MENU

Culture
Category

On December 14, 2024 By In Culture

King Saul, Stone Choir, And Antisemitism

DAVID AND HONORING A TYRANT

David’s world was no gentle pasture of ease and luxury. He dwelt in a realm of tension, uncertainty, and mortal danger. Though anointed by the prophet Samuel’s trembling hands and sealed with the oil of divine favor (1 Samuel 16:13), David found himself living more like a fugitive than a monarch. He slept in caves still damp with morning dew, hid behind jagged rocks in desolate valleys, and navigated a bleak landscape where every rustle in the brush might herald a band of men commissioned to kill him. His enemy was not some foreign marauder or nameless warlord; it was Saul, Israel’s first king—one who had once been “the Lord’s anointed” (1 Samuel 10:1) but had now devolved into a petty, paranoid tyrant. Saul’s mind teetered between past glories and present fears, and he clutched at his fading crown with a ferocity that deepened his disgrace.

David’s trials were not just an inconvenience. Consider the crushing psychological weight of it all: the one anointed by God as Israel’s true king was forced to crouch in the darkness, straining his ears for the footfall of armed men. David knew he was chosen to lead God’s people, guide them into righteousness, and establish a kingdom founded not on caprice but covenantal faithfulness. Yet he lived as a man hunted, slandered, and pressed on every side. He had every human reason to strike Saul down the moment an opportunity arose. Saul had hurled spears at him, driven him from royal courts, and invaded the sanctuary of his peace. When the king stumbled unknowingly into David’s hiding place (1 Samuel 24), vulnerable and alone, David’s men whispered in his ear that this was providence itself—God handing Saul over for judgment. One swift slash of steel would have ended the tyrant’s tyranny and brought David nearer to his rightful throne. Who could fault him for taking such a step?

But David was governed by a compass that defied the raw impulses of vengeance. He refused to raise his hand against “the Lord’s anointed” (1 Samuel 24:6). Instead, he chose reverence over revenge, forbearance over fury. His blade did not drip with Saul’s blood; it bore only the memory of a garment’s corner, a silent testimony that David’s restraint was not weakness but faith. Faith that God’s justice did not need human rage to complete its course. Faith that a truly righteous king must refuse the paths of cruelty. Faith that the kingdom he would inherit must never be stained by the poison of personal vendetta.

THE CHURCH AS TYPOLOGICAL DAVID

This narrative—a story charged with tension and moral grandeur—is not just historical. It is also typological. It is a living parable for the Church and her posture toward secular Israel. Let me explain.

When the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost (Acts 2), Christ’s Church emerged as the rightful heir of the covenantal promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Church became, in Christ, the faithful Israel of God (Galatians 6:16), endowed with the mandate to carry the Gospel to every tribe and tongue. She was anointed like David. The rightful heir to the throne of the world. Yet for decades, this ruddy Church found itself overshadowed by the tyrant whims of Saul — an Old Covenant Judah – who hurled spears at her, pressed her on every side and staggered toward its own covenantal destruction when it fell on its own sword in AD 70. Like Saul, who raged against David, first-century Judaism raged against the Church, flogging, maiming, and murdering Jesus’ bride in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and every diaspora synagogue scattered throughout the Roman world. Believers were hauled before councils, beaten, stoned, and scattered. And, these wounds were not inflicted by distant pagans, but by their own flesh and blood, their own kin according to the flesh (Romans 9:3). The paradox was heart-wrenching: How could the Church honor these persecutors—these spiritual forebears—who now sought its life?

Yet the apostles, like David, chose a path marked not by hatred but heartbreak. They did not resort to the vindictive fury being leveled at them but with tearful entreaty, humility, and honor, marking David as a man after God’s heart.

Consider Paul’s lament: “I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart” (Romans 9:2). This is the cry of a man who would accept a curse upon himself if it could mean the salvation of his Jewish brethren. Was he naive? Hardly. He knew that the old covenant was passing away (Hebrews 8:13) and that there was no salvation outside of Christ.

Yet he also knew that bitterness would not bring redemption. This great pharisee, formerly named “Saul” (ironic?), once hunted down the Church with the same ferocity that his Benjaminite ancestor had for David. He oversaw murders. He chased Christians like dogs from city to city. But, unlike Saul, he laid down his arms in the light of the resurrected Christ. He repented. And he joined the ranks of Christ, becoming one of the persecuted, beaten, and abused in that first tumultuous century.

Yet, no matter how ruthlessly they beat him or the rest of the apostles, they simply heralded the truth with humility and grace. They were unafraid to call Judah to repentance with broken hearts and ribs, praying for their countrymen to repent rather than lusting after vengeance. Like David cutting off only a piece of Saul’s robe, they exposed Israel’s sin without succumbing to the dark allure of hatred, revenge, or indifference.

This is astounding! Usually, when someone is beaten in the cause of doing good, anger, resentment, and frustration will seep into the heart. Yet, just like David, the Lord’s Church, under the power of the Holy Spirit, would not raise a hand against the Lord’s anointed people. Even though they were barreling towards disaster in AD 70, the Church honored them, prayed for them, loved them, and worked tirelessly to evangelize them. This was the attitude of the first-century Church and must be the attitude of all who call upon the name of Christ today.

STONE CHOIR AND ANTISEMITIC TWITTER THUGS

Sadly, this God-glorifying attitude that David demonstrated to Saul, and what the early Church offered to the Jews who were murdering them, is precisely what I have not seen much of today. Sitting in the comfort of their living rooms, men like the rock heads from Stone Choir and the anons who follow them lob one disgusting comment after another onto Twitter, comparing the Jews to vermin, feces, and worse. All Christians, they argue, must hate with perfect hatred, misapplying Scripture to justify their vitriol.

Instead of the patience, long-suffering, and silence of Christ before His accusers, their poison is exposed by the very words they use. One tweet declares that the Holocaust is nothing more than a fabricated ‘anti-German blood libel,’ while another goes further, mocking Holocaust memorials as meaningless artifacts – sarcastically mocking the absence of bodies. They encourage Christians to respond to Jewish voices with the words ‘Shut up, Jew,’ as a weapon against the ‘enemy.’ Such vile cynicism not only dismisses the suffering of real people but exposes a heart that is devoid of compassion or the Gospel’s transformative power.

Even more shocking, they twist Scripture to promote racial hatred, alleging that ‘God made greater and more lasting promises to the White race than He ever made to the Jews.’ They mock Africans and claim that God’s grace does not elevate the African people to an IQ over mental retardation and refer to interracial marriage as “worse than murder.”

The heart of these comments (and countless more) reveals itself in their utter disdain for the Gospel’s message of hope, grace, and redemption. Instead of calling modern-day Jews, or anyone else for that matter, to repent and turn to Christ, they weaponize Scripture to justify their hatred and excuse their ignorance as virtue. This is not masculinity. This is not Christianity. It is a perverse, hollow shell of faith that replaces the Savior’s cross with a sword of malice.

This is the sad reality of many today who bear the name of Christ but replace His love with their moral putrescence. Rather than emulate the example of Stephen, who prayed for those stoning him, they wield their keyboards like clubs, pounding out hatred in Jesus’ name. May God rebuke this evil, and may these men repent of their sins before the judgment they so carelessly invoke comes upon them.

THE RIGHT APPROACH

The actions of David toward Saul and the early Church toward Old Covenant Israel present us with a profoundly biblical model: one of truth spoken with reverence, correction offered with humility, and confrontation undertaken with a heartbreaking for the lost. This is the model we are called to emulate, especially when dealing with those who are enemies of the Gospel.

Yet, tragically, this model is precisely what is absent in the venomous rhetoric of groups like Stone Choir and their Twitter acolytes. They embody the antithesis of David’s restraint and the apostles’ sorrowful love for their persecutors. Instead of wielding the delicate scalpel of truth with care, they thrash about with the blunt cudgel of tribal animus, delighting in disdain rather than grieving for the lost. Their proclamations do not carry the sorrowful weight of David’s refusal to harm Saul or Paul’s anguish for his Jewish brethren (Romans 9:2); instead, they echo Saul’s manic paranoia and fury—a ferocity that consumes both persecutors and persecuted alike.

David’s refusal to strike Saul was not weakness but faith—a trust in God’s justice that needed no human vengeance to complete its course. Similarly, the apostles, battered and bloodied by their Jewish persecutors, chose to herald the Gospel with tearful entreaty rather than seething rage. They exposed sin without hatred, called for repentance without cruelty, and mourned the spiritual blindness of their own kinsmen according to the flesh (Romans 9:3).

Stone Choir and its ilk, however, offer no such model. Instead, they wield Scripture as a weapon for arrogance, not redemption. Their comments, rife with racial slurs and derisive mockery, expose a heart far removed from the Gospel’s transformative power. Rather than calling the Jewish people—or anyone else—to repentance in Christ, they use the language of Scripture to justify their hatred and veil their ignorance as virtue. This is not the way of David, the apostles, or our Lord. It is a hollow faith that trades the Savior’s cross for a sword of malice.

We must denounce such rhetoric for what it is: a betrayal of the Gospel. Yet, in doing so, we cannot abandon the biblical model of sorrowful correction. David did not exult in Saul’s downfall, nor did the apostles rejoice over the judgment that befell Old Covenant Israel in AD 70. Their hearts broke for their enemies, even as they stood firm in truth. And this must be our posture today.

Proclaiming Christ as the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises is not anti-Semitic; it is a faithful expression of the Gospel. Scripture affirms that while Israel played a profound role in redemptive history, the covenantal promises now find their complete realization in Christ alone (Acts 4:12; John 14:6). To deny this truth is to deny the Gospel itself. It is not slanderous to expose the sins of modern Judaism—such as its vehement rejection of Christ, the evils of the Talmud, its hatred of His Church, and its delusional claims to covenantal status apart from Him (John 14:6; Hebrews 8:13). Nor is it hateful to declare the truth: salvation is found in only one name under heaven, and that name is Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12). To proclaim these truths boldly is not an act of hatred, but the most loving and biblical thing we can do. However, to proclaim them without the sorrowful longing seen in David, Paul, and even Jesus is to distort the very heart of the Gospel. Such arrogance replaces the healing balm of grace with a weapon of pride, leaving no room for redemption and inflicting only wounds.

David’s blade did not bathe itself in Saul’s blood, just as the apostles’ tongues did not drip with hatred for the Jews who persecuted them. Instead, both bore witness to the power of grace, the hope of redemption, and the justice of God. In an age where the temptation to simplify—either to silence false religion or attack it with scorn—is all too real, we must resist both extremes. We must follow the biblical model: proclaim the exclusivity of Christ as the only way to salvation while longing, fervently and earnestly, for the repentance and restoration of the lost.

This is the shape of true Gospel fidelity: truth spoken with reverence, correction offered with humility, and confrontation undertaken with a heart that weeps for those in darkness. May we, like David, refuse the paths of cruelty and vengeance. May we, like the apostles, bear witness to the power of grace even under persecution. And may we, like our Lord, love even those who reject Him, praying for light to break through their darkness.

Read more

On December 13, 2024 By In Culture

The Covenant Story: Mosaic Covenant

“But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, to redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons” (Gal 4:4-5). Jesus was born “under the Law.” Through the centuries, various views on the nature of the Mosaic Law have been bandied about in the church. Some have understood the Law in contrast to the Abrahamic covenant as God instituting an impossible meritorious system of salvation. If someone could keep the Law perfectly, he would be counted righteous and, therefore, earn his salvation. But God, knowing that no one could do this, sent Jesus to earn salvation with works of supererogation so that there is now an infinite treasury of merit for all who believe.

(more…)

Read more

On December 7, 2024 By In Culture, Discipleship, Men

Letters To Young Men: OK, Boomer

Dear Young Man,

I haven’t written a letter like this in a while, but having watched online interactions over the past few years, it seemed prudent to take up this format again. Generational hostilities have heated up on social media, especially coming from millennials and Gen Z, and I want to address it.  (If you are not part of the social media militia, you can still read this letter with profit, but it won’t apply to you as directly). The “OK, Boomer” attitude has become a standard meme. Older generations (including Gen X, of which I am a part) are railed against for the messes they have left for the younger generations while providing them few, if any, tools with which to clean them up. Many of the accusations are legitimate. Boomers, having been raised by Silents who had to scrape by during the depression and face the harsh realities of World War 2, wanted an easier life for their children. My grandpa, a Silent who was, for all intents and purposes, my father, told me that he wouldn’t teach me to weld (he was a master welder) because he wanted me to get a college education so I wouldn’t have to work as hard as he did. The Silents gave their children everything they could, making life as easy as possible. It turned into a culture of rebellion, “free love,” Second Wave Feminism, and a general self-centeredness whose greatest aspiration was to retire at a young age to free themselves of as much responsibility as possible.

(more…)

Read more

On November 15, 2024 By In Culture

Mugs of Tears

One of the chronic American maladies is the swell of emotive sobs that follow major national events which haven’t gone one’s way. Gone are the days where your candidate lost an election and you get to work beating him next time. Now, you cry about it. Literally. 

Even worse for us today, the reproaches are televised. Bad enough are the TV anchors breaking down on live television; worse are the Tik-Tok-ers who so strongly feel the urge to scream that they set up a selfie camera to capture their rage, before uncorking it. What good do any of these tears do? They’re often performative, rather than heartfelt or actually meaningful.

(more…)

Read more

On November 12, 2024 By In Culture

Preachers, Pastors, and Punishment

Recently claims have been made in evangelical media that Steve Lawson was not a pastor, elder, or even a member of the local church where he was preaching weekly when he was removed from all ministry due to revelation of an “inappropriate relationship” with a woman who was not his wife. If true, as Michael Grant has pointed out, this is a damning indictment of the (ongoing) problem of celebrity preachers, hired guns, in the evangelical and Reformed world. Men with big names and a large following are platformed by churches and organizations that have no meaningful authority to discipline them. These congregations or parachurch organizations can remove them from teaching positions when disqualifying sin is discovered, but they cannot discipline the unrepentant or disqualified person in a biblical and ecclesiastical way.

We have seen this before. A man commits disqualifying and egregious sin, but because he is not a member, or removes himself from membership in a local, independent church, he cannot be effectively disciplined. How can the church excommunicate someone who is not in communion? They can, and should, mark and avoid those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine (Rom. 16:17) as well as note that person and do not keep company with him (2Thess. 3:14), but they cannot remove him from their fellowship since he is not part of it. The Church exercises discipline over members of the Church (Matt. 18:15-17; 1Cor. 5:9-13).

Some in my own camp of more traditional Presbyterianism will immediately say, “This is why ministers should have accountability to higher courts of authority.” Yes, and amen. But that system only works if the members of it agree to abide by it. If members of that judicatory, in this case a church court, do not bring charges and demand accountability of the offender, then he might as well be independent of its authority. When the good old boy network protects those who are offenders, or seeks to deal with problems by a campaign of gossip and slander rather than transparent and biblical action, the system of justice remains ineffective at addressing sin in the camp.

Church discipline is, at the very least, designed to reclaim the offender (1Cor. 5:5), protect the Church from error and pollution (1Cor. 5:6), and vindicate and manifest the honor of Christ (1Cor. 5:7-8). When a man falls into grievous sin, it is a sin not to discipline him. That should begin with admonishment and rebuke, but if he will not hear the correction of his brethren, he must be dealt with more firmly. To leave him in his sin, uncorrected, is neither loving him nor the Church nor the Savior of the Church, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Steve Lawson was not a guest preacher; he was the regular teacher, the “Lead Preacher,” in a congregation to which he did not belong and to which he had no meaningful accountability. Even a hired gun in organizations that operate downrange have standards they are required to maintain and are subject to formal disciplinary action if they deviate from those protocols. The Church is not a business that simply deals with sin by termination of service. The Church is an organic, covenantal fellowship. Serious sin must be dealt with accordingly, not simply by firing a man from a job but by separating him from the life of the spiritual Body to which he belongs and by which he enjoys union and communion with Christ.

A man is only as accountable as he chooses to be. Our own congregation has seen people avoid discipline by fleeing the church or jurisdiction and seeking refuge elsewhere. It can be difficult to know what to do in these cases—it is easy for people outside the circle of knowledge to sit in judgment of the elders and assume the proper action is obvious—my own comments are not meant as an indictment of the Trinity church elders or those who are seeking to hold Mr. Lawson accountable right now. The point is that accountability requires meaningful connection and submission to authority. If even a member sometimes refuses to participate in or abide by a disciplinary process, how much more difficult (or impossible) is it to hold accountable a non-member who is simply functioning as a temporary, contracted resource, i.e. a hireling.

Churches are to be led and fed by pastors who preach, not preachers who refuse to pastor. It is perfectly appropriate for a church’s leaders to sometimes bring in a guest speaker or teacher who can edify the congregation with an outside perspective, but the ordinary instruction, the weekly and daily nurture of the flock must be carried out by men who are under authority and who are connected to and responsible for the people whom they serve. Shepherd the flock of God which is among you (1Pet. 5:1-4). This not only means that the system of celebrity preachers must be rejected and dismantled but also that churches served by “Lead Pastors” who preach but never shepherd the flock should also mend their ways. If your pastor does not know you, visit you, and pray for you, if he is only a teacher and not a shepherd, then you need to plead with your elders to address an unbiblical and unhealthy system.

The blessings and privileges of Christ are received and enjoyed in connection with the Body of Christ. As St. Cyprian rightly affirmed:

“The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church.” –Treatise I: On the Unity of the Church 6 (ANF 5.423)

John Calvin echoed the same sentiments by titling the first chapter in Book IV of his Institutes: “OF THE TRUE CHURCH. DUTY OF CULTIVATING UNITY WITH HER, AS THE MOTHER OF ALL THE GODLY,” and observing: “to those to whom he is a Father, the Church must also be a mother” (Institutes IV.1.1). Every believer has a personal relationship with Christ, but no one ever has a private relationship with the Lord. You cannot belong to Christ and be (indefinitely) disconnected from the Body of Christ, the Church. To claim otherwise is to admit that you are an appendage of the Body that has been amputated and lies on the other side of the room. It is possible for a true believer to be separated from the Body for a time, but that is an emergency situation requiring rapid attention and deliberate reattachment.Every man in authority is first, and foremost, a man under authority. Accountability exists not only when there is meaningful connection and responsibility but when that relationship is acknowledged, embraced, and its authority submitted to. A man who only chooses to submit to authority when he finds it convenient is not accountable to authority at all; he is an authority unto himself. It is frightening to be in sin outside of the Body of Christ. The Church deals with erring members as a loving mother correcting a wayward child, but those who are outside God judges (1Cor. 5:13). If the Church will not (or cannot) deal with disobedient Christians, the Lord will, and that, frankly, is a terrifying thought. Lord, keep our hearts humble, and deliver us from evil.

Read more

On October 15, 2024 By In Culture

An Eschatological Vision for Ministry

By Rev. Bo Cogbill

A Homily to Ministers of the Gospel at Anselm Presbytery

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Pray with me.

Father of Heavenly Lights and fount of all Wisdom, guide us we pray, by your Word and Spirit, so that in your light we may see light, in your truth find wisdom, and in your will discover your peace. Add Your blessing to the reading, the hearing, and the preaching of Your Word, and grant us all the grace to trust and obey You, and all God’s people said, “Amen.”

The scripture reading we’ll consider tonight is from Paul’s letter to Timothy.

Hear God’s Word:

1 Timothy 4:7–16 – [7] Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness; [8] for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. [9] The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance. [10] For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

[11] Command and teach these things. [12] Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. [13] Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. [14] Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you. [15] Practice these things, immerse yourself in them, so that all may see your progress. [16] Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers. 

[1] Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers, [2] older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, in all purity. 

This is the word of the Lord; thanks be to God.

We could probably do a whole series of presbytery talks on this passage – talks about what is and isn’t’ a silly myth or irreverent babble, talks about how ministerial scandal might be avoided if we saw the women and girls among us more like mothers and sisters and daughters than mere women, or how some of us need to get a little more value from our bodily training, but PM Stoos asked me to address Anselm w/some of the words I tried to encourage the RES students with during our convocation a little over a month ago.

That talk was supposed to be on an eschatological vision for ministry.

I’m pretty sure the expectation going in was for me to inspire the students who were aspiring to the ministry by giving them a vision for what role their ministry might play in the eschaton, but instead, I tried to do the opposite. 

(more…)

Read more

On September 23, 2024 By In Culture

Cults, Sects and Catholicity

What is the difference between a cult and a sect? Here is how I define these terms. A cult is outside of Christianity – ie Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses. A cult rejects the truths of creedal Christianity that are the centre of the Christian faith. A sect is within Christianity, but separates itself from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church in various ways. It maintains the creedal truths of Christianity, but it rejects fellowship (at times) with Christian brothers over secondary and tertiary issues. You should be able to see under those definitions how cults can so easily arise in the midst of a church that is prone to sectarianism. This is why North America has been a seedbed for cults (JWs, Mormons, etc). North America is rife with sectarianism. If Christ alone is the Head of the church and His Word is the charter for that church, and He defines the boundaries of His Church, that should put a check on sectarianism.

This is why North America has been a seedbed for cults (JWs, Mormons, etc). North America is rife with sectarianism.

Historically, the Reformed Churches sought to maintain a sense of catholicity in the midst of sectarian and even cultic teachings. It was the criticism of various Reformed pastors at the time of the Reformation that the anabaptists, the Radical Reformers, were sectarian (not cultic). Some of the anabaptist did verge on the cultic such as the anabaptists in Munster. Even though many of the Reformers had been excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, the initial goal of the reformation had been reform, not to leave the Roman Catholic Church.

While my Anglican and Presbyterian colleagues have similar statements, which reflect the broad sense of catholicity among the reformers, I will focus on the Three Forms of Unity here.

I would encourage all Protestants who are meditating on what it means to have a Protestant (or Reformed) doctrine of the Church to read the Belgic Confession, Articles 27-32. Read the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 21. Read the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapters 25, 30, 31. Read the 39 Articles, articles 19-21.

In the Belgic Confession, the author uses the language of true church and false church, this statement of faith was formally adopted by an ecclesiastical body at the Synod of Dordt in 1620, a synod of the Dutch Reformed Churches, but a synod at which there was a substantial international delegation that included both Anglicans and Presbyterians. In the Westminster Confession of Faith, the authors use the language of pure and purer churches and acknowledge that even the purest churches on this side of heaven, are subject to sin and error, and that some have so much sin and error that they have become synagogues of Satan. The Westminster Confession of Faith was adopted by a “synod” in Scotland in 1646, following the Synod of Dordt.

The point of these remarks is to indicate that the Presbyterian Church of Scotland did not see themselves as the “only pure church” or that the Dutch Reformed Church did not see themselves as the “only true church”. Instead, they struggled to maintain a strong sense of catholicity even as there was so much foment and revolution happening across Europe. At the same time, they were determined to call “a heresy a heresy.” There are synagogues of Satan, both in their land at that time in history, and also at our time in history. At the same time, we don’t want to act in a sectarian fashion towards those who struggle with the same intermixing of error and sin that we struggle with in our churches as we fight and contend for the purity of the Church in Christ.

What does that look like?

For example, historically (with exceptions), the Reformed did not re-baptize Roman Catholics.

If a Roman Catholic family came to my church, we would not re-baptize the parents or their children. This would have been the same when I was a pastor in the United Reformed Church of North America as now in the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches. This really was one of the major flash-points of the reformation as the anabaptists were the “re-baptizers” and the Reformed accepted the Trinitarian baptisms of the Roman Catholic Church.

In our congregation we welcome all Christians to the Lord’s Table who are baptized in the Triune Name and who are connected to the Church of Jesus Christ. More subjectively we warn those who are living in unrepentant rebellion and come to the Table of Christ in such a spirit, that they will eat and drink judgment on themselves. Of course, we welcome all to come and see that the Lord is good, we extend the free offer of the gospel, we welcome sinners to trust in Christ and to pass through the waters of baptism and then to come to the Table of the Lord.

It is in this way, that we seek to maintain unity with the church of all times and ages, the one, holy catholic and apostolic church, as it pursues Jesus Christ by faith.

We should take cues from how Augustine handled the donatists and from how John Calvin handled the anabaptists of his era. We recognize a sect for what it is. But we don’t act in a sectarian way towards those who love Jesus, but due to error or confusion, segregate themselves from large parts of His Church. I think here also of the way in which Paul dealt with error in Colossae. He warns against the error, but in that case, he doesn’t call for immediate excommunication for those who are struggling with the inter-mixture of strange philosophies with the doctrine of Christ. He does call for clear teaching on the supremacy of Christ, nevertheless.

Cults, on the other hand are not Christian at all. Cults abandon the true doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity and humanity of Christ. For that reason, as Christians, we should acknowledge that the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons are cults. There is also something cultic about theological liberalism in the church, in its rejection of sound doctrine, and its embrace of heretical teachings. Theological liberalism is no longer Christian or Church. If you read Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen, he makes the point well that those who reject the Trinity, the divinity & humanity of Jesus Christ, the authority of the Word of God, that is not Christianity at all. That is why you see many of the mainstream denominations dying out, as most churches that reject the Word of God will disappear or become a full-blown cult like the Mormons or the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Notice how Mormons and JWs have also rejected the historic Christian Church. There is a point at which sects can verge on the cultic, especially wherever Jesus Christ is rejected as Savior and Lord. We see that in the moral chaos that has ensued in many of the mainstream churches upon their rejection of core doctrines.

The all-encompassing purpose of any true or pure church is that in everything Jesus Christ would be preeminent (Col 1). Read also the goal of Paul’s ministry in Romans 1:1-6.

Finally, in its popular use, the term “cult” is frequently used to describe the visible manifestation of power or control in a society. There are scary things and horrific abuses that happen in these cults because men (and women), being sinful by nature, tend to believe that all authority in heaven and earth belongs to them, rather than to Christ. These things do happen from time to time within the true church as well. Every visible assembly of believers has both hypocrites and sinners. In fact, the church has been described as a “hospital for sinners”. Even (especially!) the pastors of the churches must trample daily over the bellies of their own lusts. But what distinguishes the true or pure church from these cults or synagogues of Satan, is that these churches seek to correct these sins and errors, not only among their members, but also among their leaders.

You see, in this world, it is not about whether, but which, authority you will submit too. Is it the authority of Christ or the Devil? You must see here the centrality of the Biblical truth that Jesus Christ is the sole Head of the Church (Col 1, Eph 1). Any authority that is wielded by the officers of the church is delegated authority (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:18-20; I Peter 5), not transferred authority. Jesus is the King and we are His subjects. We must bend our necks to the yoke of Jesus Christ, which is easy, and His burden light. The false church does not bend its neck to the yoke of Christ and as a result places its neck under the iron yoke of the tyranny of sin & of the Devil. All ministers, pastors, elders, deacons, theological professors are servants of Jesus Christ, the only universal bishop of the Church. The officers of the church, as guardians of the church, are not called to act on their own authority, on their own whims, rolling with the tides of culture and popular opinion, but rather, ought always to guard against deviating from what Christ, our only Master, has ordained for us.

This why the Apostle Paul when he advances the ministry of reconciliation in II Corinthians 5, in the power of the Spirit says boldly: “For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.” (II Cor 5:13-15)

You see then, how Paul directs the power of the gospel into service. The work of the catholic church is for the life of the world, in service to Christ who is the sole Head of the Church, the King of kings and Lord of lords, that in everything He might be supreme.

End note: This post was initially posted on Substack by Nathan Zekveld

Photo by ThrowBack Graphics on Unsplash

Read more

On September 20, 2024 By In Culture

Reflections on the Fall of a Minister

Many have already seen the news about Steve Lawson who has been removed from ministry after coming as his own accuser for “an inappropriate relationship” with a woman who was, apparently, not his wife. This is both devastating and disgusting. There is no excuse for such wickedness in a minister of the gospel. Those who partner with and shill for the accuser of the brethren will use this to defame and slander the ministries Mr. Lawson has been associated with as well as other traditional and conservative Christians who remain faithful to their wives and Savior. The Lord alone knows the damage that has been done to Mr. Lawson’s family and to the church he has served and what the long-term fallout will be. “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles” because of the sins of God’s people (Rom. 2:24).

The Scriptures warn of the powerful danger of fleshly lust (1Cor. 6:19-20) and admonish Christians not to be presumptuous regarding their own fidelity and purity (1Cor. 10:12). Some will point out that many heroes of the faith have fallen prey to sexual sins, and that is true, but a pastor “must be blameless” (δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι). A minister may (and in many cases should) lose his ministry due to the kinds of sin he counsels other men for regularly in the church. What is considered only a weakness in a church member may constitute disqualification for a man ordained to the gospel ministry. There is a higher standard for those set apart to represent and serve Christ; there must be. J. C. Ryle said, “The best of men are only men at best,” and that is just as true of every pastor as of every other man in the world.

If we take our eyes off Christ, the result can be devastating, not only for our own soul but to the spiritual well-being of countless others. No one goes to bed a loyal disciple and wakes up as an apostate. No man is faithful to his wife one day only to suddenly become an adulterer the next. Grievous sin arises over time, built upon a series of compromises that are incremental and degenerative. At the same time, one foolish and wicked decision has the power to destroy a lifetime of faithful and fruitful labor. None of us should underestimate our capacity for evil, and none should be careless with the fire and poison that constantly surrounds and seeks to entice the godly.

May God have mercy on those who have been harmed by Mr. Lawson’s sin. May the Savior surround, support, and sustain his family who grieve over a husband and father’s crime. May the Lord comfort, restore, and preserve the congregation that has been betrayed and wounded by their pastor. May the God of grace grant repentance, godly contrition, and lasting change to Mr. Lawson and any others who are involved and implicated in this offense. May the King make his servants wise in the aftermath of this wickedness, that none would take for granted the position they have in Christ, and that all who are growing lax and comfortable with lust would be filled with holy fear and flee to the Lord who alone can deliver us not only from the guilt but also the tyrannical power of our sin.

Read more

On September 16, 2024 By In Culture

The Liturgy of Hospitality

We must shift our focus on liturgical efforts towards hospitality. This may seem straightforward, but implementing it on a large scale is no easy task. Some congregations may desire to embrace this approach but are hindered by self-inflicted wounds. Their priority is often showcasing their distinctiveness rather than demonstrating it through tangible actions.

In our inquirer’s class, we use a saying like this: “We need to bathe our weirdness with a deep sense of commonness.” Internally and behind the scenes, we don’t view ourselves as weird, but we are aware that the perception exists in a thoroughly de-liturgized culture.

This came across in an observation from a mother who raised her daughter in a Reformed context and saw her daughter go into a different tradition altogether. Now, mind you, the daughter was not antagonistic towards Reformed Theology, but she found the practices of this broadly evangelical environment more friendly and inviting. For the record, I am the last person to give much credence to an impressionable young adult. Still, I do want to take the opportunity to offer some general thoughts on the art of commonness and why black coffee Calvinists like myself think our churches need more than mere liturgism.

The first observation is that our Reformational theology/liturgy should be inviting. However worship is communicated—paraments or stripped tables—it must carry on the gravitas of joy from beginning to end. We live in a culture that craves the normalcy of joy. If we invite younger generations to taste and see Geneva’s God, we must also ensure that we don’t portray Geneva as some ogre attempting to tyrannize conscience. Geneva needs to show up with smiles and greetings, not five points of inquiry.

The second point is that liturgical worship should evoke a sense of the holy. Our liturgy should guide people to see God’s sovereignty permeating every aspect of worship, every line, and every response.

Once, a visitor told one of our congregants that even though the liturgy was foreign to her, it was incredibly joyful. But even if the impression is oppositional—and it has happened—we should still communicate a culture where the holy is a common ritual of the people. You cannot control reactions, but you can manage interactions. You can control a sweet disposition towards a visitor. You can sit next to them when they walk in alone and guide them through the order of worship.

Third, and finally, if the liturgy is a living liturgy–contrary to modernistic ritualization experiences in mainline churches with alternating “Mother God” lines–then that liturgy must breathe life into the home. It needs to be perpetuated with food and drink for those strangers who visit. If they are not invited to see your lived-out liturgy, it is unlikely they will find pleasure in your acted-out liturgy on Sunday mornings. It will continue to be strange and foreign rather than warm and inviting.

Our liturgical efforts must move into hospitable efforts. In fact, liturgy necessarily moves into homes. Ultimately, we may still appear strange, and our songs may still give a Victorian vibe, but at the very least, we will have given visitors a sense of the holy and an invitation to joy. Our Reformed churches should contemplate this paradigm in our day.

Read more

On September 13, 2024 By In Church, Culture, Theology

What Does Baptism Accomplish? Part Four: An Ordination Ceremony

In the previous installments, we’ve been examining the question: What Does Baptism Accomplish? Those who have been following will know the answer to that question is multifaceted and can be described from several angles.

At the most basic level, we saw that Baptism initiates a covenant relationship with the Triune God and with each of the three Persons in particular. In relation to the Father, baptism is adoptive: we become members of the Family of God. In relation to the Son, it is marital: we become members of the Bride of Christ. In relation to the Holy Spirit, it is ministerial: we become members of the Universal Priesthood of the Church. Therefore, baptism simultaneously functions as an adoption, marriage, and ordination ceremony. 

Having established the first two propositions, we turn now to the third. The argument to follow is structured around three points: first, the baptism of Jesus was His ordination ceremony; second, our baptism was our ordination ceremony; third, in keeping with the pattern, we will consider the objective and subjective dimensions involved.

(more…)

Read more