Sunday, July 31, 2011
more than sin management
From Al Mohler on, "Do we want homosexuals to find heterosexuality?"
Yes, as much as we want liars to become tellers of the truth and adulterers to be faithful; as much as we want the disobedient to become obedient to parents and the proud to be humble. God’s glory is in seeing that God’s command is accompanied by God’s provision so that we, by his grace, can be transformed so that we will even desire what he wills for us to desire.
This is what the church is all about. We are the people who gather together to exalt in the grace of God and to proclaim the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ as the answer to human sinfulness. We come together to hold each other accountable to the Word of God and to rejoice in what God is doing in us until the very day that we die. We come together in the assurance of the resurrection that is to come and the glorification that will be God’s gift. Like the apostle Paul, we are convinced that “he who began a good work in [us] will bring it to completion at the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 1:6).
Al Mohler at 2004 Desiring God National Conference via Justin Taylor ...
facebook and ignorance
I love/hate Facebook. While the whole of the internet can be a place for people to freely (nearly) share wisdom and ignorance, Facebook is a bit of a caricature for the ignorance aspect.
Today I read read from a Postmodern Innovator. I think these folks are for the most part unregenerate and as such, lack among several things, simple logic and truth. Here's yesterday's brilliance:
If a church doesn't accept women in leadership it would be a very unreasonable expectation to expect them to accept homosexuals.
This individual uses purposeful deception. First he would like us to think this position is not held for Biblical reasons but for cultural bias - more so, hatred and bigotry. He doest acknowledge the Biblical base or that these stem from very different issues. He simply plays to the emotions of his audience.
Second he is mixing gender role questions with sin. Again, he plays to emotions. He'd like the reader to think those that believe homosexuality is sin also see women as something less than a man. He knows full well that those holding these positions see men and women as equal but as having different roles and he knows that we see identifying as a homosexual is less than Kingdom living.
And finally, he confuses verbs. He purposefully plays to emotions with the word accept. In the case of male/female gender roles, it's not that women aren't accepted, it's that there are rules regarding roles. In the case of homosexuality, this is a sin issue. No sin is accepted. That does not equate to love for individuals. In fact, those in this position understand the helping of another to be free from sin to be much more loving than the those condoning it. But this of course is not what interests the Postmodern Innovator. This person is like a politician tossing around sound bites. He wants the reader to equate church governance and hatred of sin as unaccepting even while he himself has a family with rules, is part of a community with rules, and so on. Is he unaccepting of those he loves if he imposes any requirements or expectations or offers any help to change? Of course not, but when playing to emotion, it doesn't matter.
And as with most Postmodern Innovator thinking, there's always the faithful willing to pile on. The original status is followed by further genius:
It's not sin. God created homosexuals.
Ok ... so nothing is a sin because God created everyone. And here you have the quintessential Postmodern Innovator.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Friday, July 29, 2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
some emotion needed
"Let us take heed that there is some feeling in our religion. Knowledge, orthodoxy, correct views, regular use of forms, a respectable moral life–all these do not make up a true Christian. There must be some personal feeling towards Christ. Feeling alone, no doubt, is a poor useless thing, and may be here today and gone tomorrow. But the entire absence of feeling is a very bad symptom, and speaks ill for the state of a man’s soul. The men and women to whom Paul wrote his Epistles had feelings, and were not ashamed of them. There was One in heaven whom they loved, and that One was Jesus the Son of God. Let us strive to be like them, and to have some real feeling in our Christianity, if we hope to share their reward." ~ J.C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: John, volume 3
HT:Erik
classic stott
Some great John Stott quotes from Richard Hanner ... I think they speak for themselves.
“Good conduct arises out of good doctrine.”
“Persecution is simply the clash between two irreconcilable value-systems.”
”In expository preaching the biblical text is neither a conventional introduction to a sermon on a largely different theme, nor a convenient peg on which to hang a ragbag of miscellaneous thoughts, but a master which dictates and controls what is said.”
“These then are the marks of the ideal Church – love, suffering, holiness, sound doctrine, genuineness, evangelism and humility. They are what Christ desires to find in His churches as He walks among them.”
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
we don't have to sin
First, we face the fact that the Bible clearly, repeatedly, consistently, and comprehensively reveals the sinfulness of all homosexual behaviors. This truth is set within the larger context of the Bible's revelation concerning the Creator's plan and purpose for human sexuality - a context that is centered in the marital union of a man and a woman as the exclusive arena for human sexual activity. This flies in the face of the contemporary demand for the full normalization of homosexuality. As the joint statement of the "Just the Facts Coalition" declares, "both heterosexuality and homosexuality are normal expressions of human sexuality."
The normalization of homosexuality simply cannot be accepted by anyone committed to biblical Christianity. The new secular orthodoxy demands that Christians abandon the clear teachings of Scripture, and Christians must understand that the sinfulness of all homosexual behaviors is not only a matter of biblical authority, but also of the Gospel. To deny that sin is sin is to deny our need for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Christians cannot accept any teaching that minimizes sin, for it is the knowledge of our sin that points us to our need for atonement, salvation, and the forgiveness of that sin through the cross of Jesus Christ.
Second, we must recognize that every human being is a sinner and that every sinner's pattern of sexual attraction falls short of the glory of God. There is no sinner of physical maturity who will be able to say that he or she has never had a sinful thought related to sex or sexuality. Taking the Bible's teachings about sin and sexuality with full force, we understand that every sinful human being is in need of redemption, and that includes the redemption of our sexual selves.
Actually, the Bible speaks rather directly to the sinfulness of the homosexual orientation - defined as a pattern of sexual attraction to a person of the same sex. In Romans 1:24-27, Paul writes of "the lusts of their hearts to impurity," of "dishonorable passions," of women who "exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature," and of men who "gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another." A close look at this passage reveals that Paul identifies the sinful sexual passion as a major concern - not just the behavior.
At this point, the chasm between the biblical and secular worldview looms ever larger. The modern secular consensus is that an individual's pattern of sexual attraction, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is just a given and is to be considered normal. More than that, the secular view demands that this pattern of sexual orientation be accepted as integral to an individual's identity. According to the secular consensus, any effort to change an individual's sexual orientation is essentially wrong and harmful. The contemporary therapeutic worldview is virtually unanimous in this verdict, but nothing could be more directly at odds with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The New Testament reveals that a homosexual sexual orientation, whatever its shape or causation, is essentially wrong, contrary to the Creator's purpose, and deeply sinful. Everyone, whatever his or her sexual orientation, is a sinner in need of redemption. Every sinner who comes by faith to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved knows the need for the redemption of our bodies - including our sexual selves. But those whose sexual orientation is homosexual face the fact that they also need a fundamental reordering of their sexual attractions. About this, the Bible is clear. At this point, once again, the essential contradiction between the Christian worldview and the modern secular worldview is clear.
Third, Christians understand that sinners are simultaneously completely responsible for their sin and completely unable to redeem themselves from their sin. Sinners may improve themselves morally, but they cannot mitigate to any degree their need for redemption. Indeed, moralism is a false gospel that suggests that we can please God by moral improvement. As Isaiah warns, the only righteousness of which we are capable amounts to "filthy rags." [Isaiah 64:6] The law reveals what is good for us and what is sinful, but the law is powerless to save us. [Romans 8:3]
The law of God reveals our sin, and our sin reveals our need for a Savior. Paul's own testimony about the law, his knowledge of his own sin, and the redemption that was his in Christ is clear when he writes to the Romans: "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" [Romans 7:24-25] This is every Christian's testimony.
Thus, we recognize that, without redemption, there is no eternal hope for the sinner. Even in terms of moral improvement in this earthly life, the non-Christian lacks union with Christ, the indwelling Holy Spirit, and the means of grace that alone can conform the believer to the image of Christ. Thus, for the non-Christian, the most that can be hoped for is a responsible determination to cease practicing an immoral behavior. The Bible holds no hope for the sinner's ability to change his or her heart.
In other words, a biblical Christian will have no fundamental confidence in any secular therapy's ability to change a sinner's fundamental disposition and heart, and this includes every aspect of the sinner's life, including sexuality.
This is where the Gospel-centeredness of the Christian worldview points us to the cross of Christ and to the sinner's fundamental need for redemption, not mere moral improvement. The Bible offers no hope for any human ability to change our sinful desires. As the modern secular worldview generally acknowledges, the alcoholic who stops drinking remains an alcoholic. The secular world affirms that this is so. The Bible explains why it is so.
Fourth, the Christian cannot accept any argument that denies what the Bible reveals about the sanctification of believers - including the sanctification of our sexuality. The believer in the Lord Jesus Christ receives the forgiveness of sins, the gift of eternal life, and the righteousness of Christ imputed by faith. But the redeemed Christian is also united with Christ, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and given means of grace through, for example, the preaching of the Word of God. The Bible reveals that God conforms believers to the image of Christ, doing that work within the human heart that the sinful human himself or herself cannot perform. The Bible reveals that believers are to grow into Christlikeness, knowing that this is a progressive process that will be completed only with our eventual glorification at the end of the age. In this life, we know a process of growing more holy, more sanctified, and more obedient to Christ. In the life to come, we will know perfection as Christ glorifies his Church.
This means that Christians cannot accept any argument that suggests that a fundamental reorientation of the believer's desires in a way that increasingly pleases God and is increasingly obedient to Christ is impossible. To the contrary, we must argue that this process is exactly what the Christian life is to demonstrate. As Paul writes, "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come." [2 Corinthians 5:17]
The Bible is also honest about the struggle to overcome sin and sinful desires. Paul writes about this in Romans 7, but the exhortations of the entire New Testament also make this clear. Christians with same-sex sexual desires must know that these desires are sinful. Thus, faithful Christians who struggle with these desires must know that God both desires and commands that they desire what He wills for them to desire. All Christians struggle with their own pattern of sinful desires, sexual and otherwise. Our responsibility as Christians is to be obedient to Christ, knowing that only He can save us from ourselves.
eldership
I loved Biblical Eldership by Alexander Strauch. Today my friend Peter Cockrell posted this from Bridgeway Church on their rationale for How We Are Governed.
At Bridgeway, we believe the Bible teaches that each local church should be governed by a plurality of male Elders. Numerous texts support this conclusion, such as Acts 11:29-30; 14:23; 17:17, 28; Phil. 1:1; 1 Thess. 5:12-13; 1 Timothy 3:1-7; 5:17-20; Titus 1:5-9; Hebrews 13:17; James 5:13-14; and 1 Peter 5:1-5.
There is no indication in Scripture that a local church was to be governed by a single elder or pastor. The consistent NT witness is that each church was under the oversight of a plurality of elders/bishops.
The English word “elder” is the translation of the Greek presbuteros, from which we get “Presbyter” and “Presbyterian”. Our English word “bishop” comes from the Greek episkopos, from which we get the word “Episcopal” and “Episcopalian”. “Elder” and “Bishop” are two different words that describe the same office or authoritative function. “Elder” focuses on the dignity and gravity of the person who serves while “Bishop” focuses on the practical function of the office (literally, one who exercises oversight).
Why do we believe they are interchangeable? There are four passages that justify this conclusion.
First, according to Acts 20:17 Paul called for the elders of the church to come to him. But later in v. 28, in referring to these same elders, he says that God has made them overseers (ESV) or bishops in the church.
Second, Paul left Titus in Crete to appoint elders in every town (Titus 1:5). When Paul then turns to list the qualifications for this office he says, “For an overseer (i.e., bishop or episkopon) . . . must be above approach,” etc. Clearly these two terms refer to the same office.
Third, “in 1 Timothy 3:1 Paul says, ‘If any one aspires to the office of bishop/overseer, he desires a noble task.’ Then he gives the qualifications for the overseer/bishop in verses 2-7. Unlike the deacons, the overseer must be ‘able to teach’ (v. 2), and in v. 5 he is said to be one whose management of his own household fits him to care for God’s church. These two functions are ascribed to elders in the fifth chapter of this same book (1 Timothy 5:17) – teaching and governing. So it is very likely that in Paul’s mind the bishops/overseers of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 are the same as the elders of 5:17” (John Piper).
Fourth, 1 Timothy 3:1-13 clearly indicates that there are two primary offices in the NT: Elder and Deacon. Yet in Philippians 1:1 Paul directs his epistle “to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers (episkopoi) and deacons.” Since Paul’s practice was to appoint elders in every church (Acts 14:23) it seems reasonable that the overseers/bishops in Phil. 1:1 is a reference to the elders in that city.
The Greek word (poimen) translated “pastor” is used only once in the NT in Ephesians 4:11. The related verb form (poimaino) has the meaning “to shepherd” or “to feed” with the idea of nurturing and sustaining the flock of God. When we put together Ephesians 4:11, 1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:9, Acts 20:28, and 1 Peter 5:1-2, it would appear reasonable to conclude that all elders exercised pastoral responsibilities.
It would also appear that whereas all elders are to be able to teach, not all teachers are elders. Although being “able to teach” (1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:9) is clearly a requirement for all elders, it is entirely conceivable that one may be gifted to teach but not qualify for the office of elder (or perhaps they do qualify but have not yet been appointed to that position).
Our conclusion is that the local church is to be governed by a plurality of individuals who are described in the New Testament as elders, insofar as they hold an office of great dignity and importance (perhaps even with an allusion to age or at least spiritual maturity), or bishops, insofar as they exercise oversight of the body of Christ, or pastors, insofar as they spiritually feed, care for, and exercise guardianship over the flock of God.
But why do we believe that this ruling or governmental office is restricted to men? We would appeal to three arguments in defense of a male eldership.
First, we appeal to the NT two-fold description of the function of elders. (1) They are those who govern or rule the church (1 Timothy 3:4-5; 5:17; Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:12; Hebrews 13:17). (2) They are those who are primarily responsible for teaching the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:11 [assuming the words “pastor” and “teacher” refer to one function or office of “pastor-teacher”; the best grammatical analysis would indicate this is true]; 1 Timothy 3:2; 5:17; Titus 1:9). Since we have determined from 1 Timothy 2:11-15 that Paul restricted teaching and exercising authority to men, it follows that the office of Elder or Bishop is restricted to men.
Second, we would appeal to the qualifications for the office of Elder that are found in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. An Elder must be “the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:2 and Titus 1:6). Note also that an elder “must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?” (1 Tim. 3:4-5).
Third, there is no reference anywhere in the New Testament to a female elder. Some point out that this is an argument from silence. Yes, it is. But it is a deafening silence, especially when taken in conjunction with the two previous points. The bottom line is that we simply have no biblical precedent for female elders nor anything in the text that describes their nature, function, and qualifications that would lead us to believe that this could ever be a possibility.
We believe that women can serve as deacons (1 Timothy 3:8-13; Romans 16:1-2; although this is disputed by others), that they can assist and support, as “co-workers”, someone such as the apostle Paul (Phil. 4:2-3), that they can evangelize, lead worship, and that they can possess and exercise in biblically appropriate ways every spiritual gift (except that of “apostle”). In summary, women can serve and minister in virtually every capacity aside from what might be called “senior governmental authority”.
sin's essence
"The essence of sin is man substituting himself for God, while the essence of salvation is God substituting himself for man. Man asserts himself against God and puts himself where only God deserves to be; God sacrifices himself for man and puts himself where only man deserves to be. Man claims prerogatives which belong to God alone; God accepts penalties which belong to man alone." ~ John Stott, The Cross of Christ
HT:OFI
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
proper view
"All inadequate doctrines of the atonement are due to inadequate doctrines of God and man. If we bring God down to our level and raise ourselves to his, then of course we see no need for a radical salvation, let alone for a radical salvation to secure it. When, on the other hand, we have glimpsed the blinding glory of the holiness of God, and have been so convicted of our sin by the Holy Spirit that we tremble before God and acknowledge what we are, namely ‘hell-deserving sinners’, then and only then does the necessity of the cross appear so obvious that we are astonished we never saw it before." ~ John Stott, The Cross of Christ
HT:OFI
we are one in worship
From Gary Parrett's 9.5 Theses on Worship, thesis 9.5; In its services of public worship, the church must obey such Scriptures as Philippians 2:3-4: "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others more important than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others."
When my first church home divided over musical issues and other aspects of our public worship, many hearts were broken. I remember the final act of our final service together. We were asked to form a circle around the sanctuary and join hands. Together, we sang the chorus, "We Are One in the Bond of Love." Then we closed the service with prayer; many hugs and tears followed.
It was very emotional. It was also very hypocritical. We were not, of course, one in the bond of love. We were the victims of self-seeking from all sides. We had not obeyed the admonition of Philippians 2:3-4, nor that of Ephesians 4:3 to "make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace," nor Christ's new commandment to "love one another as I have loved you" (John 13:34).
My earnest prayer is that such scenes will occur with far less frequency as the people of God think more deeply about the nature and purposes of worship, and that a renewed approach to music and hymnody will lead us all to greater love of God, love of one another, and love for all our neighbors.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
who is the seeker
From Gary Parrett's 9.5 Theses on Worship, thesis 9; The Seeker that we must serve in our worship services is, first and foremost, God himself.
One of the more obvious "worship trends" in the past three decades has been the emergence of "seeker services." In some instances, these have been Sunday services totally redesigned with "seekers" in view. Surely being "seeker friendly" is a better option than being "seeker hostile" or "seeker indifferent," as too many congregations seem to be. But there are problems.
For one thing, while attempting to reach the unchurched, churches may actually be "unchurching the churched" (as Michael Horton argues) or otherwise "dumbing down" for the sake of evangelism (as Marva Dawn puts it). I know of a church, for example, that has printed the Scripture text in the bulletin or projected it on screen each week for the seekers who might be attending without a Bible in hand. An unintended consequence, however, has been that the believers have stopped bringing their Bibles and the sound of pages rustling as the saints move from passage to passage during the sermon is seldom heard.
The more significant issue is that our worship services should not be people-centered at all, but be first and foremost for and about our awesome God. This should affect our music and hymnody as well as every other aspect of the service. Our emphasis should be on content that serves the rhythm of revelation and response, not on pleasing guests with particular musical or stylistic choices. Worship should not be designed to suit unbelievers' tastes; nor should we shape it to suit our own. We are to worship God according to his requirements and for his own sake.
The good news, however, is that when we do so, we find that other wonders follow: The saints are well formed and unbelievers who may be present in the assembly are challenged by the presence of the living God. The fact is, we cannot outdo God in serving seekers, for he is the first and truest Seeker of all. There is no one who seeks God (Rom. 3:11). But from his asking, "Where are you?" in the Garden (Gen. 3:9), to seeking worshipers who will worship him in spirit and truth (John 4:24), to sending his only Son "to seek and save what was lost" (Luke 19:10), our God is the great Seeker of lost sheep. When he is first in the formation and conduct of our public worship, much good will surely follow.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
but i like it loud ...
It's the congregation not the band ...
From Gary Parrett's 9.5 Theses on Worship, thesis 8; Those who lead the church in song are called to assist the congregation in its singing, not to replace it—technologies such as amplification must be used with theological and pastoral sensitivity.
On many Sundays, nowadays, it seems that it does not matter if I sing during worship, for I cannot hear myself even if I do. Nor can I hear the brothers and sisters sitting near me. In fact, we can only hear those few people standing up front with their microphones. Sometimes, we barely hear even them, because their voices are also drowned out by the amplified instruments that are supposedly accompanying all of us as we sing.
When I mention these things to song leaders today, I am often told that this is a generational matter, that younger people simply like it louder than do older people (like me). But I don't buy it. Israel's praise was no doubt often lively and loud. But throughout the history of Judeo-Christian worship, if the volume was loud, it was the sound of the people themselves, or the glory of our great God, that made it so. But in our day, our volume comes mostly from amplifiers. We simply have not sufficiently wrestled with how to use the host of new technologies. We need, among other things, a theology of electronic amplification!
The Bible commands us to "speak to one another" in songs, hymns, and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). I find myself longing for such experiences today. I need to hear my sisters and brothers confessing the faith into my ears, and they need to hear me. Surely it is not only the professionals or the gifted who believe the things we are singing. Those who lead us in song must do precisely that—lead us, not replace us or overpower us. Let the amplifiers provide for a volume level loud enough to help us do our job, for it is the congregation, and not the band, that is the true "worship team."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)