Home » Search results for 'worship' (Page 45)

Search Results for: worship

The Myth of ECx Internalism and Grace

May 24, 2010 / 10 Comments on The Myth of ECx Internalism and Grace

During the 1970s a common and then continuing practice began in which churches dropped their denominational name for some non-descript, generic one. For instance, Calvary Baptist Church would become Calvary Community Church or just Calvary Church. This related mainly to two different issues. First, research showed that the general public had negative feelings about certain denominational titles, like Baptist. Going to a “Baptist” church might associate people with doctrines they didn’t want others to think they held. People were less likely to come and visit if others knew they were visiting a Baptist church, for instance. These evangelical churches (EC) wanted to take away the stigma they saw that came with a denominational name. Second, denominational titles related to dogmatic church traditions. The EC didn’t want their constituency to think they would have to follow certain traditional practices—men wearing a shirt, tie, and even suit or sport coat, women wearing dresses or skirts, the stately, formal, slow organ music, hard, intimidating church buildings, and then the prohibition of social taboos like dancing, the movie theater, and moderate alcohol drinking. The new title would mark a relinquishing of the old rules.

A big part of the explanation by the EC was that they had had an advantage in an emphasis on the internals and grace. Their Christianity wouldn’t obsess on externals and so they would have better Christians, even if they didn’t look like mom and dad’s Christianity. Their people would not be burdened by the standards and rules of their forefathers, and so they would be more authentic. Part of the paradigm was the pastor dressing down with the casual shirt and facial hair that would signal the new graciousness. Out went the stodgy organ for the drums and the guitar. Goodbye to the song leader and hello to the worship team. The auditorium was not the sanctuary any longer, but the “center.” The church buildings were now the campus. New terms replaced the old terms in order to signal the change.

Since the seventies, the EC does not remain monolythic. You’ve got different varieties of this same motif. Now you’ll see the rock band EC with the trap set right in the middle of their “stage.” You have the short sermon (30 min) with plenty of comedic material, with monthly series pulling from the Beatles and U2. The pastor, like, relates. Some EC like to spice up their hard-core reformed doctrine with some gutter langugae. In certain cases, a more conservative EC has shucked most of the cultural distinctions that Christianity held, but they major on expositional sermons that are, however, short on the precise applications that “step on any toes.” “Stepping on toes” is a no-no at an EC. There are those who haven’t changed the name from the denominational one, but they have most of the other trappings of the EC. Some have moved in some eclectic music into their main services, majoring on traditional hymns, but their youth and singles departments have picked up on the “Christian” rock, rap, and jazz. Perhaps concerned about the perception of worldliness, they hide their fads and pragmatism in the teen and twenty-something groups.

The new trend is “the gospel.” You may say, “But wait a minute, that’s good right?” It sounds good to say that you are gospel-centered. If you look at this a little deeper, however, you find that the gospel becomes an excuse for the acceptance of worldliness. They don’t want anything to get in the way of their exposure of grace. Grace, grace, grace, and more grace. And then “unity.” The gospel unifies those with differences on the “non-essentials.” You sprinkle infants? That’s OK as long as you believe “the gospel.” We’ll get together. You speak in tongues? Not going to be a problem because of your “gospel-centeredness.”

Part of the point with the new emphasis on the gospel is a reaction to standards that churches once held and practiced. They “didn’t smoke or chew or run around with those that do,” so, of course, they were just painting on their Christianity. It was mostly a fraud and the EC can give documentation for this. And evangelicals still do on their myriad blog sites, showing how that the churches that said no to movies, no to alcohol consumption, no to immodest dress, or no to pants on women, that these were all just a replacement for authentic Christianity. Oh, and they were a big joke too. Ha, ha, ha. They just didn’t get it! What a bunch of loons!

Do you see the obsession of EC with externals? It’s not that they aren’t emphasizing externals. They’ve just lowered their standards. Having lower standards doesn’t make someone a better Christian. Being more like the world in the way that you sound, the way you look, the way you talk, and the way you act—which EC definitely are since they made this break—doesn’t mean that you are more internal or more gracious. There is a point that right wing externals can be painted. Christians can fake it. They can find out what the correct codes are and fit into them. But the left wing externals can do the same. The difference, as I see it, is that the left wing is easier than the right. You can fit more easily into the world by dropping or lowering considerably the standards.

The Pharisees weren’t just about adding to Scripture. They also were into extreme reductionism, that is, limiting the teachings of God to the few essentials. They would relegate the law to the greatest of the commandments. Both ways still can concentrate on the externals to the exclusion of the internals, the real you on the inside.

Lowering the standards hasn’t made EC more spiritual. It hasn’t made them more authentic. All it has done is made their churches more worldly. The flesh loves the lower standards. They’re easier. They are more genuine in a sense. Yes. The people love the world and so they don’t have to fake that any more. But they also think they are more spiritual because they aren’t faking it? Come on. Just because someone can put on his hip-hop gear for church doesn’t mean that he loves the Lord more. That’s the lie of modern EC. It’s a heinous lie that uses the gospel to excuse worldliness.

So today we see church leaders touting movies and rock music. They don’t prevent mixed swimming, women and men frollicking in the water, barely dressed. They don’t stop anyone from drinking alcohol, because it’s not just OK in moderation, but “a great blessing.” And all of it is explained by “the gospel.” This is what “the gospel” has done for them. And they don’t judge each other in these matters, because they believe in “unity.”

I know of a situation right now of fairly conservative EC. Under the leadership of their pastor, they changed the name of their church to the popular generic title. This was key. He tore off the tie for the polo shirt. He grew the facial hair. This EC brought in the drums and the guitars. In other words, the church took on the typical externals of the EC. They showed how important externals were to them, how pivotal they were.

The pastor of this EC got his hip worship leader. They were friends. They were close. They saw each other close up. This same younger man also took the leadership of the youth. All of this was, of course, so authentic and so genuine. And oh so internal. But all the young youth and music man did was fit into the new lower standards. It was easier. It was more fun. And he and his wife became the white wine experts and consumers of the movies. The grace and liberty were exhilarating. They were married with several children, close to the pastor, and he was having extra-marital relations with multiple other women. And this was all during this authentic time of genuineness at the very internal EC. Now this thirty something man and his wife are getting divorced.

These EC have taken up all these external features that show how much liberty they have an how in love with the gospel they are, even though their lives may not look like the gospel. I’m going to start calling them ECx, extreme evangelical churches. They require the lower standards. Anyone with higher standards is fake and can’t be too spiritual, must be moralistic. They are ECx. Extreme. If you don’t fit into their understanding of grace, which really is grace as an occasion for the flesh, which really is turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, then you aren’t “gospel-centered.” But none of that is really true. It’s the myth of the ECx grace and internalism.

Rock and Rap Music Are Becoming a Non-Issue in Fundamentalism part 2

May 3, 2010 / 16 Comments on Rock and Rap Music Are Becoming a Non-Issue in Fundamentalism part 2

I’m quite sure that most professing fundamentalists still wouldn’t allow for rock music in their church services. Even if much of fundamentalist worship isn’t acceptable to God, they won’t use rock music at their churches. But I do believe that the relationship to rock music has changed in fundamentalist churches. Before they were sure that the Bible taught that rock music is wrong. Now you hear even some of the most conservative of the fundamentalists say that its difficult to judge whether it’s wrong or not. To many now, it’s just a preference they have, not playing rock music, but they would have a hard time explaining why they shouldn’t allow it. They often sound tentative in their opposition to rock music.

What is the evidence that I see that says that rock music is becoming or already is a non-issue in fundamentalism?

Here’s what I see. Rap music is played at the Together for the Gospel conference and professing fundamentalist men get together with those men at that conference. Some of the music at the same event is played with rock music. Most of the primaries find rock and rap acceptable. They may not like it personally, but most of their churches play it. That’s not a problem for them.

MacArthur isn’t criticized by fundamentalist leaders for the rock music played at his church. The Resolved Conference plays rock music for the young people that come—this is a Grace Community Church conference. That doesn’t stop fundamentalists from fellowshiping with MacArthur and Grace Community Church. You don’t hear this as a criticism coming from major fundamentalist leaders.

You will see at SharperIron, which represents a large segment of young fundamentalism, that there is stronger argumentation for rock music than there is against it. Some of their blogroll don’t have a problem with rock music. They may not like it, but they aren’t against it. Nobody suffers any repercussions for supporting rock music or fellowshipping with it. It’s reasonable now not to have a problem with rock music at SharperIron. SharperIron is much more against the doctrine of perfect preservation than they are against rock music. Anti-perfect preservation is nearly at an essential doctrine with the rock music being a liberty.

You don’t hear fundamentalist leaders writing this: “rock music is evil,” “rock music is wrong,” or “rock music is sinful.” If they say anything at all, you hear or see them saying that it is a non-essential and a liberty issue.

Probably the major voice in fundamentalism against rock music now is Scott Aniol. You know Scott is against rock music. You can tell that Scott is not a favorite among the fundamentalists because of that. He is not respected by many because of how strong he is. And yet, when he talks about rock music, you will not hear him say that rock music is sinful, wrong, or evil. In a sense, I hate to say it because I like Scott’s stand, but he tip toes around the issue. In a recent conversation on his blog, he and a colleague talked about how that cultures should be learning from each other and allowing other cultures to reveal our blindspots.

Promoted fundamentalists are friends with those who listen to and promote rock music. You see Dan Philips, one of the Pyromaniacs, go to a Chicago concert and promote rock music of various forms, secular and “Christian” on his blog. And he gets zero criticism from fundamentalists. None. Chris Anderson of SharperIron and in with fundamentalism and SharperIron, even Bob Jones University, considers him a friend. Rock music doesn’t break friendships with fundamentalists. It’s totally a side issue any more.

Why Is Rock Music Becoming a Non-Issue in Fundamentalism?

First, fundamentalism is being influenced much by conservative evangelicals. This is obvious. They want to fit in with those guys and mostly those guys use rock music in their churches. That’s got to be overlooked.

Second, young fundamentalists listen to Christian rock and even secular rock. Fundamentalists know that. They don’t want to come down too hard. I hear from credible sources that most kids on Christian campus are listening to rock music.

Third, the universal church belief and the consequential belief about unity has ditched rock music as an issue. If all believers are going to get together and most professing believers are using and listening to it, there’s not going to be that unity they think we’re supposed to have. So rock music has become a casualty of Christian unity.

Fourth, the people who do preach against rock music are not respected. Many of them use the King James Version and that is more odious to many fundamentalists than rock music. They would rather have rock music than KJVO. I sense this personally. It’s easy to pick up. The major leaders that themselves don’t like rock music preach all around the issue without actually saying the words “rock music.” Kevin Bauder at Central is one of these. You know he’s against it, but you don’t hear him come right out and say it.

Fifth, fundamentalist churches had already started thinking about the audience, when it came to their choice of music. They weren’t thinking so much about the unchanging nature of God as they were what people liked and what people would feel. Without the right purpose of music to anchor them, they have veered away from the right purpose. Some of that is seen in the influence of Patch the Pirate and certain fundamentalist ‘evangelists’ upon fundamentalist music. To their credit, some fundamentalist leaders, like Bauder and Aniol, understand the similarities between some of the Majesty Music and rock music. It’s harder to oppose the rock, at least for them, when fundamentalists have entertainment oriented music themselves. The trite lyrics and show-tune music of revivalists in the midst of even conservative fundamentalists make fundamentalists seem as guilty. This kind of music has been acceptable in even the Bob Jones University branch of fundamentalism and the relations between those forms and rock music is very close in the minds of a Bauder and Aniol, among some others. If they were going to come down hard on rock music, they likely feel they would need to disparage a huge chunk of those with whom they have the closest affiliations.

There are probably more reasons, but these above are the major ones. I don’t mind being wrong. But I think I’m right here. Rock music has become a non-issue in historic fundamentalism. What do you think this means for the future of fundamentalists?

Inflammatory

March 16, 2010 / 4 Comments on Inflammatory

My wife and I traveled to New York to West Point for the plebe-parent weekend this last Thursday to Monday. While we were on the grounds of the U. S. Military Academy on Friday, I met and talked to another parent whose son and my son were acquaintance. I’m being purposefully ambiguous as to his identity and some of the details, like his bio and career. Anyway, after awhile I told him I was a Baptist pastor in California. He is in Alabama, where Baptists abound and is Bible-belt territory, unlike where my church is. I found he was a former Episcopalian, married Catholic. I asked him to give me his totally honest opinion, and I wouldn’t be offended one bit, whether he thought that all the Baptists down there have made Alabama a better state, a better place to live. He said something pretty close to this: “They help preserve the morality and the family, which is good. However, the daughter of the Southern Baptist pastor and my daughter both play on the volleyball team, and his daughter told my daughter that because she worshiped Mary, she was going to hell.”

Now I don’t know if that’s what this Baptist pastor’s daughter said exactly to this man’s daughter. However, if his daughter didn’t receive Jesus Christ alone for salvation, she was going to Hell. We spent a little time after that talking about pluralism, taking different points of view, and how that things had changed in the way of toleration and speech. He seemed to enjoy the conversation. What the pastor’s daughter said to his daughter, many would call inflammatory. And yet it was true. It was something like what I think Jesus would say. It was bold.

Saturday night we attended a banquet there in the cadet mess hall, a gigantic stone block structure in the middle of a mammoth barracks that the cadets lived in. You really would need to see it to get a sense of the immensity and the impressiveness of the place. Everyone was in full dress, we ate a banquet meal, and the president of Rwanda spoke. We were seated with another plebe and his family, filling out a ten person table. In the midst of the meal, the mother of the other plebe asked whether we were hoping for one of our daughters to attend West Point. My wife and I both said, “No.” I told them that we did not believe that women should be at West Point. We did not believe that the roles of women should be egalitarian, but complementary. They all nodded quietly. No comment. I think many would call my comment inflammatory.

Let’s shift back to something I wrote at the end of my last post about women wearing men’s clothes. I said at the end of that essay that the particular young ladies whom I had described were an abomination to God for having worn pants. One commenter said to another commenter that what I wrote was inflammatory. I based my statement on Deuteronomy 22:5, which says that the person who does such a thing was an abomination to God. I applied that verse to them.

Is inflammatory good or bad? I think the connotation is that it is bad. You’ve done a bad thing if you’ve been inflammatory, I believe, based on a modern understanding of the term. I think that many won’t say the truth because they don’t want to be “inflammatory,” as if avoiding that has risen to a higher moral plane than the truth itself. So you abstain safely from being inflammatory, but in so doing leave the truth unsaid.

Speak the truth. It’s loving to do so.

Women Wearing Men’s Clothes

March 11, 2010 / 24 Comments on Women Wearing Men’s Clothes

Here I go again. And for three reasons in particular. First, I was sent a mass email from my alma mater (Maranatha Baptist Bible College) in which was a link to watch a live stream of a basketball game at the home gym in Watertown, Maranatha men versus Northland men. I opened that email right when I was preparing to do my daily trip to nowhere on the Nordic Trac for forty-five minutes. I often watch live sporting events while on the Nordic Trac in my garage, where I have a home office (I live in California—it’s warm), on my computer screen. We don’t have cable so I can watch things for free on my broadband internet. The game was just starting as I began to exercise. So I watched.

Northland defeated Maranatha. I watched the last part of the first half and then most of the second half. Maranatha might need to do something about its gym floor, because guys were slipping all over the place due to non-stop moisture in many places, especially right under one basket. About 5 people could not towel it off fast enough. There was a lot of ice-skating out there. But I digress. At half-time, the video feed stayed on, and the student body held some kind of activity on the court with girls running around all over the place. I switched it off then because I didn’t want to watch that. All of the girls, all of them, a couple of dozen, were wearing pants. Mainly jeans. Not all loose fitting. It wasn’t easy to look at. I just shook my head watching it. What they wore definitely affected how they behaved as well. They were running and bumping around, well, like men. They had girded up their loins like a man and were doing the now permissible type of activity.

Now for me, it isn’t that I don’t think women can do physical activity. I believe they should. And that isn’t my point, so I’m going to leave that little digression to go back to my original focus. I never saw that type of female appearance when I was a student. The school has departed from that particular standard. As I watched how women’s dress has changed there, I thought about the basis for the standard in the first place. I believe there is a distinct male garment and female ones that are unique to women. Because of God’s prohibition in Deuteronomy 22:5, that when violated the individuals involved are an abomination to Him, I don’t believe women should wear the male garment and men the female garment. Our culture still mainly keeps the female garment off of men. Men don’t wear skirts and dresses. However, women wear pants. So men don’t have a distinct garment any more.

And then I get to the crux of this part of this post. A big argument for the women-wearing-pants crowd is that women wear women’s pants. I’m telling you. I don’t see it. These professing Christian women don’t wear pants that are different than men’s. They don’t care. That argument comes out only when someone like me comes along. It isn’t any kind of conviction, just a convenient game to play at the time. I know that. I think the people know it too, and it shows when you look at all the pants. These women or the men, who supposedly are in headship over them, don’t have a conviction about “women’s pants.” They just don’t care about following Deuteronomy 22:5 at all.

I recognize that some people have other arguments. It’s just that the “women’s pants” argument is the one I hear the most now. It’s the men and women both wore robes’ argument. Since they both wore robes then, then they both wear pants today. Of course, that misses the point of obeying Deuteronomy 22:5. The assumption is that there would have been a male robe and female robe and neither gender was to wear the other’s robe, which would have had distinctions that distinguished it plainly from the other. The move to women’s pants hasn’t been a move to distinguish the distinctions. It has been one to remove those distinctions. It has been a move to disobey Deuteronomy 22:5.

And again, I know there are other arguments. They have not been the historic position of the church on this passage. The two that come immediately to mind are the Canaanite worship point and then the “don’t-wear-military-implements” argument. I’m not even going to deal with them. I’ve done that here before. They are just dodges. If there is another argument it is the don’t-argue-over-non-essentials argument. This abomination to God isn’t an essential, you see—to us it isn’t.

The second event that directed me to think about this enough to write about it was something that happened in our school. A woman who is not a member of our church mentioned to us that wearing pants exclusively was a conviction for her. She would not wear skirts or dresses, didn’t even own any. I won’t comment further, but you can see how this may have gotten me contemplating this.

The third happening was a recent article by Kevin Bauder, which was published at SharperIron. This was an essay just before one he wrote has garnered a lot of attention, and I’m planning on writing about that one myself in the near future, but in the previous article, he mentioned the pant-skirt issue. He wrote:

For instance, one of my earliest written pieces was a response to someone who was trying to impose the “no pants on women” theory on our church. I regarded Fundamentalist speculations about music as simply pathetic.

I have recently seen potshots taken at this particular point, as a reason to be dismissive of separatists. These separatists have these, you know, strange standards. They were normal for most of Christian history. But now we have just subjugated ourselves to the world’s way of behaving on this.

What the church has done is what Jesus spoke about in Matthew 15:6: “Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.” Deuteronomy 22:5 is a command that was kept by the church for centuries, but it has been voided now by Pharisaic tradition, tradition intended to make the Christian life “easier.” Christians won’t have to ‘stick out’ so much. They can fit in quite nicely with the world and many think this is a good thing. Why did we all take that position for so long, keeping the distinction? What were we thinking? These new theologians and teachers are so much more enlightened, seeing things in the text that people never saw before. It just took a little digging to find some way to void the teaching.

Alright, I’m done for now. No, wait, one more thing. These individuals who do this, all those girls on the basketball floor at Maranatha—they’re an abomination to God. Alright. Now I’m done.

Should We Use “Good Things” to Attract Unbelievers for Evangelism?

February 10, 2010 / 26 Comments on Should We Use “Good Things” to Attract Unbelievers for Evangelism?

Once again, I have places I visit with the interest of contemporary theological matters. I decided to comment here about a program a pastor considered for the stated cause of evangelism. Sometimes this is called “outreach.” I’ve noticed in evangelicalism and often in fundamentalism that almost anything under the heading of “outreach” becomes acceptable by falling under the mere label. Here was this pastor’s idea, as written in his post:

Still, we’re wanting to supplement individual outreach with corporate outreach more effectively than we have in the past. One idea I hope we can apply this year is a “Community Messiah Sing.” My intention is to schedule a time early in December in which we invite people from our community to gather at our church building (a) to sing popular portions of Handel’s Messiah together, unrehearsed and with no thought of a performance, (b) to have some refreshments, and (c) to hear a brief discussion of the history and theology of the great work, which will include a clear gospel presentation.

We need to work on the details and viability of it. Have you ever done something like this? Do you have suggestions that would help make it more effective? Or do you have other ideas for outreach via this sort of community event?

And I was against this? Am I the Scrooge? Was I one of those Philadelphia fans who booed Santa Claus? Am I William Safire’s nattering nabob of negativity?

Was I against singing Handel’s Messiah? Of course not. I’m not finding it unusual for discussions to break down in this way. It’s easier to debate the strawman. Or in the end, that I’m opposing the invitation of unbelievers to a Scripture recitation. OK. I’d rather not play that game. I refuse to follow that yellow brick road with its fictional characters. There’s enough for people to judge, so they will need to do that.

We should think about this, because a discussion about offering a community Messiah sing-a-long parallels with the question with which I titled this post. As long as the thing we are using to attract unbelievers to church isn’t sinful, is it permissible? Is it wrong, does it violate God’s Word, to use an attraction natural to unbelievers to compel an unbeliever to a church, to an assembly of believers? If the answer is “yes,” then coffee, cappaccino, candy, soda pop, jumpers, parties, pizza, jet man, hockey, breakfast-lunch-supper, basketball, a rodeo, a zoo trip, a kite, a snow cone, a foot long hot dog, cotton candy, a dunking machine, a movie, water balloons, small toys, and even cash all are acceptable to attract an unbeliever to come visit. In principle, it is the same. None of these things are wrong or sinful. And since they are not wrong or sinful, then they are permissible to use to motivate an unbeliever to church perhaps to hear the gospel.

If that is true, then why do these evangelicals and many fundamentalists have a problem with the methodology of Jack Hyles? In principle, they are not practicing different than him and his movement of fundamentalism. Hyles would have made the same argument, and Schaap still would, that is, if there’s nothing wrong with it, then it should be fine to use to attract people to church.

Music remains a big tool for churches to use to get unbelievers into their building. It isn’t anything like that in the Bible, but it has become what churches use to motivate people to come to their church. Rick Warren himself in his Purpose Driven Church said music was the single biggest factor for the attraction of unbelievers, which is why he used pop as the music of choice. Some of you reading might say, “Well, I’d not ever use pop music in church.” Great. But why music period? I do believe that the music program is often developed as an incentive for unbelievers—“come and hear our orchestra,” “you’ll really like our music,” “our music is really good.” That alone confuses people about what music is about. Should that matter? Should it matter that people don’t know what church music is? That they think it is evangelistic? And then with that as a reason to come, it shouldn’t be any wonder why church music is sliding downward.

In this case, it is Handel’s Messiah. Handel’s Messiah, however, will attract a certain segment of unbelievers. That’s the whole point of this pastor’s promotion, which the fundamentalists that read his blog just ate up. Mainly I was attacked for disagreeing. I got no support in the comment section for opposing what he was doing. I’m on the board of two orchestras, so I know the classical music crowd. Many unsaved people are still interested in classical music. Handel’s Messiah is beautiful art, very well done classical music. Many like singing it because of the sheer artistic value. I’ve been in the choir for The Messiah 7 times. I’ve heard it performed 7 other times. The Messiah fans are the crowd that the pastor who wrote the above paragraph was targeting. The promotion was the sing-a-long, something that we know communities are interested in, because they come together in the hundreds in places like San Francisco, where there are very few believers, to participate. People love the music. Sacred music has a prominent place in music history. Most of the world’s great symphonies still play some of the wonderful music without having any interest in Jesus Himself.

So the attraction isn’t the recitation of Scripture, any more than a gigantic group gathered in downtown San Francisco for a free concert featuring an opera about Herod’s murder of John the Baptist. I was there. People weren’t interested in what John the Baptist preached. Should we explain what he did? Yes. Should we preach the Messiah of The Messiah? Yes. But should we invite unbelievers to come and sing The Messiah? No. They can’t praise God. A church should see The Messiah as worship. They don’t want unbelievers included in worship. I wouldn’t ever invite an unbeliever to come and sing with us. I don’t want him thinking he can worship. Ever.

“But if we invite unbelievers to sing-a-long, we’ll have an opportunity to preach the gospel to them?” It might work in that way. However, it is not truthful for us to give them any impression that they should come to a church to sing a song of sacred worship. It spoils the worship. It also sees music as evangelistic, which it isn’t anywhere in scripture. And as an important side note, it is entertainment to them. They think it is entertaining. We know that. Perhaps most of all, however, if we want to preach the gospel to them, then we should just preach the gospel to them. You may say, “Well, they’re not interested.” Exactly. In the end, if they did get saved, someone will say it was because of the promotion, because of the neat idea. No it wasn’t. It was because of the gospel. But you can see how that man is glorified through these types of ideas. They aren’t in scripture. We think of them. Our idea worked! The Greeks seek after wisdom. The Jews seek after signs. Classical music afficianados seek after Handel’s Messiah.

One pastor named Larry, offered this commentary:

Though I have heard it argued against many times, I am still not sure what the problem is with attracting people to hear the gospel. What else will we do? How else will they hear if we don’t attract them? Repelling them won’t work, and ignoring them hasn’t had great results either. It seems to me that people think “attraction=sin.” Attraction simply means getting their attention. If you aren’t baiting and switching (promoting the pizza party and then ambushing them with Jesus), I am not sure there is any biblical injunction at stake here. If you are substituting corporate worship for attractional evangelism, then I think you have a problem. But in reality, any personal evangelism takes place based on some type of attraction, whether personal or topical or conversational.

To me the issue is what we attract them with and what we give up to do it. If we attract them with the Gospel, the relevance of the gospel to life, then I am not sure what the problem is. If we give up our corporate worship or teaching, then we have a problem.

But if you don’t attract them, then what will we do to speak to them?

I wrote this comment back to him:

How will they hear without attraction? Jesus doesn’t make attraction an issue. We go and cast seed. Whether people want it or not depends on the condition of their hearts—some stony, some thorny, some hard, some good soil. They won’t hear, not because we haven’t perfected the art of attraction, but because of the condition of their hearts. Nowhere that I know of does Scripture command us to attract unbelievers. We go and preach to them, mainly because they aren’t attracted. We’ve got to go to them, because they won’t come to us. We go into the highways and hedges to compel them, but it isn’t to compel them to come to church, but into the kingdom. What compels them? It isn’t natural attraction. It is supernatural power from the gospel.

Let’s just say that I go out into my community and I say that it’s about the Jesus of the Bible—He’s Lord, He’s God, He’s Savior—and that’s what our church is about. I find out that people aren’t interested in that, in Him, even though Jesus is greater than anything. Paul said everything else was “dung” (Philip 3). I might be able to attract an unbeliever with a lesser thing, but if what I am offering is all about Jesus, why would I want to do that? If they don’t want Jesus, do we work up to Him by starting with things that the unbeliever wants that are less than Jesus? This seems to be carnal weaponry that won’t glorify God. In the long run, it will fall too, even if it seems to be working in the short term.

I was softer on Larry than I actually was thinking about what he said. I happen to know that he has an M. Div. from a prestigious fundamentalist institution. What he said was very, very bad. Another interesting point is that these fundamentalists didn’t even pick up on that. What he said sounded good to them, and several of them are even self-identifying Calvinists. I read a woeful lack of discernment there, maybe the old boys club where if you disagree too much you’ll be on the outside looking in.

Larry ends by asking this question: “But if you don’t attract them, then what will we (sic) do to speak to them?” This seems so obvious as to be absurd. You can’t speak to unsaved people without attracting them? I’ve been in what many would consider the hardest territory in the U.S. evangelizing for over twenty years. If you want to talk to them, you just talk to them. If they don’t want to listen, that means they aren’t interested in the gospel. They’ve got to want to be interested in the gospel. It seems plain to me from reading Larry’s question that evangelicals and fundamentalists have been duped by some serious deception about evangelism. They think that you’ve got to help the gospel along with natural attractions, or maybe we could just call it what Finney did: “new measures.” Larry would probably say he’s death on Finney, but his question was fully Finney.

The reason unbelievers won’t listen isn’t because they lack attraction. The gospel is attractive. It is the pearl of great price. If they don’t want to trade their earthly treasures for it, then offering an earthly treasure as an incentive isn’t right. Jesus answered why believers don’t get the gospel in Luke 13:24. They won’t strive to enter through the narrow gate. They won’t agonize (the Greek word for “strive” is agonizomai). Jesus didn’t try to make the gospel more attractive or attract people to it, however you want to say it. He just preached it.

Christian leaders today know that professing believers don’t want to preach, so they want to make it easier, so they have what they call “corporate evangelism.” That sounds like a great term, very technical, but what is it? It’s just mumbo-jumbo, gobblygook. Now if they meant, everyone in the church preaching the gospel to every creature—that is corporate evangelism—that would be great. But what they mean is that everybody comes together at church and the church arranges some shindig that they think unbelievers will like, and they invite them to it. It is bait and switch. The unbelievers aren’t coming to hear the gospel. They are not. What you do with this is produce faithless people. You don’t build them up to live for the Lord. You give them an alternative that is easier for them to do that isn’t spirit-controlled boldness.

I’ll probably write a second one on this, because I think it is a good time to do it, so stay tuned.

Immediate Pop Culture Relevancy

February 8, 2010 / 5 Comments on Immediate Pop Culture Relevancy

If there is anything that should not be relevant to pop culture, it is worship. Worship is all about God. And yet, in evangelicalism and in a growing way in fundamentalism, it has become important for the “worship” to be relevant to pop culture. I recently got a form letter from John MacArthur with some good words:

Our eyes aren’t on the fashions and fads of the day and we’re not interested in sacrificing long-term spiritual impact for immediate pop-culture relevancy.

I think that John MacArthur thinks that. He hasn’t stopped fashions, fads, and immediate pop-culture relevancy from moving into and all over his own church. Recently at the Pyromaniac blog, Phil Johnson, of MacArthur’s church, advertised a conference of which he would participate. I clicked on the youtube promotion for the meeting. It’s called the Psalm 119 Discernment Conference.

To start, the ad itself has the fashionable, faddish, and immediate pop-culture relevancy, promoting the meeting about Psalm 119 with the rock music and the crumbling urban infrastructure, trendy and gritty, not separating itself from what is sensual and worldly, not differentiating itself from pop culture. You tell me. For “worship,” they’re having “Go Fish.”

I looked up Go Fish to find out what their “worship” was. You tell me what you think of their worship: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkc9-SvqfDM . I’m not going to give any evaluation other than this is mutually exclusive from worship. This is immediate pop-culture relevancy. This is what the conference attendees have leading their worship and this is where “worship” is today with the conservative evangelicals. The picture here is the “Go Fish” promo for their “worship” that they took in their “shoot.” Discernment conference? They aren’t encouraging it in worship, so what else could we hope for? Your thoughts. Please.

Taking Liberties that Are Not Ours to Take

January 12, 2010 / 17 Comments on Taking Liberties that Are Not Ours to Take

I can’t climb through an open window into your house without being invited. That’s not a liberty that is mine to take. I don’t get to borrow your car because the door is unlocked and the keys are in the ignition. You understand those in a personal way. You also can comprehend certain actions like those on a little larger level. I can’t take my entire salary in cash under the table without paying taxes. I may not like most of the government, but I still owe the IRS. I might know how to get away with copying someone’s CD, but that isn’t a liberty that is mine to take. It’s against the law.

Last weekend’s NFL football brought some controversy. When the Green Bay Packers lost in overtime, two plays stood out as a violation of the rules. In the Packers final drive, their first possession of the overtime period, they received a ten yard holding penalty, but replays showed that their quarterback was hit with a clear helmet-to-helmet tackle by a Cardinal defender. It was an immistakable illegal play that should have given at least a replay of the down. There would not have been a third and five play that ended in a Cardinal defensive touchdown. In the final play of the game, photographs show the Cardinal defender pulling down the Packer quarterback’s helmet by grabbing his face mask. Not only would the Cardinal touchdown be overturned, but the Packers would have been moved fifteen yards forward because of the personal foul. Those incidents occurred on two of the final four plays of the game that, if called, could have changed the outcome of the game. I don’t think any Packer fan believes that the Cardinal players should have had the liberty to get away with those two penalties against their team. Spectators understand that those kind of plays happen, but they don’t believe that they should be allowed. They don’t think that those are liberties that the officials should take in refereeing the game. They want the rules followed.

Many today seem to take a different approach with God. They take liberties with God that do not belong to them. They don’t react the same way about God’s laws being violated that they would about someone entering their house through an open window or a player committing a penalty against their team. They seem to think that they can take liberties with God that shouldn’t be allowed in these lesser realms of life.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t expect liberties taken that shouldn’t be taken. They will. We all sin. We all struggle with sins. We fall sometimes. But it’s a wholly different matter when the liberties taken are not just overlooked but codified as acceptable and even superior behavior.

God says immerse. Someone sprinkles. God says immerse believers. Someone sprinkles infants. Those are not liberties that anyone should take with what God said, but they do. But what has now become the bigger problem? That someone doesn’t accept this liberty that has been taken with what God said. It’s not the sprinkling of infants that is today the problem, but that someone will break fellowship or separate from the one who has taken a liberty with what God said. God doesn’t fellowship with unrepentant disobedience or sin. But we do out of what we see as love. God is love. He won’t fellowship with it, but we will because of love. We’re indicating that our love and our unity is superior to God’s. That doesn’t mean that we can’t rejoice in some truth that the infant sprinkler believes, but do we fellowship with him when he tolerates this violation of God’s plain teaching?

What is even more pernicious about this practice of taking liberties is that it now uses the gospel as a basis for it. These people are together for the gospel. They see themselves as having a robust, large kind of love that can overlook a false doctrine or practice for the sake of a transcendent unity. It isn’t love. It is at best sentimentalism. It isn’t about God. It’s about being big. About having more friends. About not having to do the hard thing. About looking good in a world that values toleration above obedience and egalitarianism above authority.

This taking of liberties reflects on a view of either the plainness or authority of the Bible. Nowhere does Scripture tell us to allow for these differences. And we have enough of a grasp on language that we don’t practice the same way almost anywhere else, essentially with areas that deal with our own tangible well-being. We don’t nuance on what constitutes someone opening their car door into our car’s paint job. We can see the ding. It’s plain to us. It’s our car after all. We don’t want a car with a ding in it. We might forgive the act, but we do not embrace an acceptance or toleration of the continued practice of it. People are not at liberty to keep denting our automobile.

Because of the nature of this type of discussion anymore, I must say that when I use the example of infant sprinkling, it is just an example. This is not an essay about infant sprinkling. I know how hard it is, however, for people to accept certain other examples, even cessation of the sign gifts—tongues, healings, and miracles. Or public nudity. The conversation can easily turn junior high. It usually does on this. “He’s a flame-throwing fundamentalist.” “He’s someone that’s part of a very small and insignificant group of people who haven’t found wide acceptance.” “I can tell you from other conversations that I’ve had with him that he’s unbalanced.” “He wants to put women in burkhas.” “He thinks that ladies who wear pants are going to Hell.” This is a craft often learned in the high school locker room and then applied in theological circles.

When everything is finished, however, you still have God having said what He said and knowing what He knows. He’s the judge. As much posturing and duplicity can be utilized as possible, but God is still on the throne. It is to Him and His Word to Whom we’re accountable. And we know from His Word that He doesn’t give us liberty not to follow what He said. He is of a very detailed nature that expects those specifics to be kept. He said no to any single item in Jericho, and one garment resulted in dozens killed. Nadab and Abihu died for a wrong recipe for the altar of incense. We can see how God looks at things. He is less lenient than most make Him out to be, even in areas of methodology.

The gospel brings liberty. Not to sin. Not to worship God the way we want. Not to be a stumbling block to the weaker brother. Not to be a bad testimony. Not as an occasion to the flesh. Not to disobey what the Bible teaches about separation. But to live in a way that pleases Him.

Is This Statement Scriptural? “Strictly speaking, biblical “separation” is refusing to extend Christian fellowship to someone who denies the gospel.”

January 7, 2010 / 24 Comments on Is This Statement Scriptural? “Strictly speaking, biblical “separation” is refusing to extend Christian fellowship to someone who denies the gospel.”

I like reading Scott Aniol’s Religious Affections. Jonathan Edward’s A Treatise concerning Religious Affections is important to have read and understand, and Scott does well to name his blog that. Most don’t know or understand the implications of not knowing what Edwards talks about in his treatise. I believe he provides a very informative and helpful read at his blog, entitled: “Is Music a Separation Issue?” As it relates to most men today, Scott takes a strong position on music and worship. Much of what he writes is helpful. I recommend that you read his Worship in Song. It’s very good and a book I have required for my pastors-in-training to prepare them to lead the worship of their churches. Of course, I also recommend my book, Sound Music or Sounding Brass too for those reading here that didn’t know I wrote something on this in 1996.

I believe his question is an important one, that is, is music a separating issue? What is the best about what Scott writes is some history about philosophy of culture. In this article, it is for the first time I have read the terminology, “conservative fundamentalist.” Scott had to know what he was writing there, introducing a new label, it seems. I’ve been reading “conservative evangelical,” but it seems that as men relate to the culture as Christians, fundamentalists are now to be differentiated.

Scott is very strong. He’s on the right side here. But he isn’t strong enough, and that weakness surrounds a few statements he makes, first to start his article and then in the comment section. I believe that these statements parallel with the history of fundamentalism and they are a kind of traditional fundamentalist doctrine or just a fundamentalist tradition. They are not biblical. That should be our greatest concern, because we are talking about honor of, obedience to, and love for God. No one should be afraid to leave the fundamentalist reservation for the Lord Jesus. Here are the two statements in order:

Music philosophy is not a separation issue of the same kind of level as heterodoxy or flagrant, known sin.

Strictly speaking, biblical “separation” is refusing to extend Christian fellowship to someone who denies the gospel.

Scott’s going to get agreement for these from most fundamentalists. Hearty agreement. Some fundamentalists won’t agree with him—the statements aren’t strong enough. I don’t consider myself a fundamentalist, even though I’m very supportive of the idea of fundamentalism, but these don’t read as scriptural to me. That’s my concern. They are unscriptural—weaker than scripture.

Do you think they are scriptural? If they are, why? Support it from scripture. If not, then why not? And again, support it from the Bible.

A Leaking Gospel

January 4, 2010 / 31 Comments on A Leaking Gospel

If the true gospel was a ship, it would be airtight, never to be sunk. It always would do what it was supposed to do, because the gospel is of God. It is His good news. He gave it to mankind. As God’s creation, the gospel will succeed at what God intended it. The gospel that is His will produce what He designed.

The Lord Jesus Christ commanded us to “believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15). God saves through the gospel (Rom 1:16). Because of this, we preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15). Paul served God in the gospel (Rom 1:9). If anyone preach any other gospel than the one Paul preached, he is to be accursed (Gal 1:6-9).

I’m deeply concerned about a widespread movement, much more than a trend, that claims to exalt and celebrate the gospel, when it in fact attacks the nature of the gospel. It’s taken me awhile to sort this out, but now I’m convinced that this movement undermines the gospel, meanwhile promoting what it says is the gospel. I am calling it a leaking gospel. It is an imposter that might be decorated with flags and bright colored paint, but it has enough holes to sink it. What leaks out from it is what God created the gospel to do. Contained in the gospel is the power to change, to sanctify, and to separate, all around the truth.

Supporters of the leaking gospel shout out their love for the gospel. They name their parachurch organizations after the gospel. The blog about the gospel. They convince many that nobody cares about the gospel more than they.

The problem of the leaking gospel centers on an important gospel text in the New Testament—1 Corinthians 15:1-4. There Paul writes to the Corinthians:

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

The leaking starts with a wrong interpretation of “first of all” in v. 3. The English Standard Version (also the NASB and NIV) translates that “as of first importance.” It is only two Greek words—en protois. This is the only usage of en protois in the New Testament. However, it is found one time in the Greek Old Testament. There it is translated in the KJV as “before”: “Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded before” (Joshua 8:33). The NASB translates it “at first” and the NIV, “formerly.” None of those say that en protois refers to importance, but order in every case. Young’s literal translation gives protois a one word translation in 1 Corinthians 15:3—“first.” “I delivered to you first.” The “of all” comes from the KJ translators because of the preposition, en, in front of “first.”

What is the normal use of protos, “first.” Should it be understood as “first importance?” The first time we see protos in the New Testament is in Matthew 5:24, which says, “first be reconciled to thy brother.” The primary usage of protos is order, not importance. Even if en protos does mean “as of first importance,” which it doesn’t seem to according to a common sense reading, nothing in the context would tell us that 1 Corinthians 15:3 is making the amazing statement that this is the most important doctrine in Scripture. And then if it really is saying that the gospel is the most important doctrine in the whole Bible, it doesn’t say anything about the gospel being the only test of fellowship with other professing believers. This is not exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:3. It is all reading this teaching into 1 Corinthians 15:3.

A plain reading of the text says that Paul is saying that the gospel was one of the first messages that he delivered to the Corinthians. Of course, he would preach the gospel to them first because they weren’t saved. The gospel is foundational to other doctrines, because someone can’t understand Scripture until he has been converted and has the Holy Spirit indwelling him. A person goes to Hell for all eternity if He rejects the gospel. There’s no doubt it’s important, but it is a massive jump to seal a most-important-doctrine-in-all-of-Scripture alone from 1 Corinthians 15:3.

This little two word Greek phrase has become the proof phrase for a particular belief about the gospel. From those two words, those in this leaking gospel movement say in essence that the gospel is the singular basis for Christian fellowship, that is, as long as someone has even a minimal understanding and then reception of the gospel, we are permitted to fellowship with him regardless of many other scriptural differences. With most of these, it goes even further than that. To them, those who separate over the violation of a scriptural doctrine or practice other than or in addition to the gospel somehow are diminishing or undermining the gospel.

A particular understanding of this one, two-word phrase, en protois, brings together Pedobaptists with Credobaptists, Charismatics with non-Charismatics, Bach worship with Grunge Rock worship, Traditionally Clean Speech with Foul Language, and Complementarians with Egalitarians. This application of one prepositional phrase dumbs down all the rest of the doctrine of the Bible. It also clashes with many passages that teach discipline and separation over other teachings and practices (Matthew 18:15-17; Romans 16:17-18; 1 Corinthians 5; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15). No right view of the gospel could contradict so much belief and practice from the rest of Scripture.

When we are saved by grace through faith alone (Eph 2:8-9), “we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph 2:10). Right behavior “adorn(s) the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things” (Titus 2:8-10) for God’s grace “teach(es) us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world” (Titus 2:11-12). John writes in 1 John 2:29: “If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.” Whatever is truly about the gospel can’t divide itself from all of the teachings of the Lord. The gospel changes someone to live everything that God said.

The gospel is not the only basis for fellowship. In one of the most important and few passages on unity in the New Testament, Ephesian 4:3-6, we see that unity is based upon “one faith.” “The faith” encompasses all the teaching of God in Scripture. “The faith” is everything that we believe and practice as a church. It is what brings a church together—not just the gospel, but all the teaching of God’s Word.

“The leaking gospel” is more concerned about the alliances of evangelicalism and fundamentalism than it is about the gospel. Someone who loves the gospel won’t compromise something else in Scripture in order to “get along” with another professing believer. Those with this understanding of the gospel are more concerned about their kind of unity than they are the honor of God. God isn’t honored by diminishing belief and practice to cobble together leagues, fellowships, denominations, and confederations. Those with “the leaking gospel” don’t mind the erosion of true worship in order to keep an alliance together. You can see that this view of the gospel doesn’t strengthen the teaching of the gospel, but empties of it of its power by cheapening the grace of God. God’s grace conforms men to all that God said. That was why Jesus sent His church to teach new believers “to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20).

So I say beware of those with the leaking gospel. They may talk of the gospel and bring it into most conversations. They may say that it is what their preaching and their worship is all about. That doesn’t mean that they represent the gospel of God. Just because they claim to coalesce around the gospel does not conclude that they do.

Expecting Pastors to Pastor

December 7, 2009 / 32 Comments on Expecting Pastors to Pastor

Evangelicals and fundamentalists still judge success by size of congregation, even most young fundamentalists who grew up with and are critical of the Hyles movement. Their favorites pastor large churches and/or publish books. They are not evaluated mainly by whether or not they obey Scripture. Specifically, they are not judged based upon the pastoral epistles, where we learn what a pastor should do.

Do the popular evangelicals and fundamentalists submit to the teaching of the pastoral epistles in their pastoring? One would think this might be a good basis for success as a pastor. If not, then what is missing?

What do the pastor epistles instruct a pastor to do that is not the practice of many popular evangelical and fundamentalists pastors? They are often rewarded in their lack of obedience to the pastoral epistles with popularity. Others want to be like them. They got big, so they must be a success.

Have you noticed that Jesus didn’t get big? He got more unpopular, despite His ability to perform jaw-dropping miracles. Paul wrote in Philippians 2:20-21:

For I have no man like-minded, who will naturally care for your state. For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ’s.

And what about these words in 2 Timothy 1:15:

This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me.

From what we read, Paul wasn’t getting bigger either. We know that many conversions could occur. We see that in Acts. However, Paul made clear that it didn’t come from human ability (1 Cor 3). More ability doesn’t equal more conversions.

Is it possible that the popularity and size of the most well-known evangelicals and fundamentalists happened and continued because they have not followed the pattern of pastoring that Paul has written in his pastoral epistles? They are often men with either great intellect or speaking ability or both. People like to listen to them. They’re interesting. The size of their audience could parallel the size of the audience of a popular television show or sporting franchise. People join their audience because of the entertainment value. It’s fun to be a part of a winning team. And then this type of “success” breeds more audience and popularity—a bandwagon effect.

We have no reason to oppose great ability, someone who can speak well or communicate difficult concepts in an interesting way. However, there is more to pastoring than that. Even if you are a talented speaker, you could become unpopular if you did what Paul did. Paul protected the church—not just by writing. He did write about it. He wrote a big chunk of the New Testament. But what he wrote about, he did. He wanted all pastors to do the same.

A pastor might be able to explain the pastoral epistles very well. But does he do them? In other words, does he pastor? Pastoring is what we see in the pastoral epistles.

I believe that many popular pastors are popular because they don’t pastor. If they pastored, their popularity would diminish. Men known this. They know what obedience to the pastoral epistles would mean to their popularity. Their popularity doesn’t diminish because it is more important to them than obedience to the pastoral epistles.

The popularity of the non-pastoring of the popular evangelicals and fundamentalists perpetuates the lack of pastoring of churches. Many churches have removed the idea of pastoring from the office of the pastor by calling the pastor the “teaching pastor.” You might be a teacher, but you aren’t a pastor if you don’t obey the pastoral epistles. The desire for the office of the bishop (1 Tim 3:1) is a desire for what the pastoral epistles instruct. You aren’t fulfilling the office that your title of pastor suggests if you do not follow the teaching of the pastoral epistles.

Size of the church is absent as a concern in the pastoral epistles. The priority of the pastorals is the purity of the church. We know that Jesus loves the church and wants to present it pure and spotless in the day of redemption. He wants quality in his church. Scripture is sufficient to accomplish purity, but the pastoral epistles must be obeyed.

You might think, “Well, these popular evangelical preachers and teachers do write books to help the church with its purity.” The pastoral epistles do not call for book writing for church purity. I talked about this in the previous post with John MacArthur, who many across the country wish to emulate as the way to accomplish pastoring. MacArthur writes books about wrong positions on doctrine and how that belief and practice are being corrupted. Meanwhile, his own church takes up the very trendy, “purpose-driven,” church-growth techniques. He needs to pastor his own church. That isn’t just preparing sermons, teaching them, and having them played all over the world on radio and now television.

Paul started out his teaching to Timothy in 1 Timothy 1,

I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine.

What did Paul begin with? Clean up the church you’re pastoring. Charge some in your own church that they teach no other doctrine. He didn’t say a thing to Timothy about making sure everyone else in the world did it a certain way.

MacArthur writes a lengthy essay against the Manhattan Doctrine. Meanwhile, that doesn’t change his fellowship with those who signed the document. Paul said in Galatians, “Let them be accursed.” Actually doing something about it results in unpopularity. Everybody is impressed with the civility, but how important is protecting the gospel? If you don’t separate, then you aren’t doing what the passages actually teach. The same goes with John Piper and his continued relations with the open theists. A well-known conservative Baptist like Mark Dever won’t separate over infant sprinkling. These men write against false doctrine, but they don’t do what the pastoral epistles require a pastor to do.

With everything that was important for the church to believe and do, it was to be enforced with pastoral authority. Paul writes Timothy in 1 Timothy 6:3-5:

If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness. . . . from such withdraw thyself.

Then in verses 11 and 14:

But thou, O man of God, flee these things. . . . keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.

We see much more in 2 Timothy about the purity of the church.

2:5: If a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.

2:21: If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.

And then in Titus:

1:5: For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting.

1:10, 11, 13: For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, . . . whose mouths must be stopped, . . . . Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.

2:15: These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority.

3:10: A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject.

These three epistles direct a pastor to protect the purity of the church. Would that yield an evangelistic outcome? Yes, a genuine one, one that keeps in focus a true gospel and conduct becoming it.

The grace that brings salvation, Paul writes Titus, teaches “us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world” (Titus 2:12). Paul wants genuine conversion, not the cheap grace that manifests the worldliness rampant in the popular, even conservative, evangelical churches.

I believe we have men who would be as popular and big as MacArthur and Piper if they compromised like these men and if they weren’t separatists, like these popular evangelical figures. Those faithful men have endeavored to pastor their churches, that is, maintain the purity of those churches by confronting the worldliness and corruption of them. Some of those men have intellect, talent, and ability matching or surpassing that of the popular evangelicals and fundamentalists. However, they believed early on that they would be pastors, men who would take responsibility for the purity of their churches by obeying the pastoral epistles for the greater glory of Jesus Christ. We should be judging the success of pastoring based on the criteria that God’s Word provides in the three New Testament books especially for that purpose.

WHAT IS TRUTH

Search Results for: worship

Recent Posts

INDEX FOR WHAT IS TRUTH

The Myth of ECx Internalism and Grace

Rock and Rap Music Are Becoming a Non-Issue in Fundamentalism part 2

Inflammatory

Women Wearing Men’s Clothes

Should We Use “Good Things” to Attract Unbelievers for Evangelism?

Immediate Pop Culture Relevancy

Taking Liberties that Are Not Ours to Take

Is This Statement Scriptural? “Strictly speaking, biblical “separation” is refusing to extend Christian fellowship to someone who denies the gospel.”

A Leaking Gospel

Expecting Pastors to Pastor

Post navigation

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

Pages

Recent Comments

Archives

Meta