MENU

Author

On July 14, 2015 By In Culture, Family and Children

The Coming Division Between Christ and Family

For many generations Christians or converts to Christianity in the West (Europe & America) did not have to sacrifice much. The reason was Western Christendom. Most of society was built on Christian laws and operated under a Christian ethic. If someone  got saved at a revival meeting they went out into a world, that for the most part, approved of their conversion and the actions that flowed from it.  If a preacher called a man to come to Christ, that repentance rarely meant that the man would lose his family or job for believing in Jesus. Christianity was the air that we breathed. It was not perfect of course. The cracks that were there are now causing the structure to collapse. But for a long time the Western world was a safe place for Christians and those who converted to Christianity.

This is changing rapidly.  Conversion to Christ in the West  will require more and more sacrifice as the years go by. In particular, we will find families divided. There will be other types of loss, such as jobs and money, but few things compare to being rejected by family. Losing family is a deep and painful wound. New Christians will not find their family members approving of them and their actions. Instead they will find themselves in the position of many Muslims who lose all when they choose Christ. Two Muslim brothers who came to Jesus described it this way:

Faith [in Jesus] often means the total rejection of culture, ethnicity, family, and friends. To find heaven’s glory in Jesus Christ, we Caner brothers lost our father. (Islam Unveiled)

Another example is Rosaria Butterfield who was a lesbian professor at a major university when she came to Jesus. In the account of her conversion she notes that not only did she lose her friends, they felt betrayed by her. They put their trust in her. They counted on her to support them. When she came to Christ, they felt like she had stabbed them in the back. While this was not her biological family, the bonds she felt with these people were as strong as natural family bonds.

Stories like these will become common as the years progress.  We will hear of sons being rejected by fathers and fathers rejected by sons. We will hear of children raised in homosexual homes converting to Christ and being rejected by their parents. We will hear of daughters being kicked out of homes for their faith in Christ. We will hear of Muslims rejecting family members for conversion, not in the Middle East, but here in America. We will hear of close knit groups who hate a member for leaving them and following Jesus. The possibilities are endless, but the probability of families, biological or otherwise, being divided by Christ get higher with each passing day.

How can the church prepare for this?

First, we must remind ourselves and tell those we evangelize that Jesus demands absolute loyalty. Family is not the highest good. Jesus is. You can gain your family and lose Jesus. You can hold to all sorts of wonderful family values, like the Mormons and the Muslims, and still burn in Hell. Jesus came to separate.

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:34-38)

Family is important, but it does not trump Jesus Christ.  If we give the impression that family is more important than Jesus people will not make the choice to follow Jesus with their whole heart. They will be divided. We must declare without apology, that if the choice is Jesus or family, Jesus wins.

Second, our churches must be places where broken families integrate into God’s family of brothers and sisters. Single mothers, divorced folks, people recovering from sodomy and abortion, the abused, the sexually broken, etc. when they trust in Christ and are baptized should find a place in our churches to serve and grow. Widows must be cared for and orphans must be adopted. If our churches cannot or will not bring in these people then we are saying biological family trumps God’s family. We are saying you must come from a whole family in order to be part of God’s family. That is a grievous sin and shows disloyalty to Jesus. However, teaching this is not enough. Somehow, and it is not easy, we must create a tone, an atmosphere where broken families are welcome. A church that emphasizes family can make people from broken homes feel unwelcome. We must remember deep in our bones that we  too were broken (Titus 3:3) and outside of God’s family (Ephesians 4:14-22), but God in his grace adopted us and saved us.

Third, we must maintain strong families, but not idolize them. A good Biblical home is a wonderful witness of God’s grace to the watching world. We should teach and model what a Christian husband and wife look like. We should teach parents to raise their children in the discipline and admonition of the Lord. We should encourage our young people to get married and have lots of children.  But all of this must be done, not as an end to itself, but as a way to glorify God and build his kingdom. If we build the family for the sake of the family then we have made the family an idol. And God destroys idols. But if we build our families so they might serve Christ and serve His church, including those among us do not have families, then we are reflecting Biblical priorities.

Fourth, we should be grateful for the good relationships we have with non-Christian family members. For many of us, even though our family is not worshiping Jesus, we still get along. The relationship is not completely severed.  Of course, there is always a divide. No matter how much we love our family, if they do not trust in Christ there is chasm that cannot be crossed until they believe.  But God is kind. He gives common grace so we can enjoy their company and they our’s despite their lack of faith.

Finally, we should be thankful when our biological family is Christian. My whole family believes in the Lord Jesus Christ. He could have made me choose between Christ and my family as many Christians around the world have done. But he didn’t. God in his mercy has made my temporary, biological family part of my eternal, spiritual family.  The only proper response to this astonishing fact is gratitude.

Read more

On July 11, 2015 By In Scribblings

Ten Quotes on Leadership

I really enjoyed Al Mohler’s book The Conviction to Lead. I have  read it twice and I am sure I will keep coming back to it over the years. Here are ten quotes from the book. I might post more later. I would recommend the book for any Christian in any leadership position whether pastor, school administrator, professor, leader of a small group, owner of business, father, etc. Mohler’s personal experience as a young leader who reformed Southern Baptist Theological Seminary adds weight to what he says.

“When a leader walks into the room, a passion for truth had better enter with him.”

“I believe that leadership is all about putting the right beliefs into action, and knowing, on the basis of convictions, what those right beliefs and actions are.”

“There are plenty of very intelligent people who have virtually no ability to lead.”

“The most important truths come alive through stories, and faithful leadership is inseparable from the power and stewardship of story.”

“Leadership is the consummate human art. It requires nothing less than that leaders shape the way their followers see the world.”

“Disciplined thought requires the leader to think clearly about how things connect and how reality is to be analyzed.”

“Until conviction is transformed into action, it makes no difference in the world.”

“True credibility rests in the ability of others to trust what the leader can do.” (Emphasis his)

“Every single day, the faithful leader must be aware that credibility is the essence of leadership, and that it can be both earned and lost.”

“Leadership doesn’t happen until communication happens.”

Read more

On July 10, 2015 By In Theology

Triumph, Worship, and Humiliation: Three Quotes on Calvin’s Birthday

Few theologians and pastors have had such an enduring impact on the church as John Calvin. His work continues to be studied, followed, critiqued, built upon, and condemned. Today is Calvin’s 506th birthday. Here are three quotes from him. I have bolded certain lines that struck me.

Reformed theology has divided the work of Christ up into three different roles: prophet, priest, king. Here is Calvin on the comfort which comes from understanding that Christ is king and that his kingship is permanent and heavenly, not temporary and earthly. This is from his Institutes Book II, Chapter XV.

Thus it is that we may patiently pass through this life with its misery, hunger, cold, contempt, reproaches, and other troubles-content with this one thing: that our King will never leave us destitute, but will provide for our needs until, our warfare ended, we are called to triumph. Such is the nature of his rule, that he shares with us all that he has received from the Father. Now he arms and equips us with his power, adorns us with his beauty and magnificence, enriches us with his wealth. These benefits, then, give us the fruitful occasion to glory, and also provide us with confidence to struggle fearlessly against the devil, sin, and death. Finally clothed with his righteousness, we can valiantly rise above all the world’s reproaches; and just as he himself freely lavishes his gifts upon us, so may we, in return, bring forth fruit to his glory.

What a great passage about Christ’s preservation of his people, which allows us to fight to the end and give all the glory to Christ when the battle is finished!

Here is a quote from The Institutes, Book II, Chapter VIII. He is explaining why the worship of God (the first four commandments) is the foundation for righteous living (last six commandments). It is easy to focus on moral living without focusing on the worship of God. Calvin is not fond of this approach. By religion in this passage he means right worship of God.

The first foundation of righteousness undoubtedly is the worship of God. When it is subverted, all the other parts of righteousness, like a building rent asunder, and in ruins, are racked and scattered. What kind of righteousness do you call it, not to commit theft and plundering, if you, in the meantime, with impious sacrilege, rob God of his glory? Or not to defile your body with fornication, if you profane his holy name with blasphemy? Or not to take away the life of man, if you strive to cut off and destroy the remembrance of God? It is vain, therefore, to talk of righteousness apart from religion. Such righteousness has no more beauty than the trunk of a body deprived of its head. Nor is religion the principal part merely: it is the very soul by which the whole lives and breathes. Without the fear of God, men do not even observe justice and charity among themselves. We say, then, that the worship of God is the beginning and foundation of righteousness; and that wherever it is wanting, any degree of equity, or continence [self-restraint], or temperance, existing among men themselves, is empty and frivolous in the sight of God.

I recently preached on suffering, which led me back to Calvin’s sermon on Matthew 5:11-12, which can be found in this book. In that sermon I found this quote about how it is easier to endure death than humiliation, which I thought was easily applied to our current situation.

Moreover we are not only encouraged to put up with personal injury and trouble, but also with criticism, slander, and false report. This is perhaps the hardest thing to bear, since a brave person will endure beatings and death more easily than humiliation and disgrace. Among those pagans who had a reputation for courage were noble souls who feared death less than shame and dishonor among men. We, therefore must arm ourselves with more than human steadfastness if we are to calmly swallow all the insults, censures, and blame the wicked will undeservedly heap upon us. That, nevertheless, is what awaits us, as St. Paul declares. Since, he says, our hope is in the living God, we are bound to suffer distress and humiliation; we will be objects of suspicion; men will spit in our face [I Cor. 4:11-13]. That is God’s way of testing us. We must therefore be ready to face these things and to take our Lord’s teaching here [Matt. 5:11-12] as our shield for the fight.

Calvin understood that often our greatest fear is not loss of life, but loss of reputation. For those of us fighting the battle against sexual immorality, gender confusion, sodomy, the traditions of men, our government, and increasing compromise in the church, we know this is true. Would you rather live branded as a bigoted, hateful, man ostracized from society like a leper or malignant sore or die a hero? I think we would all rather die heroes. But our reputation is the first thing that will be lost in this battle. In the end the question will be, Do we love Jesus more than we love our good name?

Finally, if you would like a summary of Calvin’s view of courtship, engagement, and marriage, at my personal blog I have been working through Robert Kingdon and John Witte’s book Sex, Marriage and Family in John Calvin’s Geneva. I enjoyed the scholarship in this book, as well as how it helped me to look at contemporary debates through a different lens. Here is the latest blog post on the book. At the bottom of the post you can find links to more posts on the book.

Read more

On July 9, 2015 By In Scribblings

Stop Playing the Victim

There are few characteristics as central to American culture today as that of being a victim. We automatically assume in most situations we have been victimized. There are real victims, of course. There are people who have hurt, maimed, harmed, reputations destroyed, families broken, children abused, etc. But what I am talking about is that American mindset of being perpetually offended. The students blame the teacher. The teacher blames the students. The parents blame the children. The children blame the parents. The conservatives blame the liberals. The liberals blame the conservatives. We lost the game because of the referees. We lost the election because it was rigged. Our grades are low because our school district doesn’t have enough money. We could pick any race, any economic category, any social status, any topic and we will find the same pattern. We are united in our belief that someone else is to blame.

For Christians, this is a devastating mindset because it causes us to excuse our sin and keeps us from repentance. We look out at all the things someone else has done to us, real or imagined, and then we say, “It is not our fault.” I was raised by bad parents so the command to honor my parents does not apply to me. My neighbor played loud rock music last night, so the command to love my neighbor does not apply to me. My seminary professor gave me a low grade therefore the command to give honor where honor is due is excised from the Scriptures. My wife was sharp with me last night therefore the command to be kind is cut out of the Bible. My husband does not love me well enough so I do not need to respect him. And on and on it goes. Even if the sin against us is real, it does not excuse our own sin. We can never place the blame for our sins upon someone else. But this is exactly what a victim mentality does. We ought to know better.

Stop shifting the weight of your sins onto the shoulders of your parents, children, teachers, government, spouse, pastor, congregation or whoever else you think is at fault. Stop blaming others for your sins. Stop evading responsibility. Realize that the blood is on your hands because you plunged the knife in. Then flee to Jesus, the sinless victim, who carried the weight of your sins. Only at the Cross can your sins be rolled away. Trying to place them on others will only end in bitterness and pain.

Read more

On July 8, 2015 By In Culture, Film, Theology

Gran Torino, Unforgiven, and the Justice of God

Gran Torino

Both of these movies are rated-R and contain quite a bit of salty language. Unforgiven also has some sexual content.  I will be giving the basic plot of the each movie including the ending. So if haven’t seen them and plan to you may want to come back. 

Gran Torino  is directed by and stars Clint Eastwood. He is an old Korean War vet who lives in Detroit. The movie opens with his wife’s funeral. His neighborhood has been overrun by Asians. He is the last white man left. He spends his days keeping up his yard, drinking at the bar, mocking the local priest, and yelling racial epithets at his Asian neighbors. Through a series of events he becomes friends with the Asian family next door and begins to mentor the teenager in the family, which includes teaching him to cuss and work hard.  A local gang insists that the boy join up, but he refuses.  This gang ultimately beats up and rapes (this is not seen on screen) the boy’s sister in retaliation for his refusal to join the gang as well as his friendship with the veteran. No one will give up the men in the gang. The neighborhood is silent. Eastwood figures out that this boy will never be free of the gang. The movie ends with Eastwood going to the gang’s house unarmed. He tricks them into killing him in public so they will go to jail and the boy and his family can be free. He sacrifices his life so the young man can have a new life.

Unforgiven is another movie which Eastwood directs and stars in. He is a washed up gunfighter in his last days. His wife is dead. He is weak. The movie begins with him chasing a pig around the pen and ultimately falling in the slop.  He agrees to take on one last job with a young, hotheaded gunfighter who dreams of glory but does not understand the cost of killing men. Eastwood recruits his old partner, Morgan Freeman, to help them. They do the job, which means killing a man and his partner who cut up a prostitute’s face. In the process they come in conflict with the tyrannical, local sheriff, Gene Hackman. Hackman ultimately kills Morgan Freeman in brutal fashion. The movie ends with Eastwood coming back to town and taking vengeance by shooting Gene Hackman. Unforgiven is not your typical revenge movie. Killing in the movie takes a toll. Eastwood does not want to talk about his gun slinging days. He dreams of men he has killed covered in maggots. Killing is not glorified. Yet it still is a revenge flick. Eastwood’s wrath is on full display at the end as he points his gun at Hackman’s face.

 

As Christians we typically look at these two movies and see one that tells a Christian story of sacrifice for others and one that tells a non-Christian story of revenge. However, this is splitting apart what should not be torn asunder. Our God is a God of vengeance (Romans 12:19). Vengeance and wrath are part of the Christian story. They are part of God’s character. The story of Jehu’s purging of Ahab’s house is a great, bloody example of God’s wrath poured out on man. But wait you say, “Unforgiven is not about God’s wrath. It is about man’s wrath.” To which I say, “That is all a movie can do.” In movies men can be little Christs sacrificing for those around them or they can be little Christs executing vengeance on the wicked. Just as Gran Torino is Christ’s sacrifice put on the small screen so Unforgiven is the wrath of Christ put on the small screen as well. (I am not saying the director meant it that way or that it is a perfect representation.) We reap what we sow. Justice will be served. Wrongs will be set right. The wicked will either take the sacrifice of Christ or will pay with eternal damnation. Christ’s blazing sword is as real his bloody cross.

This is not a wholehearted defense of revenge movies. Bloodlust is a problem in our culture, especially among young men. Movies like Unforgiven can appeal to that lust for blood instead of a longing for justice. Revenge movies can exploit violence in a way that is not good. And few of them are done as well as Unforgiven. But revenge movies resonate with us for a reason: we long for justice. When Gene Hackman whips Morgan Freeman to death we know that something has gone  wrong.  Freeman was not perfect, but Hackman is a monster behind his badge and smile. So we wait for justice and vengeance. Eastwood’s shotgun is that justice. A father’s daughter is kidnapped and killed. The police never find the culprit. So we wait for justice. Nine people are killed at a Bible study. We wait for justice. Christians are beheaded, nuns are raped, children are exploited and we wait for justice. Old men are mocked, babies are chopped up, sodomy is praised, and we wait for justice. Sometimes justice comes in the form of  the magistrate’s sword. Sometimes it comes in other forms, such as rival gangs, cultural decline, or diseases brought on by wickedness. It can come at the Cross. It may come on the Last Day when all will stand before Christ.  But justice will come. Revenge movies remind us of this. They remind us that the character of God is not just seen at the Cross, but is also in the fires of Hell.

Read more

On June 18, 2015 By In Scribblings

Adventure Trumps Safety

I enjoyed Edwin Friedman’s book A Failure of Nerve. In it he attacks several common leadership ideas and replaces them with a different paradigm. One key idea in the book is that leaders take risks. An environment which limits risk ultimately limits leadership.  Risk means the possibility of failure and pain. Risk is not doing something you know everyone agrees with and will be happy about. A lot of us think we are taking risks, when really we are not.

He also hammers on what he calls “displacement.” What he means by this is people refuse to take personal responsibility, but instead “displace” their responsibility by blaming someone or something else. He points out that often the thing blamed is important, but it becomes too important in the person’s emotional well-being. He ends this section with this quote, which is thought provoking.  The bold is mine.

Today the issues most vulnerable to becoming displacements are first of all, anything related to safety: product safety, traffic safety, bicycle safety, motorboat safety, jet-ski safety, workplace safety, nutritional safety, nuclear power station safety, toxic waste safety, and so on and so on.  This focus on safety has become so omnipresent in our chronically anxious civilization that there is the real danger we will come to believe that safety is the most important value in life. It is certainly important as a modifier of other initiatives, but if a society is to evolve, or if leaders are to arise, then safety can never be allowed to become more important than adventure. We are on our way to becoming a nation of “skimmers,” living off the risks of previous generations and constantly taking from the top without adding significantly to its essence. Everything we enjoy as a part of our advanced civilization , including discovery, exploration, and development of our country, came about because previous generations made adventure more important than safety.

Perhaps one of the reasons we have so few real leaders is that safety is the greatest virtue. How many  times have we heard, “He is the safe candidate. Vote for him?” How many times has the church leader taken the safe route instead of the risky one?  How many business owners refuse to take risks? Yet when we look back on history and in our favorite books, who do we admire most? We admire men who took risks. Men who did not play it safe. A man cannot lead if he is constantly worried about his own safety.

Read more

On May 30, 2015 By In Theology

Ten Quotes from Delighting in the Trinity

If you have haven’t read Michael Reeves’ wonderful book Delighting in the Trinity you should. With joy and wit, he introduces us to the Trinity and what that means for our Christian faith. He inserts numerous quotes from other men along with illustrations and pictures.  Tomorrow is Trinity Sunday so here are ten of my favorite quotes from the book.

Delighting in the Trinity

Christianity is not primarily about lifestyle change; it is about knowing God.

I could believe in the death of a man called Jesus, I could believe in his bodily resurrection, I could even believe in a salvation by grace alone; but if I do not believe in this God, then, quite simply, I am not a Christian. And so, because the Christian God is triune, the Trinity is the governing center of all Christian belief, the truth that shapes and beautifies all others. The Trinity is the cockpit of all Christian thinking.

It is not, then, that God becomes sharing; being triune God is a sharing God, a God who loves to include. Indeed, that is why God will go on to create. His love is not for keeping, but for spreading.

Even the most basic all to believe in the Son of God is an invitation to the Trinitarian faith.

As it is, there is something gratuitous about creation, an unnecessary abundance of beauty, and through it blossoms and pleasures we can revel in the sheer largesse of the Father.

Martin Luther picked up Augustine’s line of thought to define the sinner as “the person curved back in on himself,” no longer loving like God, no longer looking to God, but inward-looking, self-obsessed, devilish. Such a person might well behave morally or religiously, but  all they did would simply express their fundamental love for themselves.

Jesus’ self-giving love is entirely unconstrained and free. It comes, not from an necessity, but entirely out of who he is, the glory of his Father. Through the cross we see a God who delights to give himself.

A problem similar to Sadoleto’s happens when the Spirit is thought of as a force and not a person. Again it gives the impression of God up in heaven lobbing down tokens of his blessing (“the force”) while himself remaining all distant. And if that is how it is, then I can hardly have communion with this force (or with the Father or the Son):the Spirit must be a power I am to get a hold of and use as I get on with my life. Some do magic; others have money and the latest beauty products; I use the Spirit. And if I manage to use the Spirit more than other Christians, hurrah, for spiritual me.

As it is, because the Christian life is one of being brought to share the delight the Father, Son, and Spirit have for each other, desires matter…What we love and enjoy is foundationally important. It is far more significant than our outward behavior, for it is our desires that drive our behavior.

The anti-theist’s problem is not so much with the existence of God as with the character of God…In my own experience, talking with non-Christian students, again and again I find that when they describe the God they don’t believe in, he sound more like Satan than the loving Father of Jesus Christ: greedy, selfish, trigger-happy and entirely devoid of love. And if God is not Father, Son, and Spirit, aren’t they right?

And One

With this God, it is not as if sometimes he has love and sometimes he has wrath, as if those are different moods so that when he’s feeling one he’s not feeling the other…Like God’s holiness, then, his wrath is not something that sits awkwardly next to his love. Nor is it something unrelated to his love. God is angry at evil because he loves.

 

Read more

On May 13, 2015 By In Culture, Theology

No Adam, No Christ

Here are some quotes from J.P. Versteeg’s book Adam in the New Testament. 

In this first quote, he is addressing the argument that Paul thought Adam was historical, but now we know he was not. He shows that despite claims to the contrary, this idea unravels Christ’s work as a historical event. 

Therefore, if in the case of Adam the intention of Paul in his own time is divorced from its significance for us today, that must also have consequences with respect to Christ. For the redemptive-historical correlation between Adam and Christ entails that if what Paul says about Adam no longer holds for us [i.e. that Adam was a historical figure standing at the beginning of the human race], it is impossible to see why what he says about Christ in the same context must still hold for us. What is the sense of an antitype, if there is no type? What is the sense of fulfillment, if there is nothing to fulfill? The redemptive-historical correlation that Paul sees between Adam and Christ means that no longer honoring Paul’s intention when he speaks about Adam must entail no longer honoring Paul’s intention when he speaks about Christ…To no longer honor Paul’s intention when he speaks about Adam entails that the framework in which Paul places Christ and his work, collapses.

Versteeg again, quoting another author:

And suppose that Paul…did indeed believe in the historicity of the first Adam but that is this is no longer relevant for us…because we are only interested in the function of Adam as a ‘teaching model’ why should we…not take the same view regarding the last Adam?

Versteeg brings up an interesting point regarding the guilt of man if we deny a historical Adam. Christians have held that sin entered the world because our representative head, Adam, chose to eat of the fruit in the garden. In Adam, we all sinned. There has been debate about how this works itself out, but the basic structure is essential to Christian orthodoxy. What happens when there is no historical Adam (and Eve) to sin? Here is what Versteeg says:

If Adam only lets us see what is characteristic of everyone because Adam is man in general so that the sin of Adam is also the sin of man in general, and if on the the other hand Adam may no longer be regarded as the one man through whom sin has come into the world, it is apparent that in a certain sense sin belongs to man as such. Sin thus has become a given “next to” creation…In Romans 5 Paul intends to say how sin has invaded the good creation of God. The concept “teaching model” cannot do justice to [Romans 5]. If Adam were only a teaching model, he would only be an illustration of man in whom sin is inherent. The concept “teaching model” eliminates the “one after the other” of creation and fall, and leaves only room for the “next to each other” of creation and sin. In essence, then, one may no longer speak of the guilt of sin…Where evil thus becomes a “practically unavoidable” matter, sin loses its character of guilt. 

I had not thought of the historicity of Adam from this angle before. Normally, I think of Adam in reference to Christ and salvation, not man and sin. But of course, these cannot be separated. If we mess with Adam, we mess with Christ, sin, redemption, man, and—as Richard Gaffin argues in his foreword—the resurrection, in the process. Where do sin and guilt come from if there was no Adam? Have they always been? Is sin inherent in man? Did God create man sinful? How can man be guilty if sin has always been? If sin has not always been, when did it enter? Who/what brought it in? 

I am convinced that a denial of a historical Adam leads naturally and logically to heresy. As Versteeg says:

To be occupied with the question of how Scripture speaks about Adam is thus anything but an insignificant problem of detail. As the first historical man and head of humanity, Adam is not mentioned merely in passing in the New Testament. The redemptive historical correlation between Adam and Christ determines the framework in which—particularly for Paul—the redemptive work of Christ has its place. That work of redemption can no longer be confessed according to the meaning of Scripture, if it is divorced form the framework in which it stands there.

Not all who deny the historical Adam become or are heretics, but given their framework, there is no reason they couldn’t be. To capitulate here is to begin unraveling the basics of Christian orthodoxy, and most importantly, to strip away the glory of Christ’s work in redeeming fallen man.

Read more

On April 28, 2015 By In Scribblings

Responding to Critics

Critic

Over the years my church has received various kinds of criticism from various quarters. Most of the time these criticisms are brought to the members of my church and not directly to the leadership. So and so from such and such church met with a lady  from  our church at the park and she had “concerns” about our church. Here  are some of the ways I have encouraged my flock to respond to that type of criticism. This is for the average member in the pew, not the leadership. I left our church’s name, Christ Church of Morgantown, in the post.

1. Always be gracious. Treat the person with kindness and charity, assuming they have good motives. Throughout conversations, try to find things you agree on and emphasize those. Often those who criticize us are Christians who love Christ. Treat them with kindness.

2. Do not apologize for believing what the Bible teaches. Many of us tend to shrink back when confronted. This is a product of our modern relativistic age where everyone’s opinion is supposed to be equal. Satan wants us to walk around doubting everything we believe. Do not back down from what you believe. Do not be mean, but be firm.

3. As you talk to people make them deal with the Bible. Often people have not actually looked at what the Bible says on an issue. Go to Scripture and discuss it with them. This means you need to know what the Bible teaches. If you have questions about the Biblical basis for what we do or believe then set up a meeting with an elder and he can explain it to you.

4. Tell critics about the work Jesus is doing at Christ Church. Christ is clear that men shall know us by our fruit. (Luke 6:43-45) All of you spend hours each week with people from Christ Church. You see Christ being formed in your brothers and sisters around you. You see Christ presented every week in songs, prayers, confession of sin, preaching, at the Lord’s Table, and as you are sent out. We are not a perfect church, but the fruit is there and growing. Bring these things up, not in a proud way, but simply to show that God is working. Of course, fruit is but one part, but it is a real part. Paul often noted the fruit of his labors as a sign of God’s work.

5. Do not accept vague accusations from people about what they think we teach. Get specifics. Ask questions like, “So exactly what is it that you think we believe about…?” This is a fundamental requirement of Biblical justice. If someone is going to accuse an elder  or a church of false teaching, it must be proven. Proving does not mean reading something somewhere about what someone thinks we teach. It means communicating with the specific men accused and getting the facts.

6. If someone brings up specific concerns about Christ Church, ask them if they have attended our worship service, communicated with the leaders, or listened to sermons which are available on our website. If they say, “No,” then encourage them to do those things, especially the last two. If someone is not interested in doing some or all of the things mentioned above, then they are not really interested in finding the truth. Too often critics have received second hand information that is faulty. Make them go the the primary sources.

There are many critics that are not worth your time. They rant and rave with little concern for truth and error. But some really do want to know if you teach baptismal regeneration or why you believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church with the emphasis on “catholic” or why you sprinkle instead of immerse or kneel for confession of sin or teach that men are heads of their households or have the Lord’s Supper every week. Answer those critics with grace and kindness standing firm in what the Scriptures teach and avoiding foolish arguments.

Read more

On April 10, 2015 By In Scribblings

Ezekiel and Revelation

One of the great joys of a reformed, typological reading of the Scriptures is that I keep finding more and more connections between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Of course, I always saw the connections when there was a direct quote, such as Matthew quoting Isaiah. But as I read the Scriptures more I see deep connections between books like Leviticus and Matthew or Romans and Isaiah or Deuteronomy and Hebrews. These connections go far beyond a few select OT quotes by the writers. A good example of these deep connections is the link between Ezekiel and Revelation. Numerous books discuss Revelation in light of Daniel, which is not wrong, but the key OT book in understanding Revelation, if there is a key one, might be Ezekiel, not Daniel.  David Chilton has written a commentary on Revelation called Days of Vengeance. The book presents a post-millenial reading of the Apocalypse. However, even if you do not agree with the final analysis, it is worth reading to help make the connections between Revelation and the other books of the Bible. Here is a chart he gives on the similarities between Ezekiel and Revelation. John clearly structures his book after Ezekiel.

1. The Throne-Vision (Rev. 4/Ezek. 1)

2. The Book (Rev. 5/Ezek. 2-3)

3. The Four Plagues (Rev. 6:1-8/Ezek. 5)

4. The Slain under the Altar (Rev. 6:9-11/Ezek. 6)

5. The Wrath of God (Rev. 6:12-17/Ezek. 7)

6. The Seal on the Saint’s Foreheads (Rev. 7/Ezek. 9)

7. The Coals from the Altar (Rev. 8/Ezek. 10)

8. No More Delay (Rev. 10:1-7/Ezek. 12)

9. The Eating of the Book (Rev. 10:8-11/Ezek. 2)

10. The Measuring of the Temple (Rev. 11:1-2/Ezek. 40-43)

11. Jerusalem and Sodom (Rev. 11:8/Ezek 16)

12. The Cup of Wrath (Rev. 14/Ezek 23)

13. The Vine of the Land (Rev. 14:18-20/Ezek. 15)

14. The Great Harlot (Rev. 17-18/Ezek. 16, 23)

15. The Lament over the City (Rev. 18/Ezek. 37)

16. The Scavengers’ Feast (Rev. 19/Ezek. 39)

17. The First Resurrection (Rev. 20:4-6/Ezek. 37)

18. The Battle with Gog and Magog (Rev. 20:7-9/Ezek. 38-39)

19. The New Jerusalem (Rev. 21/Ezek. 40-48)

20. The River of Life (Rev. 22/Ezek. 47)

Read more