using what He wants when He wills.  I don't have these gifts, but what if others legitimately do?  I can't prove they don't, and I can't prove they do.

But I can question the extremes on both ends, legitimately.

What the Church Can Learn from a Red Sox Fan

How come "Red Sox Nation is not defined by anything but their love of the Boston Red Sox" but "Churches have rules, they have covenants, they have stuff you have to sign. I know at the churches I’ve been at you had to take classes and get voted in."?

This is asked by Dan Allen in his blog post Red Sox Nation.  He links to this on Facebook with the lead-in, "why the Red Sox are awesome and churches are not."

Dan makes the point that Red Sox Nation (as a biased Giants fan I could re-write Dan's post with my team in view) looks more like what Christianity should look like than Christianity does.  Most of the churches I have attended have preached that "it is Jesus, not Jesus plus something else," yet they have insisted that I must become a formal member of their church or something close to that in order to avoid having my salvation questioned for not doing so.  Why are Christians marginalized for simply wanting to be part of Jesus' followers?

Quoting Allen's two money paragraphs:

The other element of this is what exactly makes one a member of a particular church? To be a member of Red Sox Nation you need simply love the Red Sox. When you go to a game at Camden Yards you are essentially a member of Red Sox Nation gathered at Camden Yards. When you go home to Boston later in the week and go to a game at Fenway you are gathered with Red Sox Nation there as well. Are you more officially a member of either gathering? Are you disloyal to either for going to the other? Of course not. The more places you go, the more games you gather at the more you show your love of the team, the defining trait of being a member. I mean, hell, when you go down to the local sports bar to put down a pitcher of Sam Adams Boston Lager and watch the Sox destroy the Rays, you are a member of the gathering of Red Sox Nation there too!

Churches don’t work exactly like this. You aren’t really allowed to just be part of the group that you are around. You may be allowed to be a guest if you visit family out of town and stop by their church, but if you don’t gather with one group consistantly week to week at the designated meeting place, you are considered a church hopper and somehow, unlike going to all the Red Sox games wherever you can making you a bigger fan, this somehow makes you a less mature, less serious Christian.

Dan makes a good analogy, and I encourage you to read his full post to gain the full flavor of his argument.

The Neo-Calvinist Certitude

I've had this post's topic in my draft folder for quite a while.  I simply haven't been able to put my finger on how to word it or how to put my ideas together the best way.  Until now.

One thing that has bothered me for a long time in the New Calvinist movement is the certitude that is so widespread.  Certitude is an absolute certainty about something.  And it's not that any of us aren't certain about our beliefs; we are.  I'm certain about everything I believe, but I also know that I'm wrong about quite a few things.  I simply haven't discovered what those things are yet.  If history (my history) is any indication, I will discover a number of things over the next few years that will cause me to change my view about a number of things.  The next few years after that will produce the same thing.  As iron sharpens iron, I will become sharper because I will allow other iron to sharpen me.

The certitude in the neo-cal movement is something that takes on a different aura.  Many have become so certain about what they believe - all that they believe, and that they are certain about all things - that they have prevented themselves from learning truth. They are so certain about their whole system, they can't learn anything new.  Anything new outside of their system, that is.  It is true that they continue to learn, but they seem only to be able to learn new things that already fit within the system.  Their system.

I think this is what I was getting at when I wrote my post titled, "If Iron Sharpens Iron, Then Why Is The Reformed Drawer So Full Of Dull, Rusty Knives?" 

Stupid Things to Not Say to Those Who Hurt

I ran across a Facebook link to a blog post titled, "3 Phrases Christians Should Quit Relying On" by a blogger named Jayson Bradley.

While the three phrases the author uses are not specifically aimed at people confronted with hurting people, two of them he specifically ties to suffering.  The three he lists are:

1. “God doesn’t give you more than you can handle.”
2. “God told me . . .”
3. “I’ll pray for you.”

For why you should never tell somebody that God doesn't give them more than they can handle, Bradley suggests,

"It’s just dumb: People go through more than they can handle all the time. Whether it’s the loss of a child or a slow death from cancer, people are going through things you can’t possibly imagine. Would you tell Jewish prisoners at Buchenwald that “God doesn’t give you more than you can handle?”

(Hat Tip: Sara's Hillbilly Husband)

Maybe the Part-Time Churchgoer Smells the Coffee

Hat tip to Arthur Sido (who blogs at the voice of one crying out in suburbia) for pointing out a post written by Trevin Wax at the Gospel Coalition blog.

Wax writes about the "part-time churchgoer" so prevalent in today's [even a faithful] church.  He constructs a fictional couple, Geoff and Christine, who have children and serve faithfully in their local church.  Geoff is even a deacon.  But as faithful as they may think they are, they miss quite a number of Sundays to engage in other activities.  Without knowing it, they are "part-time" churchgoers.  Please read the short post here to understand what I am writing about.

My purpose in this post is to call attention to a point that I think is completely missed by both the author and most all of the commenters.

So Geoff and Christine miss church to engage in sports activities for their kids, go on vacation, take care of sick kids, host visiting family, and several other reasons.  What's the big deal? 

Getting right to the point here, Geoff and Christine may think it's okay to miss church because they aren't missed at church when they aren't there.  Nobody will notice.  And the reason nobody will notice is because the "body of Christ" that Wax attempts to portray really doesn't function like a body.  You know, like the body that the apostle Paul writes about in his epistles.  After all, if the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be?

Imagine your body missing a major organ or other part.  If I woke up today totally blind in one eye it would affect me for the rest of my life, or until whatever temporary problem disappeared.  If I suddenly had surgery to remove a kidney, the results would be drastic.  If I were missing even one single toe, my foot planting on the ground on every step would be altered enough to give me posture problems or hinder my ability to run. 

Why do we think Paul used the metaphor of a body to describe the church?  It is because any body part that is missing would cause such a notable difference that we would suffer as a result.  But when Geoff and Christine miss church, does it noticeably affect the rest of the body?  It affects the body when the pastor isn't preaching and there's a guest in the pulpit.  But why wouldn't the body suffer the same when Geoff and Christine are absent?  Each member has the same care for each other, after all. (1 Cor. 12:25)  I don't ever recall a time where I was told that the body had a more difficult time functioning because I wasn't there on a given Sunday.  People never tell me that we were missed greatly by not being there. Is the pastor more important than Geoff and Christine?  If so, then there is a problem with the church they attend.

Maybe Geoff and Christine have noticed (or maybe they haven't) like we have that fellowship with other Christian families involved in sports is often better than the fellowship at church.  Why would that be?

The answer could be that the problem isn't with the people who don't show up on Sunday, but rather with the church that doesn't truly miss its absentees; the church that is about program and structure and not people.

Out of Context

One recurring theme I have noticed with respect to bible interpretation throughout my experience within evangelicalism is that people routinely take bible passages out of their context and use them as stand-alone ideas.  It's almost as if each verse in the bible is its own text, completely separate from other verses that surround it.  Sometimes, the passage in view is applied to life in a way that is good, but that application isn't what the passage meant.  Other times, the passage is completely misinterpreted and also applied in a wrong way.

An example of the latter is, I believe, 1 Corinthians 2:2:

For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. (NASB)

Many interpret this as Paul giving an example of the Christian life that we all should follow.  All he knew was Jesus Christ and him crucified, the simplest expression of the gospel, and that's all we need to know, too.  Knowing anything more than this just complicates everything.  After all, all you need is Jesus, right?

But this is a faulty interpretation.  If the stand-alone verse was put back into its context, we would see that this was not Paul's example for all of us, but rather a unique strategy he had in dealing with the Corinthian church.  A strategy that he didn't use in Ephesus, but there he rather gave them a great deal of difficult doctrine.

Consider 1 Corinthians 3:1-4.  Paul gives his reason for limiting his knowledge while among the Corinthians:

And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ.  I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?  For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men? (NASB)

The Corinthians were very immature believers, so they needed the simple milk of the gospel, and not meat that the mature could eat, such as those in Ephesus.  It is difficult to have discussions sometimes when misinterpretations are ingrained into a particular culture of belief.  How to make progress in getting a culture to change its way of thinking is an extremely difficult task.  If not impossible.  Maybe only the Holy Spirit can accomplish such a thing.  Let's ask for the work of the Spirit within our church cultures.

Alan Knox on Being a Member of Christ's Body

I've been a long time reader and commenter on Alan Knox's The Assembling of the Church blog.  His latest post "replays" an old post of his where he looks at what the NT says about being a member of Christ's body.  He compares this with what we commonly know as the modern concept of church membership:

What did I find? I found that the modern concept of “church membership” is completely different than the scriptural idea of being members of the body of Christ and members of one another.

One helpful tactic Alan uses in his post is that he quotes every passage in the NT that has to do with membership.  He finally points out a number of things regarding the use of the body/member metaphor, including:

We become members of the body through an act of God not because of something that we do or something that we choose.  We do not choose to be members of the body nor do we choose those with whom we are members.

This is an interesting conclusion given what most of us have been taught about church membership.  I agree with Alan on this point.  Read his post here.

Was The Apostle Paul (Saul of Tarsus) The Rich Young Ruler? (4)

Read all posts on this idea here.

"I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated under Gamaliel, strictly according to the law of our fathers, being zealous for God, just as you all are today." Acts 22:3

I have written several posts on the idea whether Paul was the rich young ruler from Matthew 19.  Here in this passage, Paul gives his story to the Jews in Jerusalem, and mentions that he was brought up in Jerusalem.  I had not noticed this before.  So, my original question about where Saul could have been during the life and ministry of Jesus has been answered.

Saul was brought up in Jerusalem, and was a Pharisee, so he certainly would have been aware of Jesus.  I cannot imagine that he would have not had direct contact with Jesus given Jesus' record of talking with religious leaders and going to all the feasts and being the center of attention so many times.  Check out all of my posts on this topic here.

Legalism and the Tyranny of Outward Appearance

As bad as legalism is - the adding of extra-biblical rules to either define sin and righteousness or to add requirements to salvation - the extra emphasis placed on outward appearances as part of that legalism is much worse.  A church can teach no drinking, no smoking, no dancing or no going to movies in its legalism and produce some self-righteous people, but when it teaches to refrain from making any outward appearances that reflect any of these things in the way we live, dress or move to a new apartment, it can create some pretty hard core Pharisees with very toxic doctrine.

I've had the misfortune of attending several churches where a heavy emphasis was placed not only on do/don't rules, but on outward appearance.  Or maybe it was fortunate in a way because now I know how to notice those things and avoid them, and tell others.

One of the verses often twisted out of its true meaning is 1 Thessalonians 5:22, "Abstain from all appearance of evil." KJV  I'll give an example of how this is used with relation to drinking, smoking and moving to a new apartment.  Back in the day before either self-storage or cardboard recycling became popular, when people had to move the best source of cardboard boxes to pack one's belongings was the grocery store. So, we'd go to the store and ask for boxes, and the stores were more than willing to give the boxes away because that relieved them of breaking all the boxes down and placing them in the garbage dumpsters.  Many of the boxes were empty cases that originally contained alcohol and cigarettes.  So when you moved, those boxes were visible to those who helped you move or to bystanders in your new and old neighborhoods.  By using a Marlboro or Budweiser box to move, the outward appearance driven legalists would claim that you were giving an "appearance" of evil, even though anybody with half a brain could deduce that you were merely using discarded cardboard boxes to move.  It simply didn't matter.  This placed a heavy burden on anybody when moving, because they had to take extra care to pick and choose wisely which boxes to use.

Another personal example is in driving expensive cars as giving an appearance of evil of spending lots of money on vanity and ego when you could drive a modest car and give the rest of the money to print gospel tracts or similar spiritual things.  My brother has spent his entire career in the auto service/repair field.  The shops have great policies for family members of employees, namely that repairs are performed "at cost."  Our m.o. was to have me swap cars with him in the evening, and he would drive my car to work the next day, have it fixed, and swap back that evening.  Well, one time my brother got a great deal on a used BMW 5-series car, and I needed a repair that could only be performed over the weekend.  So we swapped cars...and it dawned on me that I had to drive to church on Sunday!  In a BMW!  The Pharisees would certainly notice my display of vanity (it would be assumed until proven otherwise that I was acting quite worldly), and I was trying to figure out how to park several blocks away without anybody noticing, etc.

Every area of life imaginable was subject to the outward appearance nazis, and they certainly made their fair share of comments about anything you could imagine.  They also made their fair share of judgments about people in their hearts without ever saying anything, thus condemning others without anybody (except God, hahaha) knowing about it.  I should know, I was taught to be such a person, and it wasn't until later that God was merciful in showing me the tyranny of this way of thinking and living.  Your rich uncle buys you a pair of designer sunglasses (costing nothing to you)?  Tough, you're putting worldliness on display.  Being thankful to God and your rich uncle for providing a helpful item at no cost, is, well frowned upon becuase of the outward appearance. 

People subject to this type of legalism can be spiritually crippled for a long time, even eternally.  We shoud instead learn from Jesus when he says, "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” John 7:24.

News Flash: I'm Not the Chief of Sinners

...and neither are you.

This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.  Apostle Paul - 1 Timothy 1:15 KJV

It is easy to think that we are to view ourselves as the chief sinner.  Many have taken this verse as a recommendation from Paul to do so.  We should be at the point of seeing our sin so much more than we see the sin of others, that we can make this statement: "I am the chief of sinners."  But should this be our attitude?

It may speak of our piety; but it may equally - or more so - speak of our pietism.  Some people seem to boast in how great of sinners they are.  Should this be the case?  There's a reason Paul speaks of himself as the chief of sinners, and it's not so that we will think the same of ourselves.  It is because he really was the chief of sinners.  After all, he pursued the church, dragging people from their very homes into prison and to death in order to destroy the Christian church.  He was the most violent persecutor of Christ's body there was.

Me?  Well, although I am a sinner, I haven't done the things he did.  And you haven't, either.  On the flip side of the coin, I'm not quite the zealous apostle he was after his conversion.  And neither are you.  God turned the worst of men into the best of servants in his kingdom.  There is no fault in realizing that some people are worse sinners than we are, and some people are better saints than we are.  Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I fall somewhere in the middle.

The Five Pint Stoutist

What do you get when you cross a religious holiday, religious humor, the official drink of the religious holiday, a bacon shortage, and another reason for Calvinists to act like Calvinists?  You get the Five Pint Stoutist.

Elders Behaving Badly (2): How To Deal With Them

Continuing with the topic of spiritual abuse by church leaders, I came across a post by Gene Redlin regarding how to deal with those who mislead.  Here, Gene lists some scriptural direction for the believer:

TEST THEM: Believe not every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they be of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world. (I John 4: 1)

MARK AND AVOID THEM: Mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (Rom. 16:17)

REBUKE THEM: Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith. (Titus 1: 13)

HAVE NO FELLOWSHIP WITH THEM: Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (Ephesians 5:11)

WITHDRAW FROM THEM: We command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye received of us. (II Thes. 3:6)

TURN AWAY FROM THEM: Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. (2 Timothy 3:5)

SEPARATE FROM THEM: Come out from among them, and be ye separate and touch no the unclean thing. (II Cor. 6:17)

Although not every context of these passages deal specifically with those who lead, there doesn't seem to be any prohibition from applying them to church leaders.  I think I've done each of these in relation to church leaders.

What Is A Fundamentalist?

We all hear much about fundamentalism and fundamentalists in the news and on the internet, whether religious, political or from another area.  What I'd like to do here is provide a working definition of "fundamentalist" in the context of the Christian religion.  So, more specifically, what is a Christian fundamentalist?

I would say that a fundamentalist is: one who reduces the Christian faith to a core set of fundamentals of his own choosing.

While I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with identifying a set of core beliefs within Christianity, a problem arises when something lies outside of those core beliefs.  Can they be viewed as Christian, or can Christians live life outside of those core beliefs?  The Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy of a hundred years ago or so saw liberal theology attack certain ideas of historic Christianity.  Conservatives reacted by concentrating on five "fundamentals" of the faith: 1) inspiration of the bible and inerrancy of Scripture; 2) The virgin birth of Christ; 3) Christ's death as atonement for sin; 4) the bodily resurrection of Christ, and 5) the reality of Christ's miracles.

While the original intent of defining fundamental beliefs may have had its merits, I believe it had a long term negative effect.  Fundamentals came to be viewed as all that was necessary for the faith.  One who takes this approach is a fundamentalist, and that is where I get my definition.

But the Christian faith consists of much more than fundamentals.  Just as a championship sports team may execute the fundamentals of the game very well, they also do most everything else in the game well.  Take music as another example.  A fundamentalist ideal might be that all music must be explicitly Christian with religious lyrics.  A song on the radio about how a sunny day makes people feel better isn't explicitly religious, and therefore may be viewed as unchristian or even sinful in and of itself.  Is it part of the Christian faith to sing about what God has created?  Sure.  But not necessarily to the fundamentalist.

The key problem as I see it with fundamentalism and fundamentalists is the tendency to reduce the faith, rather than expand it.  Different fundamentalists reduce the faith to differing sets of beliefs.  This is why fundamentalists don't often agree with each other.  One thing I try to do when I read the theological beliefs of others is to determine if any reduction of the faith has occurred in their arguments.  This has been tremendously helpful over the years to me as I have developed my own beliefs.  Are you a fundamentalist?

Elders Behaving Badly: Speak Up or Hush Up? (1)

"But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints;"  Ephesians 5:3 NASV

"Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; for it is disgraceful to even speak of the things which are done by them in secret."  Ephesians 5:11-12 NASV

In the debate that has taken place over the rise of so-called "spiritual abuse" or "survivor" websites and blogs, one argument that has been made is that such people ought not discuss any sins of spiritually abusive pastors due to the above verses.  But before I go any further, I want to note that there has been more than one way that this passage is interpreted.  And the interpretations I have come across can lead to opposing beliefs about speaking up.  They are...

Hush Up

I have heard this interpretation my entire Christian life.  People have been taught to interpret these verses so that we should be silent about sin.  This is not a rare interpretation, and I think it has led to comments like this one.  The commenter asserts that it is shameful to even talk about their misdeeds.  Here's the thinking behind the interpretation.  "...for it is disgraceful to even speak of the things which are done by them in secret." v12.  One grammatical possibility for this verse (and there are more than one) is this.  I emphasized the word "even" to show the point.  Not only is it disgraceful to speak of the things done openly, it is even disgraceful to do so in secret.  So we can't discuss the sins in question among us, even in secret, for it is a disgrace.  So, in this interpretation, the speaking about sin is what is in view and it is disgraceful.  The sin itself is not in view.

This is given support by the same type of interpretation of verse 3.  The two interpretations go together.  "But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints."  This interpretation puts forth the idea that the names given to various sins should not be used in our conversation.  The sins should not be named.  And this is proper among saints.

It shouldn't come as a surprise, or a coincidence, that some of the people speaking out against the abuse blogs are people influenced by John MacArthur.  I found a site that compares commentaries of scripture, and if you scroll down far enough here, you will see that he warns about describing sin in his Eph. 5:12 comments.

So what does this interpretation have to say about exposing sin, as in "but instead even expose them"?  As the commenter said in my first link, we expose sin by the light of our proper living before God.  The summary of this "hush up" view is, "we shouldn't discuss or name the sin, but expose it by godly living.

Speak Up

A "speak up" interpretation might look something like the following.  Contrary to the "hush up" view, the disgrace mentioned in verse 12 lies not in speaking about the sin, but in merely speaking about it in secret.  Secrecy is not where the sin should be spoken about, but rather it should be exposed: "but instead even expose them."

And the exhortation in v3 to not have immorality named among the saints does not mean that we should not name sin, but that none of us should commit those sins so that the name can be pinned on us.

This does appear to be a difficult passage to interpret and apply consistently.  I will attempt to speak more to it in another post.

A Strange Fellowship

One time I was at a pizza parlor and in walked a group of about ten people.  I tend to be a people watcher, so I looked at this group.  It immediately struck me that there was something strange about them.  So I kept looking to see what it could be.

It wasn't long before I was able to see that no two people in this group seemed to "go together."  There were no similarities that I could use to put a label on things.  It wasn't a group of three women with Gucci bags talking about where they got their last mani-pedi.  It wasn't a couple of dudes wearing the same team's jerseys getting a seat for the game that would be on TV.  They didn't have conference nametags on, and it wasn't a sports team in uniform.  It seemed a random collection of ages, clothing styles, hairstyles, economic status, etc.

It finally occurred to me that this group was probably a Christian church group.  Later on, I heard several of them talking about a bible study and things that were happening at church.  I had correctly identified them.

When I look back over my church life, I am sometimes amazed at who my friends have been.  In many cases, I see really nothing in common with those people short of being in Christ with them.  And that's the thing that overrides other things.  We then have found new things to do in common.  Things that I wouldn't do with other people more like me.

Not only are many of these people those who have minimal things in common with me, they aren't "normal" people in the usual sense of the word.  They aren't the types of personalities that I might wish I kept company with even if they did have much in common with me.  Many of them are altogether strange.  Of course, they might think the same of me if they really sat down to ponder it.  But that's the beauty of fellowship with those people we simply know as "Christians."  This alone should tell us that it is a work of God.  We certainly wouldn't have planned it this way.

When Paul Reviled the High Priest

"And Paul, looking intently at the Council, said, 'Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day.'  And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him on the mouth.  Then Paul said to him, 'God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall!  And do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?' But the bystanders said, 'Do you revile God's high priest?' And Paul said, 'I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'"  Acts 23:1-5

This passage is one that I occasionally think about, and wonder at the common interpretation.  The only way I've ever heard this passage interpreted is that Paul rebukes the high priest, which is a sin, and is corrected by the bystanders.  Paul then realizes his sin and apologizes, quoting the scripture that applies to his sin.  But something has never set right with me in terms of Paul's "apology."  It simply doesn't seem like an apology.  And something else caused me to come up with an altogether different interpretation.

This something else is when Paul says, "I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest."  In the very next verse Paul says this: "But perceiving that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, 'Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!" Acts 23:6

Now, here's where things don't add up.  Paul claims to not know that Ananias was high priest.  Huh?  How could a Pharisee not know who the high priest was?  That seems pretty much impossible.  It would be like saying that retired Gen. Colin Powell wouldn't know who the president was.  I think Paul new exactly who the high priest was and that the man who issued the order was he.

I think far more likely is that when Paul said he wasn't aware that this man was high priest, he was giving a sarcastic jab to the high priest.  To put it in modern American English terms, Paul was in effect saying, "This joker is high priest?  Coulda fooled me!"  Nothing about this man or how he acted could give anybody a clue that he was God's high priest apart from being told about it.  He was so far out of character as to be unrecognizable as a priest.

I'm wondering if this interpretation would be overlooked by many who feel that an apostle would have such "respect for authority" that he would never say such a thing in that way to a high priest.  But in light of the words Jesus had for the religious leaders, I would suspect his apostle wouldn't be too unchristlike if he followed suit.

Are You "Divisive?"

"Division does not immediately come from disagreement but rather from those who take action upon it." - Kevin Johnson

I've heard countless times from church leaders that to disagree with the pastor/church/doctrinal statement, etc., means one is "divisive."  Holding to beliefs other than the official beliefs of the church is viewed as very problematic, no matter how much a hero Martin Luther is to them in holding to beliefs other than the official beliefs of the Roman Catholic church - an act and an attitude that started the Protestant Reformation - to which they heartily agree.

As you can gather from the above quote, division is caused by people taking action on disagreement.  Divisiveness is the state of causing division.  If I disagree with my church about something, but I resign myself to attending there in spite of my difference, I am not causing division.  I am helping the body remain intact as one.  On the other hand, if I disagree with my church about something, and they ask me to leave, the church is the one that is causing division.  They are dividing me from them.

Of course, there may be a good reason for the church to divide from an individual - such as a failure of church discipline to bring about repentance for a sin committed.  But simple disagreement over a doctrinal issue doesn't necessarily imply that disagreement is sinful.  So, to divide over such a thing, and to be somebody who has a habit of dividing over such things, is what division and divisiveness are.

In addition, to "cause division," as many like to put it, I would have to recruit somebody to my cause and sway them to divide from others.  This is what it means to cause division.  Merely disagreeing with church leaders is not in and of itself the causing of division.  Realizing that there may be others who disagree also and hold to the same view as you and having lengthy discussions with those people is not causing division, either.

So, whenever I hear references to causing division or to divisiveness, I try to make sure just who it is who is doing such things, if they are doing those things at all.

Answering Monax

I'm dedicating this post to answering questions from a commenter named David, who goes by the handle "Monax", who recently commented on a post titled Neo-Calvinism In The Rear View Mirror.

I'm anxious to read more of your thoughts on this conservative segment of the reformed church. I have swam in these waters too.

Monax, I've written much here on my blog about this circle of people.  And, I'll be writing much more in the future, hopefully.  I'm not sure if you caught my update to the post on which you commented, but I think there is somewhat of a misnomer in the mix. I should probably refer to "New Calvinism" rather than "Neo-Calvinism."  Neo-Calvinism is a form of Dutch Calvinism influenced by Abraham Kuyper, where New Calvinism is the animal I'm talking about here.  In recent years it has become popular to use the term "Neo-Calvinism" to speak of the "New Calvinism" movement. I provided links to Wikipedia articles on each view in the previous sentence.

What is interesting about the list of people I gave in my recent post is that only after I updated for the misnomer did I compare it with the list in the Wikipedia article on New Calvinism.  Pretty similar.  One thing I would say about these people, is that they take certain Reformed distinctives, such as Reformed soteriology, the five solas, the five points of Calvinism, the tenets of the Protestant Reformation, and glean from Reformed writers from the past, including the Puritans.  But, what they don't do, necessarily, is take covenant theology, infant baptism, Reformed polity and many other points traditionally associated with Reformed theology into their beliefs.  They also add an emphasis on being "missional", that is, they make a priority of domestic church planting.  They want to reproduce their ideology.  Also, some of these groups can be plain Baptists or generic evangelicals that adopt the core beliefs of Calvinism.

One key difference, I believe, between these "new" Calvinists and a more traditional outlook, is the heavy emphasis they place on church authority.  Most of them hold to an "elder rule" view of church government.  And unlike congregationalism or Presbyterianism, where the elders are in a checks and balance system being held accountable to the congregation or to a presbytery, the elder rule system has very little accountability built in.  Thus all the authoritarianism and church abuse stuff we've all been reading about.  I have abandoned an "elder rule" system in favor of a "Christ rule/elder servant" system, which I think is more, uhm, if I may use the term, "biblical."

I’d be curious to know why Keller’s considered a “neo-calvinist,”

If you want my opinion, it's rather simple.  He holds to some similar teachings - although to Presbyterian polity - but he's a success.  He has a Reformed church in a big city that has a lot of people going there.  It has grown, rather than remaining stagnant.

Also, why I’m here. Do you consider yourself a layman? I think this layman / clergy distinction is one of those things that skews the proper understanding and working out of the Body of Christ.

Glad you're up front.  The answer is no, I don't consider myself a layman.  That's why I use the term in quotes at the top of my blog margin.  Traditionally I'm considered a layman because I'm not an ordained clergyman.  But, my blog subtitle comes into play here as well: "Because Theology Is Everybody's Task."  I don't care for such a clergy/layman distinction, either.  I believe there are some special responsibilities given to elders that aren't given to all others (such as being held responsible for the care of each individual's soul, teaching is a must for an elder, etc.) It is often held that it is the pastor's job to do theology and we just sit and listen to learn.  But I'm under the conviction that 45 minutes a week from a sermon is not nearly enough to learn everything you need to know.

I could probably write much more on all this, but I hope it answers some of your basic questions.

A Question of Authority

Recently it was suggested to me rhetorically that I don't think we should submit to church leadership, based on a point I was trying to make about the church.  This raises a question.  What is the extent to which a church leader can exercise authority and I be expected to "submit"?

It comes down to a question of authority.  Really it does.  What authority do church leaders have?  Do they have the authority to tell me what I can eat and drink?  Do they have authority to dictate to me what movies I can and cannot watch, or even if I am allowed to watch movies at all?  Do they have the authority to dictate to me which translation(s) of the bible I may read?  Do they have the authority to tell me just how much I need to give, and how much I need to give to the church - their church?  And do they have the authority to demand to see my paycheck to make sure I'm giving the correct amount?  Do they have the authority to demand that I believe every jot and tittle of their church constitution, confessions, creeds and by-laws before I am allowed to attend?  Do they have the right to have control over the who, what, when, where, why and how of using my spiritual gifts in the edification of others?  Do they have the authority to tell me I cannot blog about theology?  Do they have the authority to determine whether blogging about theology is biblical in the first place?  Do they have the authority to tell me what kinds of cars I'm allowed to drive?  And, do they have the right to not be questioned about such things?

If they demand certain of these things, and their demands are beyond the authority given to them by scripture, may I act contrary to them?  Is there a higher authority over my life in these areas than church leaders?

No matter how absurd any one of these questions may seem - or all of them together - they are real questions that a great many people have to deal with on a daily basis.  Sometimes discernment on these issues may take a great deal of time.  Sometimes people notice over time that "submitting" to these things as put forth by church leadership results in bruises, aches and pains in life.  Then they start to question.  They may actually search matters out for themselves and come to the conclusion that they have been led astray all along.  Did Jesus or the disciples submit to all the teachings of the religious leaders of their day?  No?  Then why expect it from the rest of us?

Neo-Calvinism in the Rear View Mirror

For a number of years, I referred to myself as a cross stream swimmer in the John MacArthur/ RC Sproul/ John Piper/ DA Carson/ Michael Horton/ Wayne Mack/ Jay Adams/ Tedd Tripp/ Paul Tripp/ Martha Peace/ Joshua Harris/ CJ Mahaney/ Mark Dever/ Alexander Strauch/ Tim Keller /insert your favorite here/ ecosystem.  Then, I realized that I was done with my cross-stream swimming and had reached the other side of the stream, as opposed to going with the flow and being swept out to sea.  I was still in the ecosystem, mind you, but was standing on the opposite shore watching the stream flow.

Now I'm no longer in the ecosystem, but am still keeping contact with those who are, and keep up with some of the trends by way of internet.  And, I'm no longer coming to conclusions about the ecosystem all by myself, but have connections with people who critique it both from within and without, including former ecosystem critters.

What I should say at this point, is that the names I listed above are by no means people who I am enemies with, or who I disagree with most of the time, etc.  What I do have against the above mentioned ecosystem is that the teachings of these people are placed front and center in the particular brand of Calvinism in which I was immersed (to use a baptism term), and are looked at as blueprints for Christian living.  Each expert has his/her body of work that comes to be viewed as "the" biblical way to live.  It is turned into a formula for godly, biblical living.  Deviation from the formula is the root of all problems in that particular area of life.

What we learned... uhm, I mean, what God providentially revealed to us in His divine sovereignty, was that these formulaic ways of living have serious limitations, and it's quite possible to have God-ordained circumstances that place individuals or families outside of the boxes that circles of people create with these teachings.  And if you're outside the box, it's probably your fault.  But that's okay, because if you believe in God's sovereignty (as opposed to other people's sovereignty) you know that you're the one who knows more about your own situation than anybody else does, and that God had more to do with that situation than other people did anyway.  And God will have more influence on you learning to deal with things the best way than other people would (if you pay more attention to God, that is).

Maybe one of these days if I have the guts, nerve and unction, I'll write about how some of these people's teachings fall short in dealing with real life.  Real life like the one I have to live.

[Correction: I accidentally wrote Johnathan Harris, when I should have written Joshua Harris.  D'oh!  Thanks, JA, for catching it!]

[Update 12/27/12: I may have a misnomer here.  I should probably refer to "New Calvinism" rather than "Neo-Calvinism."  Neo-Calvinism is a form of Dutch Calvinism influenced by Abraham Kuyper, where New Calvinism is the animal I'm talking about here.  In recent years it has become popular to use the term "Neo-Calvinism" to speak of the "New Calvinism" movement.]

Baptized!

Yesterday, our eleven year old son was baptized, along with seven others at our church.  We were excited to see him go into the waters of baptism, as would any parent.  Our church was in a festive mood as we celebrated the broadening of God's kingdom.  Blessings, son.

Do You Know Your Pastor's Faults?

Here's an odd question: do you know your pastor's faults?  By this question, I mean to ask if you know your pastor's everyday personality flaws, even if minor.  Not necessarily the kind of faults that would disqualify one form being a pastor, just faults and flaws that all of us share to one degree or another.

Do you know what riles your pastor up?  Do you know which buttons to push to get a rise out of your pastor?  What are the hot topics, the points of theology that cause him to flinch, the political ideas that run cross grain?  Do you know what issues he keeps pressing?  What are his hobby horses?  Where does he fail in communication, organization or ability to lead?  Is he less than perfect in how he treats his wife and children?  Okay, I could go on here, but I hope you could supply your own extended list.

In short, what I'm getting at is this: Is your pastor human? Or is he a spiritual robot?

If he is human, and you are able to get to know him well enough to know his flaws, then he's probably got a good chance of being a decent pastor.  Is he perfect, never showing the slightest instability?  Does he have all the answers?  Is he always right? Does he refrain from showing his human side?  Do others praise him in ways that go beyond the realistic?  Does he relate to people in ways that they can't easily learn his flaws?  Is he the center of attention at your church?  Then you should probably run for the hills.  Greater flaws lie beneath the surface.

Secret Post On Being Biblical

There is a secret blog post that you can't let anybody know about (and I won't either) about being biblical.  Some secret blogger named Dan Allen (psst...don't tell anybody either), says this about how to use the bible to make people believe you're right:

A biblical view is a view that you can defend with Bible verses. The real goal is not to learn from and develop an understanding from the Bible, but to use the Bible to defend whatever it is that we believe. If you don’t like secular music tell people that it is biblical to only listen to Christian music, I mean, obviously Psalm 1:1 states that “Blessed is the man Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly,” but if you think it’s ok, you go to Matt 15:11 and remind someone that Jesus said that “it is not what goes into the mouth … that defiles a man.” (but in this case we apply it to the ear).

All this reminds me of all the biblical beliefs I have been taught by the various teachers, churches and books by Christian(TM) authors throughout my Christian life.  You may know some of these.  Like that person who wrote that book on biblical child rearing.  His way of rearing children is biblical because he uses the bible to defend his views.  Never mind that his followers use the book as a rigid formula and never seem to understand that there are a great many children and families that fall outside of the small box the author constructs, and whose methods simply don't work for them.  Or that book written by that one author that tells wives how to be biblical wives, not just regular wives.  Should I call my husband at work to ask his permission to call him at work?  Hmmm. Life is full of questions.

One of the things you can do with biblical teachings is to collect one book that addresses each area of life, and put them all together and claim that you'll have a beautiful life if only you follow everything written in all of them.  That way you'll be living a biblical life, not just dreaming about one.

Asking Why

Many times in life we ask "why" of God for the circumstances we face or see in the world.  Is it wrong to do so?  What about the Psalmist who asks why often?  What about Jesus himself who asks why God has forsaken him on the cross?

Bill at The Billy Goat Blog looks at this question, and asks why it seems necessary to act in any other way than to be honest in asking God why because God already knows our thoughts.  By the way, Bill points out that it is not wrong to ask God why.

I used to struggle with why Jesus says on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"  as we see in Matthew 27.  I had always assumed - mostly due to the way I was taught about this - that Jesus was merely quoting Scripture.  He was quoting a messianic psalm to show that by quoting a messianic psalm he was the messiah who was being referenced in the psalm.  David was really not asking God why about something, but was simply supplying something that the messiah would quote sometime in the future to show that he was the messiah.  Kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy by way of quotation resulting in a proof text.  (Kinda cool, huh?)

But then I started wondering if Jesus could really have asked why God had forsaken him because he believed that God had forsaken him.  In other words, I started wondering if Jesus were honest and human.

I've since concluded that Jesus asked why because he meant it.  He was human, and really did experience being forsaken.  That's what the atonement was all about after all, right?  He was forsaken of God so that we wouldn't have to be.  So he really was forsaken and really did ask God why.  And, as we know from other points of theology, Jesus was without sin, so we know that asking God why he was forsaken wasn't a sin.  It wasn't a sin for Jesus, so why would it be a sin for us?

Re-Thinking Church Membership (Part 35) - Confusion Over Church Membership

Wanda "Deb" Martin (known better as simply Deb) over at The Wartburg Watch is jumping into the church membership and church covenant topics head first with back-to-back posts, one on each.  In the first post - titled Confusion and Ignorance Over Church Membership? - Deb links to a study by Grey Matter Research that concludes there is "widespread confusion and ignorance on the subject of official membership in a place of worship."

At the end of that post, Deb wonders why the study was done - hmmm - and the next day continues with Are Covenants A 'Yoke of Bondage'? , outlining some of her own experience with church covenants and the unintended - or otherwise - results.

What is just as interesting as what Deb writes about is the comments sections of both posts.  People write in with their own stories about church membership and covenants.  Every time I see something on these topics, I am amazed by the fallout caused by the law of unintended consequences.  Give each post a read.

Tebowmania: The Reason Behind It

I have started about a dozen posts on the Tim Tebow phenomenon, but each one has ended in not being able to finish, until now.  One thing I learned from other areas of life, in the mean time, is that it is not always in the heat of the moment that we can get any kind of point across.  Not that I will this time, either, but I have an opinion as to why Tebowmania was such a big deal.  I'll share it here.

It has to do with the well established sub-culture of evangelicalism.  In the evangelical world view, there is no greater thing than personal evangelism.  It has been exalted to the highest position on the Christian duty list.  It has become not merely means to an end, it is the end itself.  An end which justifies its own means.  And it is revered over and above all other things.  It has become almost a form of worship itself.

In the evangelical sub-culture, "personal witnessing" is pretty much equated with the first great commandment itself; loving God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength.  So much so that the second great commandment - loving neighbor as one's self - is optional.  If you "witness" for Jesus, it doesn't matter how tacky you are in bringing it, or who it offends, or who else it puts off, who it walks over in the process, or even if your boss is paying for it instead of the work you are supposed to be doing.  It doesn't matter if the waitress gets a good tip for her service, or even any tip at all, as long as she gets witnessed to before you leave.

And this is where Tebow comes in.  He publicly announced last year that the media would be his platform for his personal evangelism.  And there's no greater exposure for this type of thing than a nationally televised football game combined with a post-game interview, especially when a last-minute comeback victory is seen as being directly tied to God.  Nevermind taking into consideration Jesus' words cautioning against practicing one's religion to be seen by others.  No.  There is no such consideration in the evangelical subculture.  Forget that "Well, I'd like to thank my personal Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" didn't answer the reporter's question.  Witnessing is witnessing.  All this was an explosive combination.  But this is less about Tebow than about his giddy followers.

Tebow was ranked as the worst quarterback in the NFL before they tanked their last three games to obliterate any chance whatsoever of making the playoffs.  Outside of a complete Oakland Raider meltdown and complicated tie-breaker situation, of course.  And when the Denver wide receiver took a relatively moderate pass from Tebow and made a stunning 60 yard run to beat the Steelers on the last play of the playoff game, you'd never know from my Facebook page that the receiver had anything to do with it.  I mentioned this on Facebook, and a friend who lived in Denver asked me what in the world I was talking about.  The receiver's name was all over the Denver media.  Real football fans in Denver knew what happened but evangelical facebookers didn't.  But the following week, Tom Brady gave Tebowmania a mortal wound by slicing up the Denver defense in a very short amount of time.  No kneeling and praying for Tebow in the end zone.  No post-game interviews.  Nothing but silence.  It was in an instant like Tebowmania never happened.

I'm no stranger to the exaltation of personal witnessing myself.  I've been within evangelicalism almost 20 years now.  One church I attended passed out bible tracts by the millions.  Quite literally.  People there would spend 8 hours on Saturdays at shopping centers and train stations passing them out.  When asked to leave by management, they considered it hostility toward the gospel.  Really?  With annoyed patrons and thousands of tracts littering the ground?  I never heard of a single convert by using such means, either.  Another church I went to had a prayer meeting every week, and one of the items of prayer was for the non-Christians.  People recounted in detail all the conversations they had the previous week with unbelievers in failed attempts to "steer the conversation toward spiritual things."  Imagine talking to somebody who tried to change the subject after every sentence you spoke.  Would you want to convert to their religion?  Do they care about you or their own agenda?  It was even frustrating for me as a Christian because I didn't feel free to talk about the weather or what I did for a living because everybody else had an agenda of changing the topic.  Yet another church I frequented had door-to-door evangelism.  We were all instructed on what to do before we were sent out.  Keen observers asked what to do in case we encountered "no trespassing" or "no solicitors" signs.  The answers were "trespassing is against the law" and "we'll leave it up to your conscience" respectively.  Dude?  You have to appeal to the civil law in one case, and you allow your church members to disregard the wishes of a homeowner in the other?  The kingdom is at hand for sure.

Before I go, I'll just say that I'm a baseball fan and don't pay much attention to football until after the World Series.  I saw a headline a few minutes ago that said Tebow was booed in New York.  I have no idea what that's all about.  They would boo Santa Claus in New York.  No, wait.  That's Philly.

King David: Blues Singer

Originally posted September 30, 2005 and modified today:

Ever notice how many of the Psalms were written when the author was in anguish over life's terrific problems? The old adage, "you can't sing the blues unless you've lived the blues" applies here. Since the Psalms were all set to music, that would make King David (and maybe Asaph as backup vocals) a blues singer, to use an analogy from today's world.

David made complaints about all kinds of things.  There are some who would look upon people today who make the same kinds of complaints that David did and label them as complainers, whiners, malcontents, people who won't "man up."  Yet if you look at the Psalms, David even complains against God.  He wonders where God is, and why God has forsaken him. 

Some would answer this claim by saying, "Yes, but if you read on to the end of the psalm, David praises God in some way.  Look at how many people who walk away from the faith start out.  They start by complaining.  So you're missing a big point here."  Not necessarily.  When people write music about their experiences, as David did, they may be looking back over a long period of time.  They may have had an extended period of questioning God.  Only later on do they come to praise him.  The song is simply a summary of a longer story.  The person who questions or is struggling doesn't need to be dismissed as somebody who is damaged beyond repair, even if it is viewed as self-inflicted.

Would God have us sing like David?  If not, it seems odd that such a human element of David's experiences would not be expected for us.

How The Wrong Foundation Excludes Christians From Christianity

I'm taking a side point here and making an issue out of it.  Carl Trueman, an admitted complimentarian, writes a post at Reformation 21 (HT to Tim Challies here) about his bewilderment that the egalitarian/complementarian debate is making such waves at The Gospel Coalition.  Quoting:

Given that the issue of complementarianism is raising its head over at The Gospel Coalition, it provides an opportunity to reflect on an issue that has always perplexed me: why is the complementarian/egalitarian debate such a significant bone of contention in parachurch cobelligerent organisations whose stated purpose is to set aside issues which divide at a church level but which do not seem to impact directly upon the gospel?

He then compares this attention to how little this organization is giving to such essentials as baptism and the Lord's Supper - issues the church has wrestled with for centuries.  He then reasons that an egalitarian could possibly believe in inerrancy but hold to a "wrong" interpretation, and applies such a paradigm to Baptist ecclesiology - where Baptists could invite a Presbyterian to preach at their church and subsequently deny him the Lord's Supper.  His rabbit trail winds up at this precious gem:

This is not the only awkward question one might ask: for example, which is more unacceptable to a Baptist - a woman preaching credobaptism or a man preaching paedobaptism?

Although my post here is not about the egalitarian/complementarian debate, I do note that I have labored in great pains on this blog to show the inconsistency of foundations and applications of the doctrine of baptism by both paedobaptists and credobaptists.

But to my main point.  Allow me to continue off-road from Trueman's path for him, and force his side note into the forefront.  I could add to the toxicity by pointing out that there are churches that have formal memberships and a "closed" communion, restricting the Supper to members of their own church.  So, then Baptists could invite another Baptist to preach at their church and subsequently deny him (or her?  LOL) the Lord's Supper.  Truly septic.  Many Baptists don't accept the baptisms of their own members if they were baptized as infants in other churches, especially if they were baptized in the Roman Catholic church.  Then there are paedobaptists who rail against anabaptists (re-baptizers) for forcing rebaptism of their former members when they switch to a Baptist church, when they themselves don't recognize an infant baptism that occurred in the Roman Catholic church!  They then rebaptize former Catholics, just like the Anabaptists of the radical reformation did.  Anti-anabaptist anabaptists! At least the Reformers recognized the baptisms by the Roman Catholics.  And don't even get me started on all the various views on marriage, divorce and remarriage that people hold to that affect how people can serve in churches and in leadership.  I could go on forever here.

Church leaders then wonder why there are so many people who drift in and out of churches, go church shopping, or stop going to church altogether because just trying to find one that they can attend proves futile.  People are discovering that trying to fit into a church isn't merely falling in the right place on a spectrum.  They need to conform to a 12-dimentional matrix more complicated than the RGB color mapping on their computers.  And if one does not conform, they are cut off from the Lord's Supper, church membership, baptism, ability to serve according to the gifting God has given them, help from the benevolent fund, etc.  So, holding a wrong doctrine as one's foundation can exclude others from one's view of Christianity.

But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.   Matt. 23:13

Maybe Jesus could shed some light on the situation.