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.

Re-Thinking Church Membership (Part 34) - Why Is The New Covenant Not Enough?

Alan Knox at the assembling of the church does a re-post of something he did two years ago, and re-asks the same question: Why is one covenant (the new covenant) not enough?

He adds this very good question at the top of the re-post:

In Christ, we are all already part of the new covenant. Because of that covenant we are all now children of God and, therefore, brothers and sisters with one another. That covenant alone covers how we should interact with and treat one another. So, why do so many feel that we still need more covenants, i.e. a church covenant?

I'm not sure what Alan's intended scope is when he refers to "church covenants," but I'm assuming he also means - and if he doesn't mean it, I will add it to the list! - to include church membership covenants.  Either way, he hits the nail on the head.

What can an extra-biblical church covenant do that the new covenant cannot?  After examining this question in several paragraphs, Alan concludes with:

If we use a “church covenant” to include some believers and exclude others, then we are dividing the body of Christ and making distinctions that only God can make. We are trying to choose who to love and who to serve. (Of course, this makes life much easier, but it doesn’t make it a life that [is] lived according to the gospel.)

I also note here that I have dealt with the same concept in different ways in Part 21 and Part 27 of this series.  Please make an effort to read Alan's recent post.

Read the entire series here.

Part 33.

"Re-Thinking Church Membership" Series Is Back

One of my all-time favorite series here at From the Pew is back on my blog.  Yes, I have re-posted all the posts in the "Re-Thinking Church Membership" series.  I have also added the link to this series in the "Blog Series" header, as well as to the "Ongoing Blog Series" links in the right margin.

This is another of my "Re-Thinking" series that I took down (I'll go into why this happened at a later date) and planned to re-post after some re-working. Well, this one is now back! This series had reached over 30 posts at the time I took it down.

I look at a common doctrine of church membership as is widely taught in conservative evangelical circles today. I show how this particular doctrine misses the mark biblically, how it is widely supported by many well known evangelical leaders, and I have proposed a solution for the unintended consequences it fosters, all to the disbelief of its adherents. Stay tuned as this series grows.

Please read it in its entirety to get the overall flavor of what I'm saying about church membership.  If this is too much, I plan to sometime in the near future re-post each of the posts one at a time, every few days, over the course of a couple months to allow an easier time in following along.  I hope this series provokes its readers to further thinking about this important topic.

Pastor Loses Suit Against Blogger

A pastor who sued a former church member over comments she made on her blog has lost his case.  I posted about the case here, and now the judge has dismissed every single claim in the defamation suit against Julie Anne Smith and four others.  The judge has also awarded costs and attorney fees to the defendants, including for two defendants who were dropped from the pastor's suit after it was filed.

You can read about it from Julie Anne herself here.

I am grateful for Julie Anne and the others for the judge's decision.  Hopefully, this case will help to further illuminate God's people on the existence of authoritarianism and spiritual abuse within the church.

Let's Actually Pray During Prayer Time

Note to all future mid-week bible study/home group fellow attendees, whoever you are at whatever church you are:  I'd like to encourage us all to actually pray during prayer time.  Okay?  I'm not exempting myself here, I'm just making observations.

It is strange, but there seems to be a rigid blueprint for mid-week evening church gatherings.  It doesn't matter what church, denomination, or belief system.  Or at least the ones I've been associated with.

First, there's "fellowship time."  You know, that 15-30 minute period where we have cookies and punch and chat that also serves as a buffer to allow fashionable lateness.  Then there's the "teaching time," or similar.  That's when we look at the bible, or teaching, or whatever book written on whatever topic by whatever author, and discuss or answer questions

Then, last - and actually least! - is "prayer time."  You know.  It's that last 15-20 minute period before the scheduled end time of the mid-week group.  You know?  The time where the first 10 minutes minimum of it is spent wrapping up "teaching time?"  Yes, you know.  Then, out of the 10 minutes remaining in "prayer time," 15-20 minutes of that 10 minutes is spent listing our prayer requests in detail.

Then, once we go 10 minutes past the end of the mid-week group and people start gathering up their bibles and other belongings and the kids are fidgeting, the leader of the group states that we are out of time and throws up a blanket prayer like, "Lord bless everybody. Amen"  and we never actually pray. You know?  You know.

Gossip, Slander and Divisivness

The words "gossip," "slander," and "divisive" are all words that appear in the bible and are strong words that are used to describe very bad behavior.  Over my 20 years within Christianity, I have heard these words used many times and in many contexts to describe behavior, call out behavior, warn against such behavior.  I have also heard multiple definitions and descriptions of these behaviors.

It is the description of such behavior that I will attempt to write about here in the near future.  I have wanted to do this for quite a while, and in the heightened attention given to the topic of spiritual abuse recently I think now is a good time to do so.

One reason for this is that I have seen these words used in a context where they are applied to behavior where it is not warranted, and used to flip-flop the places of the guilty and the innocent; the terms don't fit the behaviors.  I will try to show examples of what these behaviors are not, in order to give a better idea of what they are.  Coming soon.  Hopefully.

Expectations, Agenda, and Just Being A Christian

Chaplain Mike over at Internet Monk digs through the archives to find what he's been wanting to say.  His post is about agenda identification, and how he comes to the conclusion that it's OK to just be a Christian.

In my circles, very rarely did I hear the full-blown “God told me to do this” account that was more prevalent in charismatic or pentecostal churches. Still, that was the impression, even in our more theologically conservative groups. Whether it was defining a preaching series, implementing an element of worship that the pastor thought the church should practice, organizing an outreach program, expanding staff, building new facilities, using a certain method of teaching or training in the educational program or youth group, or designing the way the church should be overseen by its leaders, these ministers had a way of making it sound like these were directives from God himself. And the corollary to that, of course, was – if you are a truly dedicated, committed Christian, you will participate. 

Over and over again, I watched as the pastor’s agenda became the church’s agenda, because the pastor was able to persuade people that it was God’s agenda.

As some of the readers of this blog know, I am a fan of the San Francisco Giants baseball team.  Their colors are orange and black.  A promotion the team has put forth over the last several years in known as "Orange Friday."  Each Friday home game, the Giants wear orange jerseys and the fans are encouraged to wear orange articles of clothing or accessories.  Bright orange Afros, painted faces, you name it. 

While a good number of fans take part in this, many, like me, are content to dress just the way I would at any other game.  And even though I'm not much of a fan of these type of fads, I am content with thousands of other fans wearing orange.  Even though it is an official promotion, my lack of participation doesn't provoke others to wonder why I'm not participating in the way they are.  I've never been asked why, nor have I felt the expectation to wear orange.

Can the same be said of how our churches view our participation?  What if I use some other book on child rearing?  Or maybe none at all?  What if I never listen to sermons of the pastor's favorite preacher?  What if I want to have my kids with me in the service as opposed to in Sunday school?  What if I prefer to invite other people over to my house for lunch instead of signing up for the church program that places people on a list to come over to my house for lunch?  Is it OK to just be a Christian?  I hope so.

Pastors Really Aren't So Evil

Dan Allen brings us a post on his rather black and white blog, Some Church Stuff, about pastors being evil.  Or not.  He implicates all of us and none of us at the same time.

I don't know how many minutes or years Dan took to compile these zeroes and ones, but I think there is a whole lotta truth to his five short paragraphs.  Truth hurts, and in many cases it is good for us.  John Cougar - or was it John Cougar Mellencamp? - or was it John Mellencamp? - wrote that song we all like to sing along with in our cars as we drive, Hurts So Good.  Can we sing along here?

He pretty much sums up a lot of what I think about the state of the church.  What has taken me seven years of blogging to do, Dan did in five paragraphs.

Evangelicalism: Government Programs vs. Church Programs

It has been my observation in almost 20 years of exposure to conservative evangelicalism - and if your observation and experience are different, good for you and those you have observed - that there is a tendency to hold opposite practices in the church that one believes in for society.  It's a strange phenomenon for which I don't have an explanation.

Example.  Government programs.  Many conservative evangelicals (CE's) are not only conservative in their theology, they are conservative in their political and civil beliefs.  They will talk about the Christian values that made America great.  Freedom.  Freedom from civil tyranny.  Freedom of speech.  Freedom of religion, economic freedom, freedom of association, etc.  They despise government programs.  Red tape.  Bureaucracy.  Micromanagement, top-down nanny state.  They don't like the power the politicians have.  They hate socialism, communism and third world dictators.  They want small government with little interference.  They like private solutions to society's problems.  And although they don't really have a problem with people who work for others, they do have a special place in their hearts for the entrepreneur.  The innovative spirit.

But oddly enough, when it comes to the church, many of the things they despise about civil matters they adopt for the church.  They hate government programs, but love church programs.  Problem in society?  Let people work things out for themselves.  Problem in the church? Appoint a committee.  They hate when politicians cry for a tax increase, but will love when the pastor calls for a tithe and offering increase.  They don't like government red tape, but are just fine with numerous layers of church committees, micromanagement from leaders.  They can't stand despots, but the pastor?  He's da man and what he says goes.  They always point out when a politician is an elite that has never worked a real day of work in his life, but are perfectly fine with a pastor who spent years in seminary and has never worked a real day of work in his life either, and holds a full time paid position behind a desk in an office.  This kind of politician is "out of touch" with ordinary people, yet this kind of pastor is just what the church needs.

If the government were to engage in censorship, banning or burning of books, the CE would not only protest but call for getting those politicians out of office.  But in the church?  Well, the leadership needs to spend an extra amount of time reviewing all the books in our bookstore so nothing with questionable theology will be available to the congregation.  And what about spiritual entrepreneurs?  Freedom of speech in the church?  Freedom of religion in the church? (I'm assuming all hold to the Christian religion here, of course)  Do something out of the church program and you're a suspect.  To dissent in regards to a politician is a divine right, but to dissent in regards to a pastor is being divisive.

Again, these are my general observations.  Yours may vary, and I hope they do.

Elders Behaving Badly: Matthew 18 Isn't The Only Way To Deal With Sin

Amidst all the commotion over bloggers who have aired their complaints against so-called abusive leaders, there is the belief that those who have done so have failed to follow the prescription set down in Matthew 18 for confronting their offenders.  This perceived failure to follow the black and white teachings of Jesus on the matter [or red and white as the case may be] have led many to dismiss out of hand any stories told.  Nevermind whether those stories are true, it's that they are told in the first place that is the problem.

Well, there is a flaw in this line of thinking.  The flaw is the assumption that Matthew 18 is the one and only way to deal with sin, even when - or especially when - church leaders are involved.  A good look at Matthew 18 will reveal an important assumption that Jesus makes when he gives this method.  Actually there are a number of assumptions - and I will look at these here - but the overarching assumption is one of accountability.  The sinning offender will be accountable to you, to witnesses and to the church.

First, "If  your brother sins, go and show him..." This first step assumes that the offender is approachable.  Then, "...Show him his fault in private" This makes the assumption that the offender is willing to listen.  Following, "If he listens to you [i.e. agrees with you and decides to repent], you have won your brother"  makes the assumption the offender might just do so.  This first step of confronting one who sins is a step of optimism.  There is the hope that this will restore the sinner.

Next, the second step, "If he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed."  Again, there is the assumption that the offender is even now open to listening further to your argument - open enough to listen to witnesses that further your claim.  The third step is key here.  "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church."  This is a huge assumption.  This assumes the church will be agreeing with you.  Not with the sinner, but with you.  Not only this, but "and if he refuses to listen even to the church..." makes the assumption that not only will the church take your side, but the church as a whole will be confronting the offender.  Each step in the process, Jesus is making optimistic assumptions about the results.

This brings me back to the bloggers who tell the stories of authoritarianism and spiritual abuse.  Their stories are completely different than the optimistic picture Jesus paints about confronting those who sin.  In these cases - and the big stories come to mind; Mars Hill, CJ Mahaney and SGM, Beaverton Grace Bible Church; but there are many, many more small stories - in these cases the church leaders are outside of accountability.  They are unapproachable.  They won't listen, and they don't listen.  In many of the cases of authoritarianism and spiritual abuse, the church leaders hold to systematic sins.  Sins that are taught to their churches as a way of life.  These churches have many people who lack discernment and swallow the teachings of these leaders.  They've already drank the KoolAid.  These churches can't recognize that the offended people realize that the offense really is sin.  These churches won't confront their leaders because they don't see the sin.  Or if they do, they are so afraid of what their leaders will do to them that they keep silent.  This makes it difficult or even impossible to get two or three witnesses to confront somebody who is unavailable in the first place.  In addition, these leaders have peers who have bought into the same system and have taught their churches the same things.  Their peers will not hold them accountable either.

Then to make matters even worse, they use their power to attack the offended people in any way they can, to discredit them, to slander them, to call the church to shun them.

How is Matthew 18 even possible in situations such as these?  I've already gone long here, so discussing other means to address sin - especially the sin of leaders - will have to be left for another post.

About Me

Finally.  I have updated the "About Me" page in my header after quite some time being blank.  Feel free to read it.

A Divided Church: Wrong Applications of Theology

I've been thinking over the last few years about the differences between the "visible" church and the "invisible" church, as well as between the "universal" church and the "local" church.  These distinctions have been made numerous times in various systems of theology for a long time.  And these distinctions have some problems when we try to apply them to real life.  Let me explain.

The word "church" (ekklesia in the Greek) has or has been given a number of meanings.  Whether or not the use of each meaning has support from the bible, we try to reconcile the various meanings in our theology.  For example, we know from the bible that not all church attenders/professing Christians will be true Christians.  Most of us are also willing to concede that there will be those who are true believers that we never thought so!  Man can only see the outside, while only God can see the heart.  Thus the distinction between the "visible" and "invisible" church.  The "visible" church is the visible assembly of people who claim to be believers.  We can see them.  The "invisible" church is the group of people who only God can see are His and who will be finally gathered together in the eternal kingdom.

But because we are man and only God is God, we must leave this point of theology as just that: theology.  Trying to make an application of this distinction can only result in problems.  If we try to determine who are God's true believers using the only means available to us - outward expressions and appearances - then we open up the door to abuse of those who don't fit our ideas of correct outward expressions.  I will try to say more about this in an upcoming post.

Similarly, the distinction between the "local" and "universal" church can cause problems when we try to apply it.  The "local" church is the gathering of believers in one location, say Corinth or First Baptist Church in Houston.  The "universal" church is, in one sense, all the believers in the entire world, and in another sense, all beleivers in the entire world who have ever lived.  But we being men, we can be tempted to, say, apply a rigid distinction and decide that a local church is made up of only those who regularly attend that local church and doesn't include other believers who happen to be in town and attend only once.  I will try to say more about this in an upcoming post.

Then, there can be problems when all four distinctions - visible, invisible, local and universal - are mixed together and applied.  An example would be a church that decides that its members (visible church, local church) are only those who meet certain man-made requirements and sign on a dotted line for membership, and those who don't but attend anyway, cannot be part of either the universal or invisible church distinctions either.  They, according to this church, aren't true believers because of it.  I will try to say more about this, too, in an upcoming post.

Hopefully I will try to make sense of the artificial, theological constructs in future posts.  I also have an idea on how to deal in reality with the scope of the church.

Pastor Sues Woman Over Church Comments

A woman who made negative comments about her former church on Google Comments is being sued (along with several others) by the pastor for defamation.  This woman, whose name is Julie Anne, found that her comment mysteriously disappeared from the site, and when repeated comments were erased, she started a blog (Beaverton Grace Bible Church Survivors) addressing the legalism and spiritual abuse present at the church in Beaverton, Oregon.

Now if this story wasn't interesting enough, the pastor met with an elder from John MacArthur's church to receive counsel.  He then claimed that the elder advised him to go ahead with the lawsuit.  Phil Johnson was dragged into the fray and Grace Community Church is denying they gave this advice, pointing to their wide and staunch teaching against Christians suing other Christians in civil court as proof they would not do such a thing. (I believe Phil Johnson, by the way)

Subsequent to all this, many more people who have attended BGBC have come out and backed Julie Anne in the matter.  So here we have a pastor who denies being legalistic and abusive by suing those who think so?

There are many more bizarre details than what I have outlined here, so you could follow the story at Julie Anne's blog, or sort through the last several weeks of posts at The Wartburg Watch (site temporarily down for maintenance as of this post). This case will have some far reaching effects in how social media interacts with religion.  It is also yet another example in an increasing number of internet stories of authoritarianism and spiritual abuse reported by people who have been harmed by churches and their leaders.

How Do Missionaries Plan for Retirement?

Abu Daoud at Islam and Christianity has asked a very good question.  Well actually, he states a fear. In his post Missionary Secrets 1 -- Retirement worries us, Abu discusses how "retirement" in the [recent] Western tradition looks for missionaries.

Honestly, I haven't had too much contact with "missionaries" because, well, they're "over there" most of the time, and when they're home on furlough, it's expected that they will be fundraising in order to go back.  They don't seem to have much rest.  I once attended a church that suddenly had an elderly couple show up and attend regularly - a couple that were life long missionaries who had returned from the mission field.  For me it raised a whole new set of questions about missions.  Do you know missionaries that have returned?  Were they treated well by their brothers and sisters?

Be Faithful Until Death

Do not fear what you are about to suffer.  Behold, the devil is about to cast some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days.  Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.  Revelation 2:10 (NASB) - Jesus Christ to the church at Smyrna

What if you received a letter from the Lord that said the same thing?  Uh, things will pretty much suck for ten days, then you will die.  But don't fear.

What would you do?  Write your will?  Eat as much of your favorite food as possible before it starts?  Me?  I'm sure that I wouldn't be perfectly calm, but if I knew this was directly from God, I could see how one could take this with an increase in faith.  Here's where the rubber meets the road of faith.

I think many things in life are analogous to this.  You learn or train for something, then you face it with much anticipation.  Yet, when we are immersed in it and past the point of no return, we are quite able to handle the situation.  Even when we face death.

Elders Behaving Badly

The following is taken from a Facebook comment by Kevin Johnson, who blogs at ReformedCatholicism.com.  Kevin responds to two FB commenters who state that speaking publicly of one's spirutual abuse stories amounts to the blemishing of the good name of Christ, soiling the reputation of the church, aiding the enemy, and other such things.

Johnson has a much different view and responds to the commenters in what I think is a reasonable fashion, and calls attention to some things not routinely addressed in the blogoshpere over such matters.  I think his comment is valuable for us to read in the light of the many recent stories of authoritarianism and abuse coming out on the internet.  Kevin graciously allowed me to post his comment here on From the Pew.

-------

It is a mistake of course to pretend that passages like 1 Timothy 5:19 and 1 Corinthians 6 woodenly apply to particular situations involving spiritual abuse when no real justice is available for the offended party via traditional means. Really, though, when does the Law of God ever woodenly apply without recourse to godly wisdom? While I agree that we should not go to secular law courts in general to solve Christian-only issues, there are times when such is required as a result of spiritual and/or physical abuse. In our society, aside from civil charges, criminal charges are brought by the State anyway and not by individuals. In the case of sexual and physical abuse on the part of ministers any such activity should be reported and brought to the authorities because that is generally required by law. So, we can't just quote 1 Cor. 6 and say that's the end of the story.

In America, freedom of religion makes real discipline in any Reformed environment absolutely voluntary and well beyond the sort of environment where all parties are able to receive justice at the hands of an ecclesial court. Denominational loyalties also generally preclude any sort of fair trial for laymen when brought against an elder and therefore one should think long and hard before going down that road. Sometimes the only right recourse is just to let people know what happened.

In the case of elders behaving badly and participating in spiritual and other abuse, the church needs to take care of the real widows and orphans caused by such men in the life of the church and not pretend that double honor is due only where an office exists and no real performer of that office is found except in the manifest ways he can display and model wickedness in the community of the faithful. The most severe punishment in the Scriptures is reserved for those who knew better yet still violated the term and intent of their office.

The warnings in Matthew 23 do not appear to be cushioned with the sort of statements wanting to preserve the good name of Jesus Christ, the reputation of the church, or the right of the local church to handle the problem contra making it so public. Rather, Christ matter-of-factly calls out men by name -- those sitting in the seat of Moses -- in a rather small community of people who undoubtedly knew who he was talking about. Furthermore, Christ makes clear to show the community that the system is broken and only prophetic rebuke and his coming is left to fix it. So, there is no need to think this could even be handled by local church discipline as John 9-10 make quite clear. And, the sort of descriptive terms our Lord used generally outweigh any sort of invective we've seen in the likes of testimony against people like Mark Driscoll in the links above.

The prophets of the Old Testament mirror similar concerns in passages like Ezekiel 34 where the messianic promise of Christ is wrapped up in freeing men and women from oppression at the hands of pastors and ministers behaving badly. In other words, the behavior displayed by those who practice spiritual abuse and ministerial malpractice is directly opposed to the mission and work of the gospel in and among the community of the people of God. Paul, too, has no problem excoriating certain men by name when found to be in opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ even to the point of wishing them emasculated.

In Reformed circles, we are happy to eject men both out of the ministry and the church on what may seem the smallest of theological technicalities (cf. Frame, "Machen's Warrior Children") but we will not take similar action when similar men abuse their ministerial authority and use the leadership they have in ways that are unfaithful to God. This is a huge inconsistency that shows us where our real loyalties lie as Reformed church men and women. Often, we demonstrate that we care for our doctrines and our pet leaders more than we care for our fellow believers. And, that's just idolatry.

The Reformers of course had no problem speaking against ministerial corruption and naming names. Sometimes, they even used anonymous and very drastic means to do so in ways that would make even the strongest among us today wince. For example, I haven't seen anyone draw a cartoon where Mark Driscoll is ushering demons out of his posterior and other sorts of lambasting sixteenth-century divines had for those who supported the papacy. That's hardly an objective and fair rendering of the truth sufficient for us to make a qualified decision on the matter (as if the real reason for making things public is so we have the right to decide)! Somehow the Reformers knew they were telling the truth and had authority to speak prophetically in the community. Christians have not lost that today either in spite of what [commenter #1] or [commenter #2] might argue. For all their interesting methods, the Reformers valued transparency and consistency in calling a spade a spade and that was most certainly true in exposing ministerial corruption. Why we can't do the same is beyond me.

Telling the truth is not a scandal and does not hurt the name of Jesus Christ. If that were true, the Bible would be so much more bland than it is--filled with the details of corruption prophetically confronted even in the highest of sacred places in both the Old and New Testaments. It is only when we attempt to hide the truth that real scandal comes and continues to be enabled. Providing the truth on the Internet does not aid the enemy. The enemy is aided by works of darkness which elders behaving badly do in spades and under cover of their title and work because many congregants don't take their fellow believers seriously over and above their devotion to their pastoral leaders even when presented with irrefutable evidence from a variety of reliable sources or witnesses.

And, to tell people to be quiet when they speak against their leaders when you have no basis to judge the veracity of their comments can be just as damaging to the truth as not. Since you don't know what the truth is, speaking against outspoken voices can work to unduly silence those whom God has moved to make certain things public quite outside normal means. Rather, we should let anyone speak as they feel led and then the church and community can work to take action as required. After all, how many witnesses did Nathan bring to David? Or, Elijah to Jezebel? Yet, would it not be a mistake to have been there and spoken against God's prophets and his word to David or Jezebel? We have to realize that the call to silence a voice is as much a judgment as one that raises a concern in the larger community of the faithful -- and that's the hypocrisy of the position presented to us by [commenter #1] and [commenter #2] even if they haven't personally come to such conclusions.

Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor; not lagging behind in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, persevering in tribulation, devoted to prayer, contributing to the needs of the saints, practicing hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and curse not. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. - Rom 12:9-16 NASB

The Least of These

We have a blog link chain here.  Alan Knox posts "The more least or the less least?" in response to Dan Allen's "Making the least the least" at his new blog Some Church Stuff.  I read Dan's post before Alan linked to it, and as prompted as I was to write about Dan's post, Alan's kind of put it into action.

I admit, it's not been very often that I've heard the least speak, or play music, or be allowed to contribute in great ways.  When that has occurred, the results have been amazing.  Consequent encouragement to make this the norm, however, has fallen on deaf ears and normalcy returns.  Getting to know the secrets of the least and to be blessed by them have been almost limited to private conversations.

So what's wrong with somebody born and raised in the projects playing "Amazing Grace" on his harmonica to a large church gathering?  Or what's wrong with the "least theologically trained" among us being allowed to speak about what they've read in the bible?  Well, nothing, actually.

Blogger's Bottleneck?

Several months ago I wrote a short post titled, "Blogger's Cramp...and What To Do About It?"  It occurred to me that one reason I may have been having blogger's cramp is due to "blogger's bottleneck."  Blogger's bottleneck would be not being able to write because there is too much to write.  It all gets stopped up at the very point of coming out.  Maybe?

Why People Blog Their Spiritual Abuse Stories

I've noticed an increase in the number of people who have blogged about their experiences with spiritual abuse in the church and problems with authoritarian leadership.  I think I know some reasons why. 

Often, people who blog about such things are criticized for doing so, sometimes harshly.  After all, if you have a problem with somebody, aren't you supposed to go directly to them to deal with it? Well, not exactly, and that's where an explanation can be useful.

You see, there is a big difference between one person sinning against another in ordinary things and people using positions and systems of power (with the supposed backing of God and the threatening of excommunication or hell for dissent) in accomplishing the sin.  In the first case there is a much easier path of recourse; in the latter there may be none at all.  Try confronting a friend who dealt you a minor insult.  The whole thing might be solved and over with in a couple of minutes.  Your friend may not want to insult you because he is your friend, and he will realize his pettiness and the greater value of God and friendship.  Now try confronting a group of church leaders who view the confronting of church leaders as one of the most heinous things one can do.  How far do you think you will go with that one?

With nowhere else to go, and with no real way of getting the problem solved, telling others about the story may be the only way to go.  And this isn't merely the airing of dirty laundry.  This is the exposing of evil deeds that are purposed in the heart of those who commit such things.  Look to the example of Jesus and the bible to see how these types of problems are dealt with.

What did Jesus do with the ruling religious leaders of his day?  Where are the examples of private, personal confrontation?  Rather, Jesus spoke openly and publicly about the evil deeds of the religious leaders.  His concern was for those who might be affected by their teachings and deeds.  Where is the concern for "protecting their good names?"  And what did the Holy Spirit think about all of this?  Well, he decided to inspire four gospel writers and several apostles to write these things in a number of books and a church to collect those into one larger book!  And what did Zondervan think about all of this?  Zondervan, without consulting descendants of these religious leaders to see if exposing these deeds would tarnish family images, decided to print millions of copies of the book!  And what did you and I think about all of this?  We bought the book!

I hope in all the hoopla surrounding the stories that expose such things we remember that the pain and hurt caused by power and systems are a different animal and warrant a different response than that of personal offenses.  More to come.

Commenting Issues

Trying to comment here at From the Pew?  Several commenters (myself included while trying to comment on my own blog!) have had a difficult time commenting.  It seems that Blogger has made some people try to prove they aren't spambots before allowing a comment.  Wordpress is having issues, too, as they apparently require logging in with an already existing Gravatar account.  What is going on in the blogging world?

If any of my readers can try to comment on this post (or send me an email to fromthepew [at] yahoo [dot] com if you are unable to comment) I would appreciate it.  Thanks!

The Book of Revelation: A Very Different View

Kevin Johnson at Reformed Catholicism proposes a very different way of viewing the book of Revelation in his most recent post, The Meaning of Revelation for Today.  He notes that many different ways of understanding this book have existed throughout history, and one's applications of its truths to the current day will vary accordingly.  He dispenses with the common interpretations that Revelation is a condemnation of world empires, a blueprint for worship, or a wild eschatological ride consisting of rapture, tribulation and destruction.  Johnson then counters with a simpler motive:

Rather, the main purpose of Revelation is wrapped up in its original witness to the first century church. In short, Revelation exists to encourage, comfort, and signal for believers that God is sovereign and in control and that all things will ultimately be transformed in and through Jesus Christ. Revelation then is a retelling of the gospel of Jesus Christ and a working out of its fulfillment through the ages. The church as a whole then is encouraged to be faithful in obedience to God’s Word in anticipation of the fulfillment of God’s reconciling work.

The most fascinating point to me is that he dispels the widespread notion that the great city Babylon is a reference to Rome, and offers in its place the idea that Babylon is a reference to - of all things - the city of Jerusalem.  If you have an interest in the book of Revelation, please give Kevin's post a read.

Friday Night Potpourri

Well, it's about time.  Without further adieu:

• There's several sets of new tires in our family.  Those couldn't have come at a better time.  The thinning treads wouldn't have made it through the wet spell we're enduring.
• My first St. Patty's Day Guinness came in the wee hours.  Working late swing shift certainly helps that.
• St. Patrick used the three leaf shamrock to teach the Irish people about the Holy Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  I'll celebrate that!
• I'm at least part Irish, one eighth.  My mother's grandmother was Irish and she married a Lithuanian man.  I'm not sure how much Irish, if any, is in either of my grandfather's lineage.
• I wore a green shirt to work last night on the chance that I would work past midnight.  Did it work?
• It was really nice to jog in the rain yesterday.  It started sprinkling just as I left and by the time I got to the park, it was raining.  Mrs. Scott always remarks that I bring a fresh smell back home with me.
• It all goes together very well.

Does Your Church Honor the Less Honorable?

But now there are many members, but one body.  And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”  On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.  And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.  1 Corinthians 12:20-26

Paul is saying here that the weaker, the uncomely, the unseemly, the less honorable (or whatever other words used by the various English translations) are not only necessary in the body of Christ, but are given more honor than the rest.  Not only is this to be the case with us, but this is the way God designed it to be.  Do we really carry this out in reality?

Our natural tendency is to honor the strong, the acceptable, the ones with the bible degrees, the rich, the good looking, the refined, the ones who have the best jobs.  And we tend to neglect, ignore or marginalize the weaker.  But note what Paul says about the result of bestowing more honor upon the weaker: "...our less presentable members become much more presentable."  Much more presentable?  If this is so, why not make it a point?  When one is weaker and not presentable, being neglected sure is felt and a pattern of neglect can make weakness permanent.  Who wouldn't want a more presentable body?

Why Should I Trust You If I Don't Know You?

Alan Knox takes a stab at debunking the popular idea - yea, even lament - that "this generation" has a problem committing to church and a problem with respect for authority.  He doesn't buy it.  Instead, he simply makes a point that "this generation" has figured out that:

"people are not trustworthy simply because of their position or because they say that they are trustworthy."

While I do think that "this generation" has some problems of its own, I also think Alan has a very good point about trust and commitment.  I think the opposite can be at least as true, in that previous generations maybe had too much trust of authority and committed to church maybe a bit to a fault.  Either way, Alan's post is thought provoking.  And yes, I do trust the authorities that I know much more than those I don't.

Adding The Wartburg Watch

I am adding a new blog to my links.  See The Wartburg Watch.  The Wartburg Watch, to paraphrase their basic description, is a blog authored by two women who are dedicated to the discussion of disturbing trends in the realm of Christendom.  This includes the topics of spiritual abuse within churches, authoritarianism, legalism and other such things.

I occasionally visited TWW upon finding a link there, but the recent news over the church discipline case at Mars Hill prompted me to add TWW to my links (it can be found under my "Notable and of Interest" section).  The authors have personally experienced mistreatment from church leadership and have decided to write about their own experiences as well as the experiences of others.  I would encourage anybody with an interest in such things to check out The Wartburg Watch.

On Authoritarian Church Leadership

Recently the disturbing story about "church discipline" at Mars Hill church broke.  Mark Driscoll was in the spotlight again, and a new conversation about authoritarian church leadership started. (I will provide links in another post) Numerous other people commented and responded with blog posts of their own.  All of this came on the heels of the less popular topic of problems with CJ Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries not long before.

One of the more interesting things to me as I read the story of "Andrew" and how he was treated by his church is that there are many more very similar stories out there about Mars Hill, SGM, and other like-minded churches.  I am no exception to this myself as I have attended my share of what I would call authoritarian churches.  The attitudes and treatment that others have received are similar to what I have experienced, both by myself and others I have known.

In upcoming posts I hope to comment on authoritarian churches, deal with some of the theological issues behind their ideas, and maybe relate my own stories.  I hope also to look at Andrew's story and the reaction to it that comes from all sides.  Authoritarian leadership has been a problem for God's people for ages.  Understanding it is a first step for Christians in dealing with it head on.

A Reformed Drinker Gets A Pub To Change Its Name

A reformed drinker named Jason Nota uses the internet to change the name of a pub! What may seem like a successful venture into social activism is merely a play on words here.  You see, Jason Nota is a beer drinker who holds to Reformed theology, and he changed the name of his blog from PILGRIMS PUB to Reformed Drinker.

Jason has been on my blogroll for years and I will shortly change that name and web location in my margin.  Jason writes about drinking beer in moderation, lists all the beers he drinks, rates all the beers he drinks, and often takes head on the false modernist American religious beliefs of prohibitionism and abstentionism. If you enjoy beer or care to know why it's okay for a Christian to drink it, check out Jason's blog, Reformed Drinker.

Conformist Non-Conformists

Hippies.  You know those folks from the 60's and early 70's.  They prided themselves on being non-conformists.  They didn't conform to the established norms of society.  Yet in their non-conformity they seemed to all wear the same hair, the same tie-dye t-shirts, same jewelry, same jeans, took the same drugs, protested against the same things, and listened to the same music.  Despite their non-conformity they were conformists just like the rest of society, only on a smaller scale.

The same can be said of religious groups.  They shun society itself, or at least certain forms and functions of society, and live and act the same together.  I'm no sociologist, but I wonder if the concept of conformist non-conformism is what it means to be a subculture.

A subculture to which I might be most familiar is the evangelical subculture, however one wants to define it or describe it.

What of the person who is a non-conformist even amongst the non-conformists?

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to all the From the Pew regular readers!  Also, Merry Christmas to all those who have never or will never even know my blog exists.  In any case, Merry Christmas.  And if I don't have a blog post lined up for next week's holiday, I wish you a Happy New Year too, even if I blog about other topics in the mean time.  And Feliz Navidad to my Spanish speaking readers.

Blogger's Cramp...and What To Do About It?

Long time readers of my blog (if there are many of them left) know that I haven't written much in the last so many months.  Because of my current job situation I have much less time to write.  Even when I do have time, I simply don't write the way I used to.  Lately I have had a string of great blog ideas, I start writing about those ideas, then I have to go to bed or something else.  The next day, my ideas don't sound so great and I abandon the thought, being glad I didn't follow through.

I have a few ideas why I'm not writing much anymore when I do have the time, so maybe I'll share those in the coming weeks.  Hey, now that's a good idea worth writing about!  Write about why I'm not writing.

Does anybody have similar problems, and if so, what have you done/are doing about them?  Oh, and if you're not reading my blog, nevermind.

Banned From The Lord's Table

Arthur Sido writes about the phone call he received from his church informing him that his family isn't allowed to commune with God.  What is also interesting is that one of the commenters doesn't see a problem with equating the Sido's family situation with gross imorality.  Let's call the fruit of man-made "formal church membership" doctrines what it is: rotten.

Thanksgiving Moved To Today

Late night Wednesday/wee hours Thursday, Mrs. Scott and I both came down with the stomach flu, and were to host the family Thanksgiving meal this year.  Needless to say, we ended up having 7-Up and a wee bit of chicken noodle soup later in the day.  So, we've rescheduled for today.  Most people are done, but we're just getting started.  Mrs. Scott just did a basting round and the bird looks good in the oven.  Hopefully we'll be able to eat well.  Bon Apetit!

Why Arthur and I Love Blogging

Arthur Sido at The Voice Of One Crying Out In Suburbia writes about one of the major reasons I love blogging and reading other blogs:

It is true that the blogging world can often be banal and silly, sometimes even scandalous and a stumbling block to the Gospel. It is also true that done properly it provides a heretofore nonexistent medium for worldwide discussion, taking important conversations out of the world of academia and theological journals and making them available to every Christian. It used to be that you wrote a book, published it and waited for the reviews but now the review process is interactive and alive, allowing readers to ask questions and authors to sharpen their thinking in ways that perhaps they didn’t think of before.

Without a medium such as blogging I wonder what I would believe today.  The same thing I believed in 1995?  Maybe so.  And I'm glad that didn't happen.

Happy Anniversary, Mrs. Scott!

We didn't realize it until somebody pointed it out after we set our wedding date, as we simply wanted a Saturday in the fall.  "Did you realize that your 11th anniversary will be on 11/11/11?"

Well, no, but we'll certainly be looking forward to it!

And today is here.  So, I want to say happy anniversary to Mrs. Scott!  I love you and the first 11 were wonderful.

Weekend Potpourri

Ending the FNP drought:

• Played football with my boys out in the street today.  Nice chilly day, fall.  My arm hurts a bit after throwing for just a short time.  Must be getting old, but my boys are so full of energy because they're young. 
• My cell phone apparently doesn't adjust automatically for Daylight Savings Time even though it is set to "automatic" for date and time.  Mrs. Scott has the same phone model and discovered that the phone must be turned off then on again for it to switch between daylight time and standard time.  Kinda defeats the purpose.  My clock radio did just fine.
• Some friends brought dinner over a few nights ago because we were busy with an important matter.  One of the dishes was a green bean casserole with onion rings on top.  It was one of those childhood memories of mom's green bean casserole.
• Next Iron Chef is doing a competition in the bleachers at Petco Park in San Diego.  We were there just last year!
• It's good to feel the rain and cool weather of the last week.  That rain-on-the-pavement smell, too.
• My favorite pickings out of the leftover Halloween candy were the Hershey's chocolates and the Reece's peanut butter cups.
• obladioblada

Faith That Transcends Efficiency

So you're moving into a new place.  You're also a good cook.  You don't have the finances to hire professional movers, so you do what many others do: you get a dozen or so friends and maybe a U-Haul or bunch of pickup trucks and have a moving party.  Once all the boxes and furniture are moved into your new place, you do what is culturally acceptable: you feed your help.  So you prepare a nice home-cooked meal in your new kitchen.  Right?
Of course not.  All your kitchen stuff is still in boxes, yet to be unpacked.  Your kitchen efficiency is zero.  So you order pizza!

It is only after all the boxes are unpacked and things put away that any efficiency begins to take shape.  Then you need to get used to your new place, where to store supplies, etc.  So it is with the rest of life.  The first and last days of work at a job are the least efficient.  You're an important player that will make or break the company to the tune of millions, but your first day is a tour by an HR rep showing you where the paper clips and post-it notes are.  Infants are notoriously inefficient on a family and don't start contributing until well later in life.  A new software program contains an untold number of bugs until they are fished out by its users.  A new pair of shoes hurts your feet until broken in.  You get the picture I'm trying to paint here.

Our religion demands efficiency from us.  Training our children, redeeming the time, practicing righteousness.  Maturity vs. being tossed to and fro like children.  But the world has been changing.  People are having large portions of their lives torn down to be rebuilt from scratch.  Many areas of their lives simultaneously.  Major inefficiency is the result.  For now.  For these people, will there be a faith that transcends all the inefficiency?  Will their lives result in a glorious rebuilding with a new efficiency, or will they result in failure?  Time will tell, but I'm willing to wager that both will happen in large numbers.

How We View Each Other...and Ourselves

I've seen it around the internet a few times already, but here's a humorous pictorial grid of how the major Western denominations view each other...and themselves.  Once there, click on the image for a larger view.

I think there are some fairly accurate stereotypes contained here.  Having spent most of my Christian experience in churches and circles that claimed to be "Reformed", I can relate to the column and row labeled "Reformed" and "seen by Reformed" fairly well.

One of the best features of the grid is that each group is shown in how it views itself.  I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

(HT John Armstrong)

You Only Have The "Gift of Singleness" if You Want to Be Single

"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” Matthew 19:9-12

Jennifer Vaughn at à la mode de les Muses posts about the unfortunate tendency of many Christians who advocate little else but waiting for those singles who would rather be married:

It’s very suspicious that the Christians advising this are, more often than not, either married (i.e., have a legitimate sexual outlet) or admittedly uninterested in sex (i.e., asexual, voluntarily celibate, or in possession of a naturally low sex drive). And they generally don’t even stop lecturing a moment to put themselves in others’ shoes. Rather than give up belief that fleeing and waiting is the only solution, many even accuse struggling singles of neither trusting God nor attempting to control themselves. The Apostle Paul was more sympathetic.

I not only agree with her, I would take it a step further and say that the repeated telling of single Christians that they have the "gift" of singleness, when in fact they have a strong desire to be married, can be a very damaging thing.  It's like saying that to have sexual desires or the desire to marry is a slap in the face of God.  Refuse a "gift" given you from God?  That's like biting the hand of the one who feeds you.

But notice the words of Jesus above.  He only lists three categories of eunuchs.  Those who were eunuchs from birth (i.e. those without the correct plumbing, anatomy, hormones, etc.), those who were made eunuchs by men (i.e. male slaves who were castrated as part of being taken as prisoner of war, etc.) and those who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom (i.e. remaining single by personal decision).  Those who are involuntarily celibate (i.e. haven't found the right match, a quirk of providence, etc.) aren't listed.

An additional problem is in limiting the application of Paul's admonition in 1 Corinthians 7 about it being better to marry than to burn (i.e. with passion) to the length of the engagement period for those who are already considering somebody for marriage.  Having problems with lust before even meeting somebody?  Tough.  Get it under control before you start to consider marriage or you've got no business marrying in the first place.  If this line of thinking doesn't place somebody in a difficult position, what does?

Jesus places a very light burden in his statement.  Only those who can accept his statement should apply it to themselves.  The rest are free to pursue marriage and shouldn't be judged by the rest of us.

Why Is One Covenant Not Enough?

Alan Knox at The Assembling of the Church asks why if we already have the New Covenant - which is ratified by the blood of Christ himself - do we need a church covenant to determine who is a member of the church and whether we should love those people and how.  Of course, I have asked the same thing numerous times on this blog.

Alan frames the question in a slightly different way than I mostly have.  Yes, good question.  Why do we need Christ plus a man-made document?  Christ's blood plus our signature?  Give his short post a read.

Tall Skinny Suffering of Children

Andrew Jones, aka the Tall Skinny Kiwi, types a few short paragraphs about allowing children to be children in and about the church, including when it meets.  It's very short so giving it a read will be easy as well as thought provoking.  Many of us have learned to be family oriented in many ways, but not so much when the church joins together.

But The Midweek Group Is My Church

Every church I've attended that claims to be Reformed has taught that the Sunday church meeting (aka worship service) is the central and most important event of the week for Christians.  If somebody had to decide to attend only one church activity during the week, the worship service should be it.  It contains the central focus of worship - the preaching of, and thus the listening to - the sermon, and singing and praying to the Lord.
Some people have neglected to attend on Sunday, but make other meetings during the week their main focus.  Inquiring leaders might get the reply, "But the midweek group is my church," and use the reply to warn against doing this.

But I'm wondering if those people aren't on to something.  Maybe they sense that those other weekly gatherings have more fellowship, more one-anothers, more stimulating one another to love and good deeds, more encouraging of one another (Heb 10:23-25) that is supposed to go along with not neglecting to assemble together.  And as Eric Carpenter writes at A Pilgrim's Progress, a former church of his had a built-in fellowship time that was very much enjoyed.  Arthur Sido, in the comments, notes that a former church his family attended had a difficult time getting people to stop fellowshipping during a built-in time so they could attend the formal teaching.  If more of the one-anothers that are listed in the New Testament occur in settings other than the Sunday meeting, why not allow somebody who realized this the benefit of the doubt in meeting during those other times?

Friday Night Potpourri

After a swing shift, Friday night at 11pm is my 5pm:

• I've been thinking lately about switching Friday Night Potpourri to Saturday Night.  I'm working swings on Fridays and I usually crash immediately on Friday night after I get home.  Like last night.  I woke up on the couch in the wee hours with my blog editor still open and too tired to do anything other than go to bed.
• I've encountered so many black widow spiders in the back yard it's hard to count.  I'm wondering why they only appear in the back yard.  It's been that way the last several houses I've lived in.
• Leaves are beginning to drop in the back yard.  That means getting out the rusty leaf rake and putting it to use in the next few months.  Nothing like getting the rust worked out of a tool by using it.
• I love a good cup of coffee every afternoon.  I'm not a morning coffee person, but usually have one after those post-lunch sleepy sessions kick in.  Makes the afternoon go faster and more efficient.
• What is up with laptops and their bizarre keyboard mishaps?  I type and right in the middle of what I'm doing, large chunks of text are cut and pasted to other parts of the document and the vertical scroll bar goes wildly up and down.  I mentioned this to a co-worker the other day and he experiences the same things.  Then Mrs. Scott agreed.  Anybody have these woes and know what they are?
• Popcorn ceilings. Or what everybody used to call "cottage cheese" ceilings. The inventor never took into consideration that kids and popcorn ceilings don't mix. Or... Must have been invented by the devil himself.  You've got to pick up all the little pieces...
• song.

What Would Jesus Drive?

Occasionally I hear or read the question, "What would Jesus drive?" as if there were a certain type of car he would drive if he were living in our society today.  I think the answer is fairly simple.  Jesus said, "Lo, I will be with you, even to the end of the age."  He also said he would send us his spirit.  He also said that those who did/didn't do things to the least of his were doing it to him.  He told Saul of Tarsus that he was persecuting him.

So with all this, and the freedom we have in Christ, plus using wisdom in how we live, wouldn't it stand to reason that Jesus would drive whatever any of his followers would drive?  Except for an SUV, that is.

Can You Reform Yourself Out of Being Reformed?

Bobby Grow at the newer version of The Evangelical Calvinist asks, "Who's Reformed, And Who Cares?"  and discusses how we should define what it means to be included within the Reformed Faith of Protestant Christianity.  A clip:

[T]here are many classically Reformed proponents today who collapse what it means to be ‘Reformed’ into a fixed set of agreed upon Reformed Confessions (the so called Three Forms of Unity — viz. The Heidelberg Catechism, The Belgic Confession, and The Canons of Dort); if someone cannot sign off on even one of these ‘forms’ in toto, then their “Reformedness” is probably non-existent.

He quotes a commenter on an old post of his that answers this idea:

What are the core principles of Reformed orthodoxy? Are these primarily doctrines (e.g. election and divine sovereignty construed in a particular way), or are they primarily ethics of the way in which theology is to be carried out (e.g. semper reformanda)?... [M]y sense of the tradition and its founding is that the latter ethics are decisive.  That’s why there is no single confessional statement of Reformed orthodoxy (as with the Lutheran Formula of Concord), but rather a broad tradition of regional confessions that share a great deal of doctrinal similitude. Even where we would specify some doctrines as necessary to what it means to be in the Reformed tradition — such as election and the sovereignty of God — the ethic requires that these allow for a range of interpretive positions and not a fixed doctrinal expression. This gives Reformed thinkers the freedom to continually re-examine and re-express the truths that are encountered in Scripture.

And in his commenter's conclusion:

The greatest value of classic Reformed orthodoxy, in my view, is that classic Reformed orthodoxy does not have the last word.

I'm in agreement with Bobby and his commenter.  There seems to be a gatekeeper mentality within those who claim the Reformed tradition that includes a position as minister of definition.  It's clear to me, and I've written about it numorous times over the blogging years, that semper reformanda is the forgotten sola of the Reformation.  Maybe it's because it never was a sola to begin with.  The word reformed is in the past tense, as in already figured out.  If seeking to be reforming rather than already reformed means that some will strip a definition from you, then I'm fine with that.  The ethic really is more important than the label.

Friday Night Potpourri

A week is a week is a week:

• Even if you don't write Friday Night Potpourri until Saturday afternoon.
• Even if the Beatles wrote a song titled, "Eight Days A Week."
• Especially when you think this FNP theme is cute then "This Week In Baseball" comes on.
• One of the things about my temp job that I haven't experienced in several decades is that I get paid once a week.  This is so unusual that I don't quite know how to process it.  But a paycheck shows up every seven days instead of twice per month, and we're all thankful for that.
• I've run out of "week" theme items so I'll switch to something random like breakfast cereals.  So there's a cereal called Reece's Puffs, a take off of Cocoa Puffs.  I guess some goof accidentally spilled some peanut butter in the Cocoa Puff recipe while in the General Mills laboratory.  Accidents happen.  Not that I would eat such a concoction.  I grew up on Wheaties, Cheerios, Corn Flakes, Shredded Wheat, Cinnamon Life and a half dozen other lessers.
• The kids were bored late in the summer.  I can tell by all the stuff accumulated on the roof.  Cups, balls, newspapers, toys, rocks.  Time to get the ladder out and do some fall cleaning.
• This last item has nothing whatsoever to do with a week.  Or so I've heard.

Still Yet Another Additional Anniversary of the World Not Ending

It's almost getting boring writing about this every September 6th, but today is the 17th anniversary of the sun not ceasing to shine, the moon not turning to blood and the stars not falling from the sky.  It is the 17th anniversary of Harold Camping's first of many, many failed eschatological predictions.  Having established a perfect record in his predictions, many of his followers ignore his prediction outcomes and believe in them anyway.  Even after every calendar in the world proves him wrong.

In one way, I wish his 1994 prediction had come true.  You see, Major League Baseball was in the middle of a player's strike, and the last game played before the strike was on a Thursday night, the only night game in the majors that night.  It was in Oakland and I was there sitting in the bleachers!  Had the world ended in September like Camping predicted, I would have had a ticket stub to the last game ever played in all of history!  Now how much would that ticket stub be worth today?  But as it was, the world didn't end and baseball played again in 1995.  Darn!  Or, should I say "damn!"?

Friday Night Potpourri

Is it really Friday?

• Family Scott has attained basketball hoop.  A Facebook post by some friends resulted in the kids using the driveway for more than throwing or hitting rocks.  Score!
• It seems like Tuesday for whatever reason.  Working a continually changing schedule for the last three months makes it difficult to know what day it is.  I usually know the date because so much of the work I do is tied to it, but not the day.  I turned on the game and the Giants were wearing their orange jerseys which means Friday.
• There's no there there.  I'm working in a city I used to live in for a number of years.  Everything I did I had to drive over the hill to central county.  The downtown had been blighted for decades, and numerous attempts at redevelopment were unsuccessful.  But there are a few good places downtown that have come about in recent years.  Now I need to find out more.
• Hey, my car is dirty.  Maybe I can get my kids to wash it next week.  Playing in the soap and water?  Hmmm.
• Upon further review, I found a post from last month that says my kids washed their mother's car.  Life isn't fair, but I guess it can be next week.
• I just found two dictionaries in the computer armoir.  Two.  I haven't read a dictionary in book form in quite a few years.
• The summer sound...
  

Startup Mania

Work is very intense right now, and is the big reason for me not blogging much.  I worked 16 days straight (fifteen with overtime), had a day off, and then worked another seven overtime shifts.  But as much work as there is, it is very enjoyable.  A very complex plant trying to start up is very exciting and full of surprises.  Sometimes learning what shifts everybody will work is hour to hour and not day to day.  Unique problems arise, and problem solving is the order of the day.

Church is also in startup mode.  We've been occasionally meeting with a group that is "planting" a church, and the much desired fellowship is picking up.  There's a much greater emphasis on people than programs and we're enjoying that too.  I miss blogging and I believe my writing has suffered a good deal over the last year or so.  Even Friday Night Potpourri isn't regular anymore.  Until the startup at work is successful and things smooth out into normal routine, it looks like I'll be a working fool.  And that is welcome after so long without gainful productivity.  I'd love to drop some more theological posts here in the near future, but life things may be more the speed in the foreseeable future. 

Questions About The Sabbath

Eric Carpenter (who blogs at A Pilgrim's Progress) mowed his lawn this Sunday.  Eric asked some questions about the Sabbath and what it means to keep it and break it, as well as whether there is a Sunday Sabbath to begin with.  I left a comment, but at the time I typed this post it hadn't yet been approved by the blog owner, so I'll paste it here:

Eric,

In the book of Acts, there are 8 different references to the seventh day as being the Sabbath, and what the apostles did on that day (13:14, 27, 42, 44, 15:21, 16:13, 17:2 and 18:4). The church and its first day meeting had already been well established by the apostles.

Now, why, if Sunday were the "Christian" or "New Testament" Sabbath, does THE BIBLE ITSELF still recognize the seventh day as the Sabbath after the Sabbath had already supposedly changed to Sunday?

This is a question that Sabbatarians have never given a reasonable answer to for me.  Does anybody have any additional observations on the Sabbath question?

Friday Night Potpourri

Worked week:

• I had an encounter with a skunk at 5am today.  Still dark, and perfectly still out, the skunk was startled by me and crossed the street and headed down.  Whew.  I had to get my gear in the car, and it crossed back and headed up the sidewalk toward me.  I was stuck with the car open, so I shook my keys at it.  It swerved around into the front yard and past the side of the house.  Our skunks are regulars, as they cut through our property, under the fence, and out to wherever they go in the middle of the night.
• Well, we had plums and apricots already.  Now we get the fallout from our neighbor's fig tree.  Yummy, but a littered yard.
• I was thinking about grease monkeys recently and what they used to do.  A friend put a 327 small block into a Vega wagon.  The torque almost wrenched the frame for good.  You could feel it as the car picked up.  A roll to one side.  And 140mph was a huge deal when we were kids.
• It was very windy the last few days.  Out driving it was mostly garbage and pine needles flying around.
• I saw a Google Street car out driving around last year.  I still haven't seen the latest and greatest up on the internet.
• It's too late and I'm too tired to think about something to put on this 6th bullet point.  Some times I get not just writer's block...
• Hmmm, I think it's time for a haircut.

Theological Comfort

"My job is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." - Anon

Well, whether or not affliction is ever involved, I think there is the trap of becoming theologically comfortable.  This theological comfort is like other comforts.  We are at peace with our knowledge of God.  We understand him.  He becomes predictable.  My favorite show is on channel 40 at 7pm every night.  Sometimes it comes on at 4pm, but the schedule tells me so in advance.  His ways are routine.  I sit with a cold beverage in my easy chair and watch every night.  God comes home for dinner at the same time every night, takes His shoes off and relaxes.  We sit on the sofa across the room from Him.

When God becomes predictable to us, when He becomes comfortable to us, those who are not so comfortable can become predictably wrong.  Always.  Or at least as long as we ourselves are comfortable.  Those people are in the other room worrying about cooking and cleaning or maybe where their next meal will come from.  Why can't they relax like me?  Can't they see God in my living room?

Something I've come to realize in my own life is that each time I think I've got God - or the study of God - figured out, he changes it.  He throws a monkey wrench into my system.  Sometimes that wrench really messes things up.  Biblical theology messes with systematic theology.  There's that verse again.  Can I really get away with forcing an interpretation again?  Oh, well, I'm comfortable with doing so, so I'll do it again.  And tell you all about it.

Friday Night Potpourri

Well, it's back.  A fortnight in the rear view mirror:

• Home from working overtime on swing shift.  Was tonight Friday Night?  It doesn't feel like it one way or another, but just like it's late at night, which it is.
• In my lab work, there's lots of call for what is known as de-ionized water (or "deionized" as one word, DI for short).  Anyway, Microsoft Word's spell checker doesn't recognize the word "deionized".  So, in its suggestion box it lists "demonized" as an alternate.  Demonized water? I guess that's different than holy water, no?
• Visited a new friend's house. The friend is new, but the house is old.  There's a concrete pouring in the back yard with the footprints of a young child imprinted in it and a name and date scratched in.  The date: 1952. 
• One thing about swing shift is that staying up late (or early as the case may be) allows viewing opportunities of the "paperboy" tossing the paper on the driveway as the car flies by.
• Summer is in full bloom and autumn is just around the corner.  My favorite season of the year.  The trees have, what, two months of totally green leaves left?
• The roof has accumulated a number of small toys.  Many of them were batted up there by our middle boy.  When I find the red volcanic rock in the back yard, I know it's been hit over the house by a little slugger.
• There's no other word to describe it than classic.