Saturday, February 17, 2007
POLICE CLERGY
I will be with the Philadelphia police department Tuesday night the 20Th @6pm in the 6Th district. We will be seeing how the clergy of Philadelphia and the police can better work together. Joe Morrison will be with me to add his insight on this partnership.
CHAPEL 7AM............
I am looking forward to doing chapel service on wednesday morning the 21st @ 7am for Rodger Tarno and his company Alliance Re-manufacturing. Rodger has been a long time friend and brother in the Lord.
Joe Morrison will be with me for the service and a tour of the plant afterward.
Joe Morrison will be with me for the service and a tour of the plant afterward.
Friday, February 16, 2007
GETTING READY FOR SUNDAY
Most people think that you just go to church on Sunday and listen to the message and go home. Well that might be true if what you are listening to is not the Word of God. The pastors job if you will is to exposit for us the Word of God, it is the people duty to study that during the week and prepare through bible reading and prayer for the next message.
So here is your assignment for this Sunday, read all of chapter 10 of Hebrews, and listen again to the message from 1-28-07 on Hebrews 10: 1-18 [this can be found on the front page of this site] And then focus in on verses 19-25 of chapter 10 that is what I will be preaching on this Sunday.
In your prayer time ask God to open your heart to His Holy Word.
See you this Lords Day..........
So here is your assignment for this Sunday, read all of chapter 10 of Hebrews, and listen again to the message from 1-28-07 on Hebrews 10: 1-18 [this can be found on the front page of this site] And then focus in on verses 19-25 of chapter 10 that is what I will be preaching on this Sunday.
In your prayer time ask God to open your heart to His Holy Word.
See you this Lords Day..........
Thursday, February 15, 2007
REDEFINING THE CHURCH By Bob DeWaay
This is a long post but well worth the read.See if your heart does not burn with a desire to preach the Truth by the time you get to this statement. " SHALL WE OBEY GOD OR SHALL WE DRINK OF THE ELIXIR OF CORPORATE SUCCESS." Charles J Paul
“He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything” (Colossians 1:18)
Several months ago a friend of mine, who puts on seminars, publicly pointed out the errors of several well known teachers who promote mystical practices. Shortly thereafter he invited me to attend a meeting with some leaders of his church to clarify his relationship with the church and determine whether his ministry was welcome there. This discussion made some important issues clear for me.
The leadership told him that his teaching did not comply with their practices. They do not practice correcting false teachers. In the course of the conversation, the leaders cited the basic mission of that church. It was a good mission and had to do with bringing people to Christ; but it did not include correcting error or false teachers. Thus my friend’s seminar is not compatible with their purposes.
As a result of the meeting I found myself pondering that situation in light of the many emails I have received from people around the country. These people often are unwelcome in churches in which they had been members for many years. What seems so strange is that the unwelcome members were not accused of sin or heresy; they were accused of not supporting the church’s mission or program. In some cases the mission and program had recently been changed and the long standing members had resisted the change. Ultimately most of these people left willingly, but with sadness of heart. Some who decided to stay and fight were eventually removed from fellowship.
What has happened that evangelical churches are willing to lose solid Christian members who have not fallen into sin or heresy? In this article I will propose that evangelical churches have changed the way they view themselves and their organizations; and that this change has lead to practices and emphases that build large visible churches, but neglect and abuse Christ’s “little flock” (Luke 12:32) -- the true body of Christ.
The Invisible Church
At the time of the Reformation, the Reformers made a distinction between the visible and invisible church. Though this distinction could properly be made between the church triumphant (all believers who have gone before us and are in heaven) and the church militant (those alive now and in the battle), it was used by the Reformers in a different manner.1 Louis Berkof describes the reason for the terminology:
It [the distinction between the visible and invisible church now on earth] stresses the fact that the Church as it exists on earth is both visible and invisible. This Church is said to be invisible, because she is essentially spiritual and in her spiritual essence cannot be discerned by the physical eye; and because it is impossible to determine infallibly who do and do not belong to her. The union of believers with Christ is a mystical union; the Spirit that unites them constitutes an invisible tie; and the blessing of salvation, such as regeneration, genuine conversion, true faith, and spiritual communion with Christ, are all invisible to the natural eye; -- and yet these things constitute the real forma (ideal character) of the Church.2
Before the Reformation, the Roman church saw its ecclesiastical system as the Church. As the Roman church gained influence over nations and kingdoms, she believed that thereby the Church was growing. Berkof describes the issues at the time of the Reformation that led to this terminology:
The Bible ascribes certain glorious attributes to the Church and represents her as a medium of saving and eternal blessings. Rome applied this to the Church as an external institution, more particularly to the ecclesia representativa or the hierarchy as the distributor of the blessing of salvation, and thus ignored and virtually denied the immediate and direct communion of God with His children, by placing a human mediatorial priesthood between them. This is the error which the Reformers sought to eradicate by stressing the fact that the Church of which the Bible says such glorious things is not the church as an external institution, but the Church as the spiritual body of Jesus Christ, which is essentially invisible at present, though it has a relative and imperfect embodiment in the visible Church and is destined to have a perfect visible embodiment at the end of the ages.3
Various scriptures show that this distinction is valid. In the following passage from Ephesians, Paul is not speaking of a visible congregation, but those who are cleansed by Christ whoever they are:
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless. (Ephesians 5:25-27).
This “church” cannot be seen now, nor can this one: “to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven” (Hebrews 12:23a). The church is a spiritual building: “you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1Peter 2:5). As such it is invisible.
We cannot be certain who make up the invisible church but the Lord knows: “Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, ‘The Lord knows those who are His,’ and, ‘Let everyone who names the name of the Lord abstain from wickedness’” (2Timothy 2:19). This passage shows the idea of the visible and invisible church. Those who make up the visible church (who name the name of the Lord) are instructed to abstain from wickedness. Not everyone who “names the name of the Lord” is truly regenerate. Some will say, “Lord, Lord” and He will answer, “I never knew you” (see Matthew 7:22, 23). We cannot have absolute knowledge of who truly knows the Lord, but God does. No matter how strict a local church’s membership requirements may be, there is no certainty that someone who has all the external evidences of being a Christian may join who may not truly know the Lord. Thus the invisible church is hidden in the visible one. John says this: “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us” (1John 2:19). Before they went out, they were part of the church and it was not clear then that they were not truly Christian.
How Christ Builds His Church
God puts people into His invisible church, man does not. Paul said the following to the Ephesian elders: “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). Those who are redeemed are redeemed by the blood of Christ and they have had their sins washed away. This atonement is announced through the gospel. God uses gospel preaching to save people and add them to the church. A few verses earlier, Paul said this about his preaching that had resulted in the formation of a church in Ephesus: “how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:20, 21). Paul was using the keys of the kingdom that Jesus gave to Peter and the other disciples according to Matthew 16:18, 19. He preached the gospel that included the person and work of Christ, and the need for repentance and faith.
Paul did not stop with preaching the gospel in Ephesus and seeing God add people to the church. He told the Ephesian elders: “And now, behold, I know that all of you, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will see my face no more. Therefore I testify to you this day, that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:25-27). Having preached the gospel and taught the whole counsel of God, Paul had discharged his duty. He was turning the church over to the guidance of these elders. It was their duty to nurture and preserve this flock through being “on guard” and caring for them as pastors (the word “shepherd” in verse 28 is the verb form of the noun translated “pastor”). Paul explained why their solemn duty was so important: “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:29, 30). False teachers were sure to arise and those who have the duty of shepherding the flock must protect the blood bought church from them.
Christ builds His church through gospel preaching that God uses to graciously grant repentance and faith in those He has chosen (see Acts 11:18; Philippians 1:29; 2Timothy 2:25). The invisible church grows through conversions: “And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47b). Paul wrote this: “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe” (1Corinthians 1:21). Every time a person is regenerated by the grace and power of God, the invisible church grows.
Therefore, those who are concerned with the growth of the invisible church, which is the one that ultimately will be assembled for the marriage supper of the Lamb, will preach the gospel clearly and boldly. They will declare the terms of entrance into the kingdom of God. This includes the message of the cross: “but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1Corinthians 1:23, 24). The message is universally unpopular to the unregenerate mind, but Christ uses it to build His church. We cannot know who “the called” are. We must faithfully preach the gospel knowing that the called, whoever they are, will respond to it. They respond because of God’s supernatural grace, not because of human wisdom.
The saving of souls through the gospel leads to the formation of visible congregations where God’s means of grace4 are provided. Understanding the nature of the relationship between the visible congregations and the invisible church will help us understand what practices and policies are necessary for a church to be Biblical and honoring to God.
The Visible Church
The visible church consists of people who have professed faith in Christ and have agreed to live accordingly. Berkof makes some important clarifications:
It is possible that some who belong to the invisible Church never become members of the visible organization, as missionary subjects who are converted on their deathbeds, and that others are temporarily excluded from it, as erring believers who are for a time shut out from the communion of the visible Church. On the other hand there may be unregenerate children and adults who, while professing Christ, have no true faith in Him, in the Church as an external institution; and these, as long as they are in that condition, do not belong to the invisible Church.5
Since humans cannot infallibly know who the elect are, churches must receive those who profess Christ, confess belief in true Biblical doctrines, and are willing to live lives in accordance with the teachings of the Bible. This is good and proper. However, we cannot be sure that every member of the external organization is also a member of the invisible church, the true body of Christ. Anyone can see who belongs to the visible church. Membership numbers can be tracked. Attendance at worship services can be monitored.
It should be noted, however, that a visible “church” must corporately confess the essential truths of the gospel to be a church and not merely a religious institution. This is necessary because at this point in history there are Mormon “churches,” New Age “churches,” Universalist “churches,” and other such groups that deny the Biblical doctrine of Christ. Such groups should not be considered visible churches nor should it be expected that the invisible church is within them.
This leads us to some issues that will help explain some of the current confusion. Visible churches that at least superficially confess the key doctrines of the Bible are massively diverse. Every major Christian denomination confesses these doctrines in their official documents. Even when the modernist movement swept through most of the main line Protestant church during the late 19th century and early 20th century, not one of those denominations officially denied their historical creeds. I grew up in a liberal denomination and was required to confess the truth about the person and work of Christ in order to join the church at age 12. Later I found out that many pastors in that denomination did not believe in the resurrection of Christ, though every one of them had to swear he or she did to be ordained.
This means that visible churches exist that in some regard have the light of the gospel, if not in their pulpits, in their hymnals and creedal confessions. Inasmuch as some light is there, these churches likely contain a few of the invisible church. However, inasmuch as the Word is not purely taught and the gospel not clearly preached, people are much less likely to be converted. They have to find the gospel hidden within an organization that no longer has it on its agenda.
But it is God, who by His wonderful almighty power, despite the great abomination and harlotry of the devil, preserves among you [Rome] through Baptism some infants and a few older persons, only alas too few who, when dying, hold to Christ, of whom I have known many. Therefore, the true ancient church with its Baptism and God’s Word remains with you, and your idol the devil, cannot altogether destroy it [the true church] despite so much new idolatry and your satanic harlotry.6
Though Luther lambasted the Roman Catholic Church with amazing vitriol and stinging rebuke, he confessed that there was still enough light of truth within her that some were saved in spite of her unbiblical innovations.
Likewise today, with the huge variations of visible congregations and denominations, we must confess that if some light of the gospel is present, howbeit dim and hidden, there will be some who believe and are graciously added by God to the invisible church. This, however, never justifies false teaching, unbiblical innovations, and the failure to preach the gospel. For example, those congregations who adopted modernism in the early 20th century and denied the authority of Scripture still contained some of the invisible church who had true faith in the Gospel. Those persons were sorely grieved and many eventually left to join newly formed, congregations and denominations where the evangelical faith was publicly taught and confessed. Yes one can be saved in a visible church that is mostly gone astray; but it does not follow that such a person should stay and support false teaching.
Growing the Visible Church
Prior to the Reformation the Roman Catholic Church did not distinguish between the visible and invisible church. Salvation was considered to be found within the church; Rome with its papacy was considered “the church.” Failure to make a proper distinction between the visible and invisible church led to horrible practices, before the Reformation and after -- on both sides of the division. Let us look at one example of what happens when expanding the visible church by any means available is viewed as “building Christ’s church.”
In 770 AD Christendom had suffered greatly. The former Christian strongholds of northern Egypt and the Near East had been over run by Islam. The pagan Saxons of Germany despised Christianity. They murdered the missionaries sent to them and were enemies of the Franks. At this point in history Charlemagne arose as the great king of the Franks. Through a bloody, thirty year series of wars he subjugated the Saxons and forced them to convert to Christianity.7 Historian Justo Gonzalez writes, “Charlemagne resolved to drown the rebellion in blood and in the waters of baptism. Those who proved intractable were slaughtered. The rest were forced to accept baptism.”8 In 800 Pope Leo II crowned Charlemagne the “emperor” in a move to revive the Roman Empire.9
Charlemagne’s policy of forced conversions (he also forced tithing to the church through civil law10) became a new way to enlarge the visible church. The practice continued for many centuries; but as grim as this sounds, the result was positive. The Saxons actually became civilized and eventually became accustomed to Christian culture. Thus Christianity became established in a previously pagan land.
Although no one today is likely to endorse such a policy, it would be possible to rationalize it historically. For example, prior to their “conversion,” the Saxons were savage marauders committed to pagan gods. They killed the missionaries sent to them. After Charlemagne’s conquest, the Saxons were forced to follow the teachings of Christianity. The Capitulary for Saxony, required, under the penalty of death, respect for the church and its buildings, tithing, the keeping of Lent, the keeping of the Lord’s Day, baptism, and other Christian duties.11 Eventually this led to a better situation than they had under pagan war lords, because they were in the visible church. In their new situation there was, however dim, the light of the gospel and some were likely truly converted. Thus, for centuries to come, Saxons had a more civilized existence with better rule of law and as much Christian light as the medieval Roman church had to offer. It could be argued that souls were added to the Kingdom because of Charlemagne’s campaign. Yet what Charlemagne did was repulsive and wicked.
Why do I share this bit of history? I do so to underscore the problem of a certain type of thinking. The idea is that “we” are the Christians and this is the church. Those outside of “us” are pagans and in pagan darkness (nowadays we call them “unchurched”). Since what we have is a good thing, the more of “them” that we can get into the visible church with “us” the better; Christianity is being spread. Once people join the visible church (however dim the light of the gospel might be in a given visible church), some will likely be converted. The rest will live better “Christian” lives, influenced by Christian ethics and teachings. Their children will be raised in the church rather than in the pagan world. As “Christendom” grows everyone is better off.
The Church Growth Movement
This is precisely the thinking of the church growth movement and its modern founder Robert Schuller. Schuller is famous for saying that his Crystal Cathedral is a last stop for people who had given up on religion and otherwise would have no religion. He established his Institute for Successful Church Leadership in 1970. His website says this about his Institute: “Alumni include Bill Hybels, John Maxwell, Bishop Charles Blake, Rick Warren, Walt Kallestad, Kirbyjon Caldwell, and many, many others who found the fundamental principles of success at our sessions .... and the rest is church history!”12 He continues, “The students outran the master and I'm proud of them - and you can do it, too!”
The success that Schuller and his followers have found is the ability to get people to join the visible church without being confronted with “negative” things like the wrath of God against sin and the need for the blood atonement.
The key idea in the church growth movement founded by Robert Schuller is to maximize the visible church by using proven business marketing strategies. Forcing people into the church at sword point has been abandoned long ago. Charlemagne’s strategy is no longer viable. Now leaders entice people into the visible church using the business model that works so well for secular corporations. These strategies include organizational models that provide focus, efficiency, outcome based feedback, and “synergy of energy.” Most important, however, is maximizing the organization’s ability to find and keep satisfied customers (people willing to join the visible church).
Before I explain how this works, I want to reiterate the rationale behind it. As with the Saxons in Charlemagne’s day, there are “unchurched” people who lack exposure to Christianity (other than what the popular culture or media might provide). These people would be better off in church, (especially an evangelical church) than outside of the church; that is axiomatic. But, these people are willing to join the church unless they see a need to join. It is the job of the religious corporation (church) to convince such religious consumers that they have a need and that the corporation in question can best fulfill it. This is what marketing is about; its goal is satisfied customers. The Crystal Cathedral is filled with satisfied customers and has been for decades.
Let us take that particular church as an example and think about our categories of the visible and invisible church. Luther said that there was some invisible church even in Roman Catholicism. Very likely some became part of the invisible church after Charlemagne forced them into the visible one. God is merciful and if some light of the truth of Christ and His work is there, some will believe in spite of the fact that the light is diffused through a translucent window. I would argue that some people have likely met Christ at the Crystal Cathedral since Schuller occasionally invites an evangelical as a guest speaker or allows a testimony from someone who does know the Lord. Also, the hymns they sing may have enough of the gospel for someone to believe.
Taking this analysis further, let us consider Schuller’s followers like Bill Hybels and Rick Warren. Both of them are more evangelical than Schuller. Their terminology often includes parts of the gospel. This being the case, by God’s grace and mercy, there are likely some conversions through their approach. So, in their churches, there likely exists an invisible church. Perhaps there are many true Christians within.
This, however, does not justify the theory that one ought to use whatever means work best to grow the visible church simply because people are better off “churched” and some may actually be saved. That rationale assumes that Christ has not told us what the church is to be and do. It assumes that we have the liberty to adopt any plan that gets people to come to the visible church and stay there. I deny that we have that liberty. It opens the door to unacceptable options.
The Efficient, Market Driven Church
Those churches that have adopted Schuller’s strategy (and others like it) are committed to using the latest proven systems to gather the largest possible group. The system that works the best is one that is focused, efficient, and seeks measurable results (out-come based). Rick Warren uses these principles in his book, The Purpose Driven Church.13 In this approach a mission statement is absolutely essential. Everything the church does has to be justified vis-à-vis the mission statement. This is how corporations have learned to keep every aspect of their operation focused and working with “synergy of energy.”14 This model of operation has proven itself to be far superior to previous ones. The defining mission statement, according to Rick Warren must be stated in terms of results.15 The mission statement (Warren uses the term “purpose”) is necessary to produce focus and eliminate programs or processes that are not contributing to the stated mission. Warren says, “A narrow mission is a clear mission.”16 Warren also says, “Make it measurable.”17 This is the idea of being “outcome based.” If the outcome is not being achieved, then the hindrances must be identified and removed.
The outcome that such churches seek is a growing visible church with dedicated, committed members who work in unity to achieve the mission of the church. The church must be portrayed to the unchurched as desirable and likely to meet their needs in order to gain a maximum number of new members. Rick Warren suggests that since unbelievers are not looking for truth, something else needs to be offered.18 Warren says, “While most unbelievers aren’t looking for truth, they are looking for relief.”19 Therefore he teaches pastors to teach only what people see as benefiting their needs. He claims that Jesus used the approach of meeting their “felt needs,”20 and “Jesus was a life-application preacher.”21
Here we must ask a question. Is that why, when Jesus meet the “felt needs” of the crowd in John 6, that He later confronted them with the need for a blood atonement which resulted in the crowd leaving and refusing to follow Jesus?22 Jesus told Pilate that He came to bear witness to the truth, an answer that seemed irrelevant to Pilate.23 What sinner ever saw a “need” for a crucified Jewish Messiah without first having been confronted with their sin and the need for atonement? Churches that exist to maximize the size and efficiency of the visible church are forced to change the gospel because the gospel is a narrow gate with few entering.
In the efficient, market driven church people come in because the church is appealing to them; and they get motivated and committed because of the excitement and unity that exists around the church’s mission statement. People are asked to make commitments to the church and promise to support the church’s programs.24 People enjoy being a part of a committed community, unified, working together, and achieving measurable results. The ability to make that happen is the key to the success of the religious corporation.
The unity of the church, in this contemporary model, is determined by the mission statement. Every member must agree to put his or her effort fully into achieving the stated purpose of the church. Evangelical versions of this approach use Biblical concepts in their statement. To gain this unity of purpose the pastor has to become a “vision caster.” This means selling his plan and getting everyone excited about it. Rick Warren says that the purpose statement must be continually repeated. He says, “Once you have defined the purposes of your church, you must continually clarify and communicate to everyone in your congregation.”25 This helps create the “synergy of energy” that makes the combined talents and enthusiasm of a group of people multiply in effectiveness. The resultant excitement is contagious as the group grows and sees the measurable outcome of their mission happen before their eyes. This process certainly works and is not physically coercive like Charlemagne’s.26
Rick Warren demands unity of every member and requires that they sign a covenant in which they promise unity.27 They are led through a series of classes that require entering covenants.28 These are designed to create deeper commitment. People who do not support the unity of the church are warned and disciplined. This is Warren’s interpretation of how he sees the Bible’s teaching on dealing with “divisive” people: “They are to . . . warn those who are argumentative, plead for harmony and unity, rebuke those who are disrespectful of leadership, and remove divisive people from church if they ignore two warnings.”29 This will help us understand how solid Christian people who are not accused of sin or heresy are being removed from churches. We will now compare how a Biblically defined church differs from a corporate mission defined church in how various aspects of the life of the church are handled.
Contrasts Between a Biblical Church and Seeker Church
Let us consider the topic that was just raised – church discipline. The Lord spoke about this in Matthew 18:
And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer. (Matthew 18:15-17)
Elsewhere the Bible teaches to remove unrepentant sinners from fellowship (for example 1Corinthians 5). In a Biblically defined church, unrepentant sin breaks fellowship. In Matthew 18 Jesus taught about how important every believer is to Him, particularly those who were “little ones” who might be overlooked. They are so important that the ninety sheep would be left behind to find the straying one (Matthew 18:12). The key concern is the salvation of every one whom the Lord has brought to Himself: “Thus it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish” (Matthew 18:14; note that “little ones” in context are believers – Matthew 18:6).
In churches that adopt the new model of corporate efficiency through a mission statement and a system that produces “synergy of energy” to reach the desired outcome, this process is much different. The difference explains why solid Christians who are not being accused of unrepentant sin are being disfellowshipped. The “synergy of energy” is only possible when every member is pulling together to achieve the stated mission of the corporation. People are confronted and removed who insist on doing things in ways not consistent with the corporate mission statement. Inasmuch as the mission statement is not the gospel or the whole counsel of God, it is a truncated version of Christianity. Those who feel strongly that certain Biblical commands (like correcting false teachers or preaching about the wrath of God against sin) should be followed are monkey wrenches in the gears of the smoothly oiled corporate machine. They have to go.
Failing to blindly follow misguided church leadership is not what Matthew 18 is all about. In the context, the disciples were arguing about who was the greatest, and Jesus took a little child to make an object lesson. The “little ones” were believers who had no great status in the minds of others. They are to be treated with the utmost love and concern, even though as one straggling “lamb” they seem insignificant. What we have instead, in the new paradigm churches, are faithful “little ones” being booted for not supporting the corporate dreams of those who deem themselves important. This is a total reversal of what Jesus taught.
Unity of What?
Unity is a Biblical concept. But again, there is a huge difference in the concept of unity in a Biblically defined church and the new Purpose Driven Church. In the Bible, the goal is the unity of the faith: “until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13). The faith is the content of the gospel, including the entirety of the teaching as given by Christ and His Apostles: “Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). One cannot decide anything about what unity is to be preserved without first deciding what “the faith” is.
For example, at the time of the Reformation, Luther was considered a heretic, a schismatic whose efforts were directed against the unity of the church. From the perspective of Rome, he was. However, that assumes that the Roman church and her practices were truly in accord with the gospel and the teachings of Christ and His Apostles. Luther believed that they were not and that to find the unity of the faith, churches needed to be established based on the true means of grace. Both Luther and Calvin taught that true churches were those where the Word was purely taught and the sacraments were kept according to the Lord’s commandment. It is impossible to decide what constitutes a schismatic (one who causes divisions) without first deciding what constitutes a valid church!
Let us again consider Jude, where we were told to contend for the faith:
But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they were saying to you, “In the last time there shall be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.” These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit. (Jude 1:17-19)
According to this, the divisions are caused by world-minded people whose lusts indicate that they are not truly regenerate. They are departing from the faith that was delivered by Christ and His Apostles.
Elsewhere we see the same thing: “Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them” (Romans 16:17). Notice that division is that which is contrary to the apostolic teaching. Here is another example:
If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain (1Timothy 6:3-5).
Unity cannot be preserved when a clear Biblical understanding of sound doctrine is absent. The unity of the faith is not the same as the unity of a religious corporation. Luther brought us closer to the unity of the faith (because he brought the church closer to sound doctrine), even though he appeared at the time to be a schismatic. Religious corporations that exist to meet the needs of the maximum numbers of religious consumers move us away from the unity of the faith because preserving sound doctrine is not in their stated mission.
Let us consider “unity” as defined by the efficient, seeker oriented religious corporation. As already discussed, this model of church demands unity based on its mission statement and leadership. People who do not fit the plan must go. It is not necessary to prove someone a heretic or gross sinner to remove them from “fellowship.” In this system, they are removed for failing to promote the needs and goals of the religious corporation. In a secular corporation, that would be reasonable, but not in the church.
A secular corporation can determine its marketing goals, mission, and protocol, and legitimately remove those who refuse to cooperate with the corporate mission statement. But is this valid with the Church? The Bible defines the church and the doctrines of Christ and His apostles determine its unity. Church leaders who decide to truncate the Biblical definition for the sake of expediency and corporate success have no right to remove godly Christians for the “sin” of not being in unity with their man-made mission statement. They have no Biblical authority to do this.
Likewise Christians are pressured into entering man-made “covenants” that Rick Warren and others like him devise to insure that no dissenter can exist in their midst. This “covenant” becomes the test of unity and fellowship rather than “the faith once for delivered to the saints.” They achieve the unity of the religious corporation at the expense of the unity of the faith. This is wrong!
The Message of the Church
Jesus told his apostles what was to be the message of the church: “teaching them to observe all that I commanded you” (Matthew 28:20a). He did not say, “teach them those parts of my message that they think are relevant to their felt needs”! In the Luke account of the Great Commission Jesus said this: “and that repentance for forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47). A Biblically defined church preaches the gospel, including the need for repentance and proclaims the whole counsel of God as Paul did. Everything Jesus taught, including that which was written by His authoritative apostles in the New Testament, is to be taught. People who attend Biblically defined churches should soon become fully Biblically literate and able to defend the faith cogently. They should be so well trained in the truth of Scriptures that they have discernment (Hebrews 5:14).
In the new seeker paradigm churches the message is tailored to appeal to the largest possible audience. The goal is to build the visible church to be as large as it can get. Therefore, pastors lay aside those parts of the New Testament that are not deemed desirable or relevant by potential religious consumers. Evangelicals who adopt the Robert Schuler inspired version of creating a religious corporation do not deny any important doctrines. They just do not confess them publicly. They believe in a literal hell, they just do not preach it from the pulpit. They believe in the wrath of God against sin and the need for the blood atonement, but that is left out of the pulpit as well. Doctrine is privatized. It is relegated to a “statement of faith” on a website or made available elsewhere in case someone actually cares about such things.
In the new paradigm churches the orthodox “statement of faith” contains truths that the pastors do not care enough about to preach to their own congregations or to sinners. However, should someone in a discernment ministry challenge them about their teaching, they trot out their boiler plate orthodoxy to deflect criticism. What they fail to realize is that the many mainline protestant denominations that left orthodoxy during the modernist takeover of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries kept their orthodox statements of faith intact. They had no time for such foolish doctrines such as the virgin birth; but why needlessly start a fight by trying to change denominational confessions that were hundreds of years old? What is preached from the pulpit is a much better test of what is truly believed than a statement of faith.
Conclusion
Peter said this: “obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls” (1Peter 1:9). The “outcome based” corporate management churches judge their success vis-à-vis their mission statement based on measurable outcome. The only outcome they can measure very accurately is the number of people joining the visible church. The invisible church cannot be measured because it cannot be seen. The Biblically defined church seeks to nurture and grow the invisible church through the means of grace. Though we cannot know for sure who the elect are, we know for sure what means God uses to call people to Himself and sanctify them. If we faithfully provide those means, God will use them to nurture His flock which was purchased by the blood of Christ. The size of the visible church is not an important issue, but the existence and well being of the invisible one surely is.
The redefined church of the church growth movement has mostly ignored the matter of the invisible church. Like Rome and her benefactor Charlemagne, they use the best means available at the time to make the visible church as big as possible, even if the light of the truth is so dim that it is with difficulty anyone would be saved or sanctified. If happy religious consumers living better lives than they had outside of the church is the test of validity, then these huge and rapidly growing churches must be right. However, I do not believe there is anything in the New Testament that validates seeking to maximize the visible church by means that tend to strangle the invisible one.
Consider the inspired words of Paul: “Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things; for as you do this you will insure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you” (1Timothy 4:16). That is how you insure that there is a growing invisible church enrolled in heaven. Consider what Jesus told Peter: “Feed My sheep” (see John 21:15-17). Shall we obey God or shall we drink of the elixir of corporate success?
“He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything” (Colossians 1:18)
Several months ago a friend of mine, who puts on seminars, publicly pointed out the errors of several well known teachers who promote mystical practices. Shortly thereafter he invited me to attend a meeting with some leaders of his church to clarify his relationship with the church and determine whether his ministry was welcome there. This discussion made some important issues clear for me.
The leadership told him that his teaching did not comply with their practices. They do not practice correcting false teachers. In the course of the conversation, the leaders cited the basic mission of that church. It was a good mission and had to do with bringing people to Christ; but it did not include correcting error or false teachers. Thus my friend’s seminar is not compatible with their purposes.
As a result of the meeting I found myself pondering that situation in light of the many emails I have received from people around the country. These people often are unwelcome in churches in which they had been members for many years. What seems so strange is that the unwelcome members were not accused of sin or heresy; they were accused of not supporting the church’s mission or program. In some cases the mission and program had recently been changed and the long standing members had resisted the change. Ultimately most of these people left willingly, but with sadness of heart. Some who decided to stay and fight were eventually removed from fellowship.
What has happened that evangelical churches are willing to lose solid Christian members who have not fallen into sin or heresy? In this article I will propose that evangelical churches have changed the way they view themselves and their organizations; and that this change has lead to practices and emphases that build large visible churches, but neglect and abuse Christ’s “little flock” (Luke 12:32) -- the true body of Christ.
The Invisible Church
At the time of the Reformation, the Reformers made a distinction between the visible and invisible church. Though this distinction could properly be made between the church triumphant (all believers who have gone before us and are in heaven) and the church militant (those alive now and in the battle), it was used by the Reformers in a different manner.1 Louis Berkof describes the reason for the terminology:
It [the distinction between the visible and invisible church now on earth] stresses the fact that the Church as it exists on earth is both visible and invisible. This Church is said to be invisible, because she is essentially spiritual and in her spiritual essence cannot be discerned by the physical eye; and because it is impossible to determine infallibly who do and do not belong to her. The union of believers with Christ is a mystical union; the Spirit that unites them constitutes an invisible tie; and the blessing of salvation, such as regeneration, genuine conversion, true faith, and spiritual communion with Christ, are all invisible to the natural eye; -- and yet these things constitute the real forma (ideal character) of the Church.2
Before the Reformation, the Roman church saw its ecclesiastical system as the Church. As the Roman church gained influence over nations and kingdoms, she believed that thereby the Church was growing. Berkof describes the issues at the time of the Reformation that led to this terminology:
The Bible ascribes certain glorious attributes to the Church and represents her as a medium of saving and eternal blessings. Rome applied this to the Church as an external institution, more particularly to the ecclesia representativa or the hierarchy as the distributor of the blessing of salvation, and thus ignored and virtually denied the immediate and direct communion of God with His children, by placing a human mediatorial priesthood between them. This is the error which the Reformers sought to eradicate by stressing the fact that the Church of which the Bible says such glorious things is not the church as an external institution, but the Church as the spiritual body of Jesus Christ, which is essentially invisible at present, though it has a relative and imperfect embodiment in the visible Church and is destined to have a perfect visible embodiment at the end of the ages.3
Various scriptures show that this distinction is valid. In the following passage from Ephesians, Paul is not speaking of a visible congregation, but those who are cleansed by Christ whoever they are:
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless. (Ephesians 5:25-27).
This “church” cannot be seen now, nor can this one: “to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven” (Hebrews 12:23a). The church is a spiritual building: “you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1Peter 2:5). As such it is invisible.
We cannot be certain who make up the invisible church but the Lord knows: “Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, ‘The Lord knows those who are His,’ and, ‘Let everyone who names the name of the Lord abstain from wickedness’” (2Timothy 2:19). This passage shows the idea of the visible and invisible church. Those who make up the visible church (who name the name of the Lord) are instructed to abstain from wickedness. Not everyone who “names the name of the Lord” is truly regenerate. Some will say, “Lord, Lord” and He will answer, “I never knew you” (see Matthew 7:22, 23). We cannot have absolute knowledge of who truly knows the Lord, but God does. No matter how strict a local church’s membership requirements may be, there is no certainty that someone who has all the external evidences of being a Christian may join who may not truly know the Lord. Thus the invisible church is hidden in the visible one. John says this: “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us” (1John 2:19). Before they went out, they were part of the church and it was not clear then that they were not truly Christian.
How Christ Builds His Church
God puts people into His invisible church, man does not. Paul said the following to the Ephesian elders: “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). Those who are redeemed are redeemed by the blood of Christ and they have had their sins washed away. This atonement is announced through the gospel. God uses gospel preaching to save people and add them to the church. A few verses earlier, Paul said this about his preaching that had resulted in the formation of a church in Ephesus: “how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:20, 21). Paul was using the keys of the kingdom that Jesus gave to Peter and the other disciples according to Matthew 16:18, 19. He preached the gospel that included the person and work of Christ, and the need for repentance and faith.
Paul did not stop with preaching the gospel in Ephesus and seeing God add people to the church. He told the Ephesian elders: “And now, behold, I know that all of you, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will see my face no more. Therefore I testify to you this day, that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:25-27). Having preached the gospel and taught the whole counsel of God, Paul had discharged his duty. He was turning the church over to the guidance of these elders. It was their duty to nurture and preserve this flock through being “on guard” and caring for them as pastors (the word “shepherd” in verse 28 is the verb form of the noun translated “pastor”). Paul explained why their solemn duty was so important: “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:29, 30). False teachers were sure to arise and those who have the duty of shepherding the flock must protect the blood bought church from them.
Christ builds His church through gospel preaching that God uses to graciously grant repentance and faith in those He has chosen (see Acts 11:18; Philippians 1:29; 2Timothy 2:25). The invisible church grows through conversions: “And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47b). Paul wrote this: “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe” (1Corinthians 1:21). Every time a person is regenerated by the grace and power of God, the invisible church grows.
Therefore, those who are concerned with the growth of the invisible church, which is the one that ultimately will be assembled for the marriage supper of the Lamb, will preach the gospel clearly and boldly. They will declare the terms of entrance into the kingdom of God. This includes the message of the cross: “but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1Corinthians 1:23, 24). The message is universally unpopular to the unregenerate mind, but Christ uses it to build His church. We cannot know who “the called” are. We must faithfully preach the gospel knowing that the called, whoever they are, will respond to it. They respond because of God’s supernatural grace, not because of human wisdom.
The saving of souls through the gospel leads to the formation of visible congregations where God’s means of grace4 are provided. Understanding the nature of the relationship between the visible congregations and the invisible church will help us understand what practices and policies are necessary for a church to be Biblical and honoring to God.
The Visible Church
The visible church consists of people who have professed faith in Christ and have agreed to live accordingly. Berkof makes some important clarifications:
It is possible that some who belong to the invisible Church never become members of the visible organization, as missionary subjects who are converted on their deathbeds, and that others are temporarily excluded from it, as erring believers who are for a time shut out from the communion of the visible Church. On the other hand there may be unregenerate children and adults who, while professing Christ, have no true faith in Him, in the Church as an external institution; and these, as long as they are in that condition, do not belong to the invisible Church.5
Since humans cannot infallibly know who the elect are, churches must receive those who profess Christ, confess belief in true Biblical doctrines, and are willing to live lives in accordance with the teachings of the Bible. This is good and proper. However, we cannot be sure that every member of the external organization is also a member of the invisible church, the true body of Christ. Anyone can see who belongs to the visible church. Membership numbers can be tracked. Attendance at worship services can be monitored.
It should be noted, however, that a visible “church” must corporately confess the essential truths of the gospel to be a church and not merely a religious institution. This is necessary because at this point in history there are Mormon “churches,” New Age “churches,” Universalist “churches,” and other such groups that deny the Biblical doctrine of Christ. Such groups should not be considered visible churches nor should it be expected that the invisible church is within them.
This leads us to some issues that will help explain some of the current confusion. Visible churches that at least superficially confess the key doctrines of the Bible are massively diverse. Every major Christian denomination confesses these doctrines in their official documents. Even when the modernist movement swept through most of the main line Protestant church during the late 19th century and early 20th century, not one of those denominations officially denied their historical creeds. I grew up in a liberal denomination and was required to confess the truth about the person and work of Christ in order to join the church at age 12. Later I found out that many pastors in that denomination did not believe in the resurrection of Christ, though every one of them had to swear he or she did to be ordained.
This means that visible churches exist that in some regard have the light of the gospel, if not in their pulpits, in their hymnals and creedal confessions. Inasmuch as some light is there, these churches likely contain a few of the invisible church. However, inasmuch as the Word is not purely taught and the gospel not clearly preached, people are much less likely to be converted. They have to find the gospel hidden within an organization that no longer has it on its agenda.
But it is God, who by His wonderful almighty power, despite the great abomination and harlotry of the devil, preserves among you [Rome] through Baptism some infants and a few older persons, only alas too few who, when dying, hold to Christ, of whom I have known many. Therefore, the true ancient church with its Baptism and God’s Word remains with you, and your idol the devil, cannot altogether destroy it [the true church] despite so much new idolatry and your satanic harlotry.6
Though Luther lambasted the Roman Catholic Church with amazing vitriol and stinging rebuke, he confessed that there was still enough light of truth within her that some were saved in spite of her unbiblical innovations.
Likewise today, with the huge variations of visible congregations and denominations, we must confess that if some light of the gospel is present, howbeit dim and hidden, there will be some who believe and are graciously added by God to the invisible church. This, however, never justifies false teaching, unbiblical innovations, and the failure to preach the gospel. For example, those congregations who adopted modernism in the early 20th century and denied the authority of Scripture still contained some of the invisible church who had true faith in the Gospel. Those persons were sorely grieved and many eventually left to join newly formed, congregations and denominations where the evangelical faith was publicly taught and confessed. Yes one can be saved in a visible church that is mostly gone astray; but it does not follow that such a person should stay and support false teaching.
Growing the Visible Church
Prior to the Reformation the Roman Catholic Church did not distinguish between the visible and invisible church. Salvation was considered to be found within the church; Rome with its papacy was considered “the church.” Failure to make a proper distinction between the visible and invisible church led to horrible practices, before the Reformation and after -- on both sides of the division. Let us look at one example of what happens when expanding the visible church by any means available is viewed as “building Christ’s church.”
In 770 AD Christendom had suffered greatly. The former Christian strongholds of northern Egypt and the Near East had been over run by Islam. The pagan Saxons of Germany despised Christianity. They murdered the missionaries sent to them and were enemies of the Franks. At this point in history Charlemagne arose as the great king of the Franks. Through a bloody, thirty year series of wars he subjugated the Saxons and forced them to convert to Christianity.7 Historian Justo Gonzalez writes, “Charlemagne resolved to drown the rebellion in blood and in the waters of baptism. Those who proved intractable were slaughtered. The rest were forced to accept baptism.”8 In 800 Pope Leo II crowned Charlemagne the “emperor” in a move to revive the Roman Empire.9
Charlemagne’s policy of forced conversions (he also forced tithing to the church through civil law10) became a new way to enlarge the visible church. The practice continued for many centuries; but as grim as this sounds, the result was positive. The Saxons actually became civilized and eventually became accustomed to Christian culture. Thus Christianity became established in a previously pagan land.
Although no one today is likely to endorse such a policy, it would be possible to rationalize it historically. For example, prior to their “conversion,” the Saxons were savage marauders committed to pagan gods. They killed the missionaries sent to them. After Charlemagne’s conquest, the Saxons were forced to follow the teachings of Christianity. The Capitulary for Saxony, required, under the penalty of death, respect for the church and its buildings, tithing, the keeping of Lent, the keeping of the Lord’s Day, baptism, and other Christian duties.11 Eventually this led to a better situation than they had under pagan war lords, because they were in the visible church. In their new situation there was, however dim, the light of the gospel and some were likely truly converted. Thus, for centuries to come, Saxons had a more civilized existence with better rule of law and as much Christian light as the medieval Roman church had to offer. It could be argued that souls were added to the Kingdom because of Charlemagne’s campaign. Yet what Charlemagne did was repulsive and wicked.
Why do I share this bit of history? I do so to underscore the problem of a certain type of thinking. The idea is that “we” are the Christians and this is the church. Those outside of “us” are pagans and in pagan darkness (nowadays we call them “unchurched”). Since what we have is a good thing, the more of “them” that we can get into the visible church with “us” the better; Christianity is being spread. Once people join the visible church (however dim the light of the gospel might be in a given visible church), some will likely be converted. The rest will live better “Christian” lives, influenced by Christian ethics and teachings. Their children will be raised in the church rather than in the pagan world. As “Christendom” grows everyone is better off.
The Church Growth Movement
This is precisely the thinking of the church growth movement and its modern founder Robert Schuller. Schuller is famous for saying that his Crystal Cathedral is a last stop for people who had given up on religion and otherwise would have no religion. He established his Institute for Successful Church Leadership in 1970. His website says this about his Institute: “Alumni include Bill Hybels, John Maxwell, Bishop Charles Blake, Rick Warren, Walt Kallestad, Kirbyjon Caldwell, and many, many others who found the fundamental principles of success at our sessions .... and the rest is church history!”12 He continues, “The students outran the master and I'm proud of them - and you can do it, too!”
The success that Schuller and his followers have found is the ability to get people to join the visible church without being confronted with “negative” things like the wrath of God against sin and the need for the blood atonement.
The key idea in the church growth movement founded by Robert Schuller is to maximize the visible church by using proven business marketing strategies. Forcing people into the church at sword point has been abandoned long ago. Charlemagne’s strategy is no longer viable. Now leaders entice people into the visible church using the business model that works so well for secular corporations. These strategies include organizational models that provide focus, efficiency, outcome based feedback, and “synergy of energy.” Most important, however, is maximizing the organization’s ability to find and keep satisfied customers (people willing to join the visible church).
Before I explain how this works, I want to reiterate the rationale behind it. As with the Saxons in Charlemagne’s day, there are “unchurched” people who lack exposure to Christianity (other than what the popular culture or media might provide). These people would be better off in church, (especially an evangelical church) than outside of the church; that is axiomatic. But, these people are willing to join the church unless they see a need to join. It is the job of the religious corporation (church) to convince such religious consumers that they have a need and that the corporation in question can best fulfill it. This is what marketing is about; its goal is satisfied customers. The Crystal Cathedral is filled with satisfied customers and has been for decades.
Let us take that particular church as an example and think about our categories of the visible and invisible church. Luther said that there was some invisible church even in Roman Catholicism. Very likely some became part of the invisible church after Charlemagne forced them into the visible one. God is merciful and if some light of the truth of Christ and His work is there, some will believe in spite of the fact that the light is diffused through a translucent window. I would argue that some people have likely met Christ at the Crystal Cathedral since Schuller occasionally invites an evangelical as a guest speaker or allows a testimony from someone who does know the Lord. Also, the hymns they sing may have enough of the gospel for someone to believe.
Taking this analysis further, let us consider Schuller’s followers like Bill Hybels and Rick Warren. Both of them are more evangelical than Schuller. Their terminology often includes parts of the gospel. This being the case, by God’s grace and mercy, there are likely some conversions through their approach. So, in their churches, there likely exists an invisible church. Perhaps there are many true Christians within.
This, however, does not justify the theory that one ought to use whatever means work best to grow the visible church simply because people are better off “churched” and some may actually be saved. That rationale assumes that Christ has not told us what the church is to be and do. It assumes that we have the liberty to adopt any plan that gets people to come to the visible church and stay there. I deny that we have that liberty. It opens the door to unacceptable options.
The Efficient, Market Driven Church
Those churches that have adopted Schuller’s strategy (and others like it) are committed to using the latest proven systems to gather the largest possible group. The system that works the best is one that is focused, efficient, and seeks measurable results (out-come based). Rick Warren uses these principles in his book, The Purpose Driven Church.13 In this approach a mission statement is absolutely essential. Everything the church does has to be justified vis-à-vis the mission statement. This is how corporations have learned to keep every aspect of their operation focused and working with “synergy of energy.”14 This model of operation has proven itself to be far superior to previous ones. The defining mission statement, according to Rick Warren must be stated in terms of results.15 The mission statement (Warren uses the term “purpose”) is necessary to produce focus and eliminate programs or processes that are not contributing to the stated mission. Warren says, “A narrow mission is a clear mission.”16 Warren also says, “Make it measurable.”17 This is the idea of being “outcome based.” If the outcome is not being achieved, then the hindrances must be identified and removed.
The outcome that such churches seek is a growing visible church with dedicated, committed members who work in unity to achieve the mission of the church. The church must be portrayed to the unchurched as desirable and likely to meet their needs in order to gain a maximum number of new members. Rick Warren suggests that since unbelievers are not looking for truth, something else needs to be offered.18 Warren says, “While most unbelievers aren’t looking for truth, they are looking for relief.”19 Therefore he teaches pastors to teach only what people see as benefiting their needs. He claims that Jesus used the approach of meeting their “felt needs,”20 and “Jesus was a life-application preacher.”21
Here we must ask a question. Is that why, when Jesus meet the “felt needs” of the crowd in John 6, that He later confronted them with the need for a blood atonement which resulted in the crowd leaving and refusing to follow Jesus?22 Jesus told Pilate that He came to bear witness to the truth, an answer that seemed irrelevant to Pilate.23 What sinner ever saw a “need” for a crucified Jewish Messiah without first having been confronted with their sin and the need for atonement? Churches that exist to maximize the size and efficiency of the visible church are forced to change the gospel because the gospel is a narrow gate with few entering.
In the efficient, market driven church people come in because the church is appealing to them; and they get motivated and committed because of the excitement and unity that exists around the church’s mission statement. People are asked to make commitments to the church and promise to support the church’s programs.24 People enjoy being a part of a committed community, unified, working together, and achieving measurable results. The ability to make that happen is the key to the success of the religious corporation.
The unity of the church, in this contemporary model, is determined by the mission statement. Every member must agree to put his or her effort fully into achieving the stated purpose of the church. Evangelical versions of this approach use Biblical concepts in their statement. To gain this unity of purpose the pastor has to become a “vision caster.” This means selling his plan and getting everyone excited about it. Rick Warren says that the purpose statement must be continually repeated. He says, “Once you have defined the purposes of your church, you must continually clarify and communicate to everyone in your congregation.”25 This helps create the “synergy of energy” that makes the combined talents and enthusiasm of a group of people multiply in effectiveness. The resultant excitement is contagious as the group grows and sees the measurable outcome of their mission happen before their eyes. This process certainly works and is not physically coercive like Charlemagne’s.26
Rick Warren demands unity of every member and requires that they sign a covenant in which they promise unity.27 They are led through a series of classes that require entering covenants.28 These are designed to create deeper commitment. People who do not support the unity of the church are warned and disciplined. This is Warren’s interpretation of how he sees the Bible’s teaching on dealing with “divisive” people: “They are to . . . warn those who are argumentative, plead for harmony and unity, rebuke those who are disrespectful of leadership, and remove divisive people from church if they ignore two warnings.”29 This will help us understand how solid Christian people who are not accused of sin or heresy are being removed from churches. We will now compare how a Biblically defined church differs from a corporate mission defined church in how various aspects of the life of the church are handled.
Contrasts Between a Biblical Church and Seeker Church
Let us consider the topic that was just raised – church discipline. The Lord spoke about this in Matthew 18:
And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer. (Matthew 18:15-17)
Elsewhere the Bible teaches to remove unrepentant sinners from fellowship (for example 1Corinthians 5). In a Biblically defined church, unrepentant sin breaks fellowship. In Matthew 18 Jesus taught about how important every believer is to Him, particularly those who were “little ones” who might be overlooked. They are so important that the ninety sheep would be left behind to find the straying one (Matthew 18:12). The key concern is the salvation of every one whom the Lord has brought to Himself: “Thus it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish” (Matthew 18:14; note that “little ones” in context are believers – Matthew 18:6).
In churches that adopt the new model of corporate efficiency through a mission statement and a system that produces “synergy of energy” to reach the desired outcome, this process is much different. The difference explains why solid Christians who are not being accused of unrepentant sin are being disfellowshipped. The “synergy of energy” is only possible when every member is pulling together to achieve the stated mission of the corporation. People are confronted and removed who insist on doing things in ways not consistent with the corporate mission statement. Inasmuch as the mission statement is not the gospel or the whole counsel of God, it is a truncated version of Christianity. Those who feel strongly that certain Biblical commands (like correcting false teachers or preaching about the wrath of God against sin) should be followed are monkey wrenches in the gears of the smoothly oiled corporate machine. They have to go.
Failing to blindly follow misguided church leadership is not what Matthew 18 is all about. In the context, the disciples were arguing about who was the greatest, and Jesus took a little child to make an object lesson. The “little ones” were believers who had no great status in the minds of others. They are to be treated with the utmost love and concern, even though as one straggling “lamb” they seem insignificant. What we have instead, in the new paradigm churches, are faithful “little ones” being booted for not supporting the corporate dreams of those who deem themselves important. This is a total reversal of what Jesus taught.
Unity of What?
Unity is a Biblical concept. But again, there is a huge difference in the concept of unity in a Biblically defined church and the new Purpose Driven Church. In the Bible, the goal is the unity of the faith: “until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13). The faith is the content of the gospel, including the entirety of the teaching as given by Christ and His Apostles: “Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). One cannot decide anything about what unity is to be preserved without first deciding what “the faith” is.
For example, at the time of the Reformation, Luther was considered a heretic, a schismatic whose efforts were directed against the unity of the church. From the perspective of Rome, he was. However, that assumes that the Roman church and her practices were truly in accord with the gospel and the teachings of Christ and His Apostles. Luther believed that they were not and that to find the unity of the faith, churches needed to be established based on the true means of grace. Both Luther and Calvin taught that true churches were those where the Word was purely taught and the sacraments were kept according to the Lord’s commandment. It is impossible to decide what constitutes a schismatic (one who causes divisions) without first deciding what constitutes a valid church!
Let us again consider Jude, where we were told to contend for the faith:
But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they were saying to you, “In the last time there shall be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.” These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit. (Jude 1:17-19)
According to this, the divisions are caused by world-minded people whose lusts indicate that they are not truly regenerate. They are departing from the faith that was delivered by Christ and His Apostles.
Elsewhere we see the same thing: “Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them” (Romans 16:17). Notice that division is that which is contrary to the apostolic teaching. Here is another example:
If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain (1Timothy 6:3-5).
Unity cannot be preserved when a clear Biblical understanding of sound doctrine is absent. The unity of the faith is not the same as the unity of a religious corporation. Luther brought us closer to the unity of the faith (because he brought the church closer to sound doctrine), even though he appeared at the time to be a schismatic. Religious corporations that exist to meet the needs of the maximum numbers of religious consumers move us away from the unity of the faith because preserving sound doctrine is not in their stated mission.
Let us consider “unity” as defined by the efficient, seeker oriented religious corporation. As already discussed, this model of church demands unity based on its mission statement and leadership. People who do not fit the plan must go. It is not necessary to prove someone a heretic or gross sinner to remove them from “fellowship.” In this system, they are removed for failing to promote the needs and goals of the religious corporation. In a secular corporation, that would be reasonable, but not in the church.
A secular corporation can determine its marketing goals, mission, and protocol, and legitimately remove those who refuse to cooperate with the corporate mission statement. But is this valid with the Church? The Bible defines the church and the doctrines of Christ and His apostles determine its unity. Church leaders who decide to truncate the Biblical definition for the sake of expediency and corporate success have no right to remove godly Christians for the “sin” of not being in unity with their man-made mission statement. They have no Biblical authority to do this.
Likewise Christians are pressured into entering man-made “covenants” that Rick Warren and others like him devise to insure that no dissenter can exist in their midst. This “covenant” becomes the test of unity and fellowship rather than “the faith once for delivered to the saints.” They achieve the unity of the religious corporation at the expense of the unity of the faith. This is wrong!
The Message of the Church
Jesus told his apostles what was to be the message of the church: “teaching them to observe all that I commanded you” (Matthew 28:20a). He did not say, “teach them those parts of my message that they think are relevant to their felt needs”! In the Luke account of the Great Commission Jesus said this: “and that repentance for forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47). A Biblically defined church preaches the gospel, including the need for repentance and proclaims the whole counsel of God as Paul did. Everything Jesus taught, including that which was written by His authoritative apostles in the New Testament, is to be taught. People who attend Biblically defined churches should soon become fully Biblically literate and able to defend the faith cogently. They should be so well trained in the truth of Scriptures that they have discernment (Hebrews 5:14).
In the new seeker paradigm churches the message is tailored to appeal to the largest possible audience. The goal is to build the visible church to be as large as it can get. Therefore, pastors lay aside those parts of the New Testament that are not deemed desirable or relevant by potential religious consumers. Evangelicals who adopt the Robert Schuler inspired version of creating a religious corporation do not deny any important doctrines. They just do not confess them publicly. They believe in a literal hell, they just do not preach it from the pulpit. They believe in the wrath of God against sin and the need for the blood atonement, but that is left out of the pulpit as well. Doctrine is privatized. It is relegated to a “statement of faith” on a website or made available elsewhere in case someone actually cares about such things.
In the new paradigm churches the orthodox “statement of faith” contains truths that the pastors do not care enough about to preach to their own congregations or to sinners. However, should someone in a discernment ministry challenge them about their teaching, they trot out their boiler plate orthodoxy to deflect criticism. What they fail to realize is that the many mainline protestant denominations that left orthodoxy during the modernist takeover of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries kept their orthodox statements of faith intact. They had no time for such foolish doctrines such as the virgin birth; but why needlessly start a fight by trying to change denominational confessions that were hundreds of years old? What is preached from the pulpit is a much better test of what is truly believed than a statement of faith.
Conclusion
Peter said this: “obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls” (1Peter 1:9). The “outcome based” corporate management churches judge their success vis-à-vis their mission statement based on measurable outcome. The only outcome they can measure very accurately is the number of people joining the visible church. The invisible church cannot be measured because it cannot be seen. The Biblically defined church seeks to nurture and grow the invisible church through the means of grace. Though we cannot know for sure who the elect are, we know for sure what means God uses to call people to Himself and sanctify them. If we faithfully provide those means, God will use them to nurture His flock which was purchased by the blood of Christ. The size of the visible church is not an important issue, but the existence and well being of the invisible one surely is.
The redefined church of the church growth movement has mostly ignored the matter of the invisible church. Like Rome and her benefactor Charlemagne, they use the best means available at the time to make the visible church as big as possible, even if the light of the truth is so dim that it is with difficulty anyone would be saved or sanctified. If happy religious consumers living better lives than they had outside of the church is the test of validity, then these huge and rapidly growing churches must be right. However, I do not believe there is anything in the New Testament that validates seeking to maximize the visible church by means that tend to strangle the invisible one.
Consider the inspired words of Paul: “Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things; for as you do this you will insure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you” (1Timothy 4:16). That is how you insure that there is a growing invisible church enrolled in heaven. Consider what Jesus told Peter: “Feed My sheep” (see John 21:15-17). Shall we obey God or shall we drink of the elixir of corporate success?
UPDATE ON PEG GREEN
We have an update on peg, things are starting to look up for her, the doctors may be taking her off the ventilator tonight, so she will be able to breath on her own. Lets keep her in our prayers, more updates will follow.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
ANY DAY NOW............
Stephanie Bivens and her husband Brian, who is our Music director are awaiting the birth of their second child. Stephanie's due date is 2-17-07.
So lets keep Mom & Dad in our prayers.
So lets keep Mom & Dad in our prayers.
PRAYING FOR PEG
I went to see Peg today, I spent over an hour with her, praying and reading scripture to her. she is still on a ventilator, the doctors are keeping her asleep for now. lets keep her in our prayers.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
BE PRAYING FOR PEG GREEN.
I spoke with peg's son Bob tonight, he told me she had a hard night last night but praise the Lord she came through it. Peg is still in ICU, so lets keep her in our prayers. I will be visiting Peg tomorrow.
THE STORY OF ST.VALENTINE. By Dr Phil Ryken
As Christians do we even know what love is all about, Iknow one thing that stands true in my life, And that is the greatest gift of LOVE ever given to me is when Almighty God drew me unto His Son Jesus Christ for Salvation. I pray that is also true for you this Valentines day. Charles J Paul
It would be nice to know the true story of Saint Valentine, but alas, it seems to have been lost somewhere in the mists of history. Hard facts are hard to come by. According to Catholic Online, “Valentine was a holy priest in Rome, who, with St. Marius and his family, assisted the martyrs in the persecution under Claudius II. He was apprehended, and sent by the emperor to the prefect of Rome,” where he was beaten with clubs and beheaded. This happened in the year A.D. 270 (although not necessarily on February 14, as one might have expected).
That much is probably true, but what’s love got to do with it? According to legend, Claudius had Valentine killed because he continued to marry young couples in secret even after the emperor had forbidden it, possibly because he wanted Roman soldiers to remain single. Because of his defiance to the emperor’s anti-marriage agenda, Valentine became the Patron Saint of Lovers.
This is not the only version of the story, however. Early manuscripts mention at least three different Saint Valentines, all of them martyrs. One is said to have been a third-century priest in Rome, another to have been a bishop from somewhere else, and a third to have come from somewhere in Africa.
According to one version of the story, Valentine antagonized the Roman Emperor by preaching the gospel and by giving aid to the victims of imperial persecution. He was arrested and thrown in prison. There—according to yet another legend—he fell in love with the jailor’s daughter. Some say that he cured her of her blindness. Others tell a similar story in connection with the imprisonment of Charles, Duke of Orleans, in 1415. But in any case, the story ends with the doomed lover pouring out his love to his beloved in passionate epistles, and before his execution sending one final letter, signed “From Your Valentine.”
There are also various explanations as to why Valentine’s Day should be associated with February 14. Some people say this tradition goes back to Roman times, and that it is connected to the erotic Roman festival of Lupercalia, when sexual partners would be drawn by lottery. Celebrating Valentine’s Day was the church’s attempt to sanctify this pagan revel. Others say the custom did not arise until the Middle Ages, when the middle of February was considered to be the time when songbirds began to pair off. As Geoffrey Chaucer has it in his Parliament of Fools:
For this was sent on Saint Valentine’s DayWhen every fowl cometh there to choose his mate.
There is, of course, nothing sacred about celebrating Valentine’s Day. On the one hand, the day does have its virtues. Certainly it must be said that most men need every encouragement to show tangible affection to the women they love. Are you surprised to learn that of the one billion Valentine cards that are exchanged each year, 83% of them are purchased by women? Not if you’ve been paying attention, you’re not. What could be more useful, therefore, than a holiday that encourages men to show a little romance?
Since at least the Fourteenth Century, Valentine’s Day has been an occasion for sending letters, flowers, and other tokens of personal affection. In the 1840’s people started sending commercially made Valentine’s Day cards, and in more recent times, it has become common to give jewelry and chocolates. Far be it from me or anyone else who wants people to stay in love to discourage these expressions of affection.
On the other hand, Valentine’s Day can be one of the hardest holidays of the year for people who get overlooked. At the same time that it embraces some people, Valentine’s Day gives other people the cold shoulder. And when romance is in the air, it is painfully isolating to be left out. So Valentine’s Day is a mixed blessing, at best.
Yet perhaps we can still make good use of the holiday by reflecting on some of its noble virtues. Whether they are true or not, the legends about Saint Valentine have a moral purpose.
Some of these legends encourage us to defend marriage. What threatens this God-given institution today is not some imperial edict, but the open acceptance of sexual relationships—whether heterosexual or homosexual—outside the sacred bonds of marriage. Valentine’s Day is a good time to remember that marriage is a gift from God, and that it consists of one man living in a love covenant with one woman for life (see Gen. 2:24; Mal. 2:14–16).
Other Valentine legends promote sexual purity. Today sexual partners are not determined by lottery, but given the casual coupling that goes on in some communities, they might as well be. As we live in this sexually self-destructive and pornographic society, we long for the union of passion and purity that makes for the truest romance. Valentine’s Day is a good time to remember that we were not made to engage “in sexual immorality and sensuality,” but to “put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires” (see Rom. 13:13–14).
Finally, the martyrdom of Saint Valentine encourages us to live for Christ, even to the point of sacrifice. Nowhere is this more necessary than in our romantic relationships. Especially for those of us who are husbands (or preparing to be husbands), Valentine’s Day is a good time to remember that we are called to love others more than ourselves, and to give ourselves in love through daily deeds of sacrificial service.
To think about these noble virtues is to be reminded of Jesus Christ, the lover of our souls. “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).
It would be nice to know the true story of Saint Valentine, but alas, it seems to have been lost somewhere in the mists of history. Hard facts are hard to come by. According to Catholic Online, “Valentine was a holy priest in Rome, who, with St. Marius and his family, assisted the martyrs in the persecution under Claudius II. He was apprehended, and sent by the emperor to the prefect of Rome,” where he was beaten with clubs and beheaded. This happened in the year A.D. 270 (although not necessarily on February 14, as one might have expected).
That much is probably true, but what’s love got to do with it? According to legend, Claudius had Valentine killed because he continued to marry young couples in secret even after the emperor had forbidden it, possibly because he wanted Roman soldiers to remain single. Because of his defiance to the emperor’s anti-marriage agenda, Valentine became the Patron Saint of Lovers.
This is not the only version of the story, however. Early manuscripts mention at least three different Saint Valentines, all of them martyrs. One is said to have been a third-century priest in Rome, another to have been a bishop from somewhere else, and a third to have come from somewhere in Africa.
According to one version of the story, Valentine antagonized the Roman Emperor by preaching the gospel and by giving aid to the victims of imperial persecution. He was arrested and thrown in prison. There—according to yet another legend—he fell in love with the jailor’s daughter. Some say that he cured her of her blindness. Others tell a similar story in connection with the imprisonment of Charles, Duke of Orleans, in 1415. But in any case, the story ends with the doomed lover pouring out his love to his beloved in passionate epistles, and before his execution sending one final letter, signed “From Your Valentine.”
There are also various explanations as to why Valentine’s Day should be associated with February 14. Some people say this tradition goes back to Roman times, and that it is connected to the erotic Roman festival of Lupercalia, when sexual partners would be drawn by lottery. Celebrating Valentine’s Day was the church’s attempt to sanctify this pagan revel. Others say the custom did not arise until the Middle Ages, when the middle of February was considered to be the time when songbirds began to pair off. As Geoffrey Chaucer has it in his Parliament of Fools:
For this was sent on Saint Valentine’s DayWhen every fowl cometh there to choose his mate.
There is, of course, nothing sacred about celebrating Valentine’s Day. On the one hand, the day does have its virtues. Certainly it must be said that most men need every encouragement to show tangible affection to the women they love. Are you surprised to learn that of the one billion Valentine cards that are exchanged each year, 83% of them are purchased by women? Not if you’ve been paying attention, you’re not. What could be more useful, therefore, than a holiday that encourages men to show a little romance?
Since at least the Fourteenth Century, Valentine’s Day has been an occasion for sending letters, flowers, and other tokens of personal affection. In the 1840’s people started sending commercially made Valentine’s Day cards, and in more recent times, it has become common to give jewelry and chocolates. Far be it from me or anyone else who wants people to stay in love to discourage these expressions of affection.
On the other hand, Valentine’s Day can be one of the hardest holidays of the year for people who get overlooked. At the same time that it embraces some people, Valentine’s Day gives other people the cold shoulder. And when romance is in the air, it is painfully isolating to be left out. So Valentine’s Day is a mixed blessing, at best.
Yet perhaps we can still make good use of the holiday by reflecting on some of its noble virtues. Whether they are true or not, the legends about Saint Valentine have a moral purpose.
Some of these legends encourage us to defend marriage. What threatens this God-given institution today is not some imperial edict, but the open acceptance of sexual relationships—whether heterosexual or homosexual—outside the sacred bonds of marriage. Valentine’s Day is a good time to remember that marriage is a gift from God, and that it consists of one man living in a love covenant with one woman for life (see Gen. 2:24; Mal. 2:14–16).
Other Valentine legends promote sexual purity. Today sexual partners are not determined by lottery, but given the casual coupling that goes on in some communities, they might as well be. As we live in this sexually self-destructive and pornographic society, we long for the union of passion and purity that makes for the truest romance. Valentine’s Day is a good time to remember that we were not made to engage “in sexual immorality and sensuality,” but to “put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires” (see Rom. 13:13–14).
Finally, the martyrdom of Saint Valentine encourages us to live for Christ, even to the point of sacrifice. Nowhere is this more necessary than in our romantic relationships. Especially for those of us who are husbands (or preparing to be husbands), Valentine’s Day is a good time to remember that we are called to love others more than ourselves, and to give ourselves in love through daily deeds of sacrificial service.
To think about these noble virtues is to be reminded of Jesus Christ, the lover of our souls. “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).
JESUS' PERSPECTIVE ON SOLA FIDE By John MacArthur
Jesus' Perspective on Sola Fide
By: John MacArthur
Many who have embraced "the New Perspective on Paul" are also proposing a different slant on the doctrine of justification by faith. When the text of Scripture is interpreted in the new light, they say, Pauline support for the principle of sola fide, the doctrine of imputation, and the distinction between law and gospel doesn't seem quite so strong.
We say that's nonsense. We reject the historical and hermeneutical revisionism of the New Perspective, but regardless of how one interprets the apostle Paul, it is quite clear that Jesus taught justification by faith alone. To abandon this truth is to abandon biblical soteriology altogether.
No doctrine is more important to evangelical theology than the doctrine of justification by faith alone—the Reformation principle of sola fide. Martin Luther rightly said that the church stands or falls on this one doctrine.
History provides plenty of objective evidence to affirm Luther's assessment. Churches and denominations that hold firmly to sola fide remain evangelical. Those who have strayed from the Reformation consensus on this point inevitably capitulate to liberalism, revert to sacerdotalism, embrace some form of perfectionism, or veer off into worse forms of apostasy.
The Very Essence Of Christianity
Historic evangelicalism has therefore always treated justification by faith as a central biblical distinctive—if not the single most important doctrine to get right. This is the doctrine that makes authentic Christianity distinct from every other religion. Christianity is the religion of divine accomplishment—with the emphasis always on Christ's finished work. All others are religions of human achievement. They become preoccupied, inevitably, with the sinner's own efforts to be holy. Abandon the doctrine of justification by faith and you cannot honestly claim to be evangelical.
Scripture itself makes sola fide the only alternative to a damning system of works-righteousness: "Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Rom. 4:4-5, emphasis added).
In other words, those who trust Jesus Christ for justification by faith alone receive a perfect righteousness that is reckoned to them. Those who attempt to establish their own righteousness or mix faith with works only receive the terrible wage that is due all who fall short of perfection. So the individual as well as the church stands or falls with the principle of sola fide. Israel's apostasy was rooted in their abandonment of justification by faith alone: "For not knowing about God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God" (Rom. 10:3).
Biblical justification must be earnestly defended on two fronts. No-lordship theology (the error we dealt with in the November/December issue of Pulpit) twists the doctrine of justification by faith to support the view that obedience to God's moral law is optional. This teaching attempts to reduce the whole of God's saving work to the declarative act of justification. It downplays the spiritual rebirth of regeneration (2 Cor. 5:17); it discounts the moral effects of the believer's new heart (Ezek. 36:26-27); and it makes sanctification hinge on the believer's own efforts. It tends to treat the forensic element of justification—God's act of declaring the believing sinner righteous—as if this were the only essential aspect of salvation. The inevitable effect of this approach is to turn the grace of God into licentiousness (Jude 4). Such a view is called antinomianism.
On the other hand, there are many who make justification dependent on a mixture of faith and works. Whereas antinomianism radically isolates justification from sanctification, this error blends the two aspects of God's saving work. The effect is to make justification a process grounded in the believer's own flawed righteousness—rather than a declarative act of God grounded in Christ's perfect righteousness.
As soon as justification is fused with sanctification, works of righteousness become an essential part of the process. Faith is thus diluted with works. Sola fide is abandoned. This was the error of the Galatian legalists (cf. Gal. 2:16; 5:4). Paul called it "a different gospel" (Gal. 1:6, 9). The same error is found in virtually every false cult. It's the main error of Roman Catholicism. I'm concerned that it may also be the direction many who are enthralled with "the New Perspective on Paul" are traveling.1
If doctrine as a whole has been ignored in our day, the doctrine of justification has suffered a particular neglect. Written works on justification are noticeably missing from the corpus of recent evangelical literature.2 In his introduction to the 1961 reprint of James Buchanan's landmark work, The Doctrine of Justification, J. I. Packer made note of this:
It is a fact of ominous significance that Buchanan's classic volume, now a century old, is the most recent full-scale study of justification by faith that English-speaking Protestantism (to look no further) has produced. If we may judge by the size of its literary output, there has never been an age of such feverish theological activity as the past hundred years; yet amid all its multifarious theological concerns it did not produce a single book of any size on the doctrine of justification. If all we knew of the church during the past century was that it had neglected the subject of justification in this way, we should already be in a position to conclude that this has been a century of religious apostasy and decline.3
Having neglected this doctrine for more than a century, evangelicals are ill-equipped to answer those who are saying Martin Luther and the Reformers misunderstood the apostle Paul and therefore got the doctrine of justification wrong.
The evangelical movement is on the verge of abandoning the material principle of the Reformation, and most evangelicals don't even see the threat and would have no answer cogent if they did.
What must we do to be saved? The apostle Paul answered that question for the Philippian jailer in the clearest possible terms: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved" (Acts 16:31).
Paul's key doctrinal epistles—especially Romans and Galatians—then expand on that answer, unfolding the doctrine of justification by faith to show how we are justified by faith alone apart from human works of any kind.
At least, that is the historic evangelical interpretation of Paul. But that's the very thing under attack by the New Perspective.
So what if we move beyond the apostle Paul? Is it possible to prove the principle of sola fide from the earthly teaching of Christ? It certainly is.
The Gospel According To Jesus
Although Christ made no formal explication of the doctrine of justification (such as Paul did in his epistle to the Romans), justification by faith underlies and permeates all His gospel preaching. While Jesus never gave a discourse on the subject, it is easy to demonstrate from Jesus' evangelistic ministry that He taught sola fide.
For example, it was Jesus Himself who stated, "he who hears My word, and believes . . . has passed out of death into life" (Jn. 5:24)—without undergoing any sacrament or ritual, and without any waiting period or purgatory. The thief on the cross is the classic example. On the most meager evidence of his faith, Jesus told him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise" (Lk. 23:43). No sacrament or work was required for him to procure salvation.
Furthermore, the many healings Jesus accomplished were physical evidence of His power to forgive sins (Matt. 9:5-6). When He healed, He frequently said, "Your faith has made you well" (Matt. 9:22; Mk. 5:34; 10:52; Lk. 8:48; 17:19; 18:42). All those healings were object lessons on the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
But the one occasion where Jesus actually declared someone "justified" provides the best insight into the doctrine as He taught it:
He also told this parable to certain ones who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee, and the other a tax-gatherer. The Pharisee stood and was praying thus to himself, 'God, I thank Thee that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax-gatherer. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.' But the tax-gatherer, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself shall be humbled, but he who humbles himself shall be exalted" (Luke 18:9-14, emphasis added).
That parable surely shocked Jesus' listeners! They "trusted in themselves that they were righteous" (v. 9)—the very definition of self-righteousness. Their theological heroes were the Pharisees, who held to the most rigid legalistic standards. They fasted, made a great show of praying and giving alms, and even went further in applying the ceremonial laws than Moses had actually prescribed.
Yet Jesus had stunned multitudes by saying, "Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:20)—followed by, "You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (v. 48). Clearly, He set a standard that was humanly impossible, for no one could surpass the rigorous living of the scribes and Pharisees.
Now He further astounds His listeners with a parable that seems to place a detestable tax-gatherer in a better position spiritually than a praying Pharisee.
Jesus' point is clear. He was teaching that justification is by faith alone. All the theology of justification is there. But without delving into abstract theology, Jesus clearly painted the picture for us with a parable.
A Judicial Act of God
This tax-gatherer's justification was an instantaneous reality. There was no process, no time lapse, no fear of purgatory. He "went down to his house justified" (v. 14)—not because of anything he had done, but because of what had been done on his behalf.
Notice that the tax-collector understood his own helplessness. He owed an impossible debt he knew he could not pay. All he could do was repent and plead for mercy. Contrast his prayer with that of the arrogant Pharisee. He did not recite what he had done. He knew that even his best works were sin. He did not offer to do anything for God. He simply pleaded for divine mercy. He was looking for God to do for him what he could not do for himself. That is the very nature of the penitence Jesus called for.
By Faith Alone
Furthermore, this man went away justified without performing any works of penance, without doing any sacrament or ritual, without any meritorious works whatsoever. His justification was complete without any of those things, because it was solely on the basis of faith. Everything necessary to atone for his sin and provide forgiveness had already been done on his behalf. He was justified by faith on the spot.
Again, he makes a stark contrast with the smug Pharisee, who was so certain that all his fasting and tithing and other works made him acceptable to God. But while the working Pharisee remained unjustified, the believing tax-gatherer received full justification by faith alone.
An Imputed Righteousness
Remember Jesus' statement from the Sermon on the Mount, "Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:20)? Yet now He states that this tax-gatherer—the most wicked of men—was justified! How did such a sinner obtain a righteousness that exceeded that of the Pharisee? If the standard is divine perfection (v. 48), how could a traitorous tax-collector ever become just in God's eyes?
The only possible answer is that he received a righteousness that was not his own (cf. Phil. 3:9). Righteousness was imputed to him by faith (Rom. 4:9-11).
Whose righteousness was reckoned to him? It could only be the perfect righteousness of a flawless Substitute, who in turn must bear the tax-gatherer's sins and suffer the penalty of God's wrath in his place. And the gospel tells us that is precisely what Jesus did.
The tax-gatherer was justified. God declared him righteous, imputing to him the full and perfect righteousness of Christ, forgiving him of all unrighteousness, and delivering him from all condemnation. Forever thereafter he stood before God on the ground of a perfect righteousness that had been reckoned to his account.
That is what justification means. It is the only true gospel. All other points of theology emanate from it. As Packer wrote, "The doctrine of justification by faith is like Atlas: it bears a world on its shoulders, the entire evangelical knowledge of saving grace."4 The difference between sola fide and every other formula for justification is not theological hair-splitting. A right understanding of justification by faith is the very foundation of the gospel. You cannot go wrong on this point without ultimately corrupting every other doctrine as well.
And that is why every "different gospel" is under the eternal curse of God.
By: John MacArthur
Many who have embraced "the New Perspective on Paul" are also proposing a different slant on the doctrine of justification by faith. When the text of Scripture is interpreted in the new light, they say, Pauline support for the principle of sola fide, the doctrine of imputation, and the distinction between law and gospel doesn't seem quite so strong.
We say that's nonsense. We reject the historical and hermeneutical revisionism of the New Perspective, but regardless of how one interprets the apostle Paul, it is quite clear that Jesus taught justification by faith alone. To abandon this truth is to abandon biblical soteriology altogether.
No doctrine is more important to evangelical theology than the doctrine of justification by faith alone—the Reformation principle of sola fide. Martin Luther rightly said that the church stands or falls on this one doctrine.
History provides plenty of objective evidence to affirm Luther's assessment. Churches and denominations that hold firmly to sola fide remain evangelical. Those who have strayed from the Reformation consensus on this point inevitably capitulate to liberalism, revert to sacerdotalism, embrace some form of perfectionism, or veer off into worse forms of apostasy.
The Very Essence Of Christianity
Historic evangelicalism has therefore always treated justification by faith as a central biblical distinctive—if not the single most important doctrine to get right. This is the doctrine that makes authentic Christianity distinct from every other religion. Christianity is the religion of divine accomplishment—with the emphasis always on Christ's finished work. All others are religions of human achievement. They become preoccupied, inevitably, with the sinner's own efforts to be holy. Abandon the doctrine of justification by faith and you cannot honestly claim to be evangelical.
Scripture itself makes sola fide the only alternative to a damning system of works-righteousness: "Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Rom. 4:4-5, emphasis added).
In other words, those who trust Jesus Christ for justification by faith alone receive a perfect righteousness that is reckoned to them. Those who attempt to establish their own righteousness or mix faith with works only receive the terrible wage that is due all who fall short of perfection. So the individual as well as the church stands or falls with the principle of sola fide. Israel's apostasy was rooted in their abandonment of justification by faith alone: "For not knowing about God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God" (Rom. 10:3).
Biblical justification must be earnestly defended on two fronts. No-lordship theology (the error we dealt with in the November/December issue of Pulpit) twists the doctrine of justification by faith to support the view that obedience to God's moral law is optional. This teaching attempts to reduce the whole of God's saving work to the declarative act of justification. It downplays the spiritual rebirth of regeneration (2 Cor. 5:17); it discounts the moral effects of the believer's new heart (Ezek. 36:26-27); and it makes sanctification hinge on the believer's own efforts. It tends to treat the forensic element of justification—God's act of declaring the believing sinner righteous—as if this were the only essential aspect of salvation. The inevitable effect of this approach is to turn the grace of God into licentiousness (Jude 4). Such a view is called antinomianism.
On the other hand, there are many who make justification dependent on a mixture of faith and works. Whereas antinomianism radically isolates justification from sanctification, this error blends the two aspects of God's saving work. The effect is to make justification a process grounded in the believer's own flawed righteousness—rather than a declarative act of God grounded in Christ's perfect righteousness.
As soon as justification is fused with sanctification, works of righteousness become an essential part of the process. Faith is thus diluted with works. Sola fide is abandoned. This was the error of the Galatian legalists (cf. Gal. 2:16; 5:4). Paul called it "a different gospel" (Gal. 1:6, 9). The same error is found in virtually every false cult. It's the main error of Roman Catholicism. I'm concerned that it may also be the direction many who are enthralled with "the New Perspective on Paul" are traveling.1
If doctrine as a whole has been ignored in our day, the doctrine of justification has suffered a particular neglect. Written works on justification are noticeably missing from the corpus of recent evangelical literature.2 In his introduction to the 1961 reprint of James Buchanan's landmark work, The Doctrine of Justification, J. I. Packer made note of this:
It is a fact of ominous significance that Buchanan's classic volume, now a century old, is the most recent full-scale study of justification by faith that English-speaking Protestantism (to look no further) has produced. If we may judge by the size of its literary output, there has never been an age of such feverish theological activity as the past hundred years; yet amid all its multifarious theological concerns it did not produce a single book of any size on the doctrine of justification. If all we knew of the church during the past century was that it had neglected the subject of justification in this way, we should already be in a position to conclude that this has been a century of religious apostasy and decline.3
Having neglected this doctrine for more than a century, evangelicals are ill-equipped to answer those who are saying Martin Luther and the Reformers misunderstood the apostle Paul and therefore got the doctrine of justification wrong.
The evangelical movement is on the verge of abandoning the material principle of the Reformation, and most evangelicals don't even see the threat and would have no answer cogent if they did.
What must we do to be saved? The apostle Paul answered that question for the Philippian jailer in the clearest possible terms: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved" (Acts 16:31).
Paul's key doctrinal epistles—especially Romans and Galatians—then expand on that answer, unfolding the doctrine of justification by faith to show how we are justified by faith alone apart from human works of any kind.
At least, that is the historic evangelical interpretation of Paul. But that's the very thing under attack by the New Perspective.
So what if we move beyond the apostle Paul? Is it possible to prove the principle of sola fide from the earthly teaching of Christ? It certainly is.
The Gospel According To Jesus
Although Christ made no formal explication of the doctrine of justification (such as Paul did in his epistle to the Romans), justification by faith underlies and permeates all His gospel preaching. While Jesus never gave a discourse on the subject, it is easy to demonstrate from Jesus' evangelistic ministry that He taught sola fide.
For example, it was Jesus Himself who stated, "he who hears My word, and believes . . . has passed out of death into life" (Jn. 5:24)—without undergoing any sacrament or ritual, and without any waiting period or purgatory. The thief on the cross is the classic example. On the most meager evidence of his faith, Jesus told him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise" (Lk. 23:43). No sacrament or work was required for him to procure salvation.
Furthermore, the many healings Jesus accomplished were physical evidence of His power to forgive sins (Matt. 9:5-6). When He healed, He frequently said, "Your faith has made you well" (Matt. 9:22; Mk. 5:34; 10:52; Lk. 8:48; 17:19; 18:42). All those healings were object lessons on the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
But the one occasion where Jesus actually declared someone "justified" provides the best insight into the doctrine as He taught it:
He also told this parable to certain ones who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee, and the other a tax-gatherer. The Pharisee stood and was praying thus to himself, 'God, I thank Thee that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax-gatherer. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.' But the tax-gatherer, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself shall be humbled, but he who humbles himself shall be exalted" (Luke 18:9-14, emphasis added).
That parable surely shocked Jesus' listeners! They "trusted in themselves that they were righteous" (v. 9)—the very definition of self-righteousness. Their theological heroes were the Pharisees, who held to the most rigid legalistic standards. They fasted, made a great show of praying and giving alms, and even went further in applying the ceremonial laws than Moses had actually prescribed.
Yet Jesus had stunned multitudes by saying, "Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:20)—followed by, "You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (v. 48). Clearly, He set a standard that was humanly impossible, for no one could surpass the rigorous living of the scribes and Pharisees.
Now He further astounds His listeners with a parable that seems to place a detestable tax-gatherer in a better position spiritually than a praying Pharisee.
Jesus' point is clear. He was teaching that justification is by faith alone. All the theology of justification is there. But without delving into abstract theology, Jesus clearly painted the picture for us with a parable.
A Judicial Act of God
This tax-gatherer's justification was an instantaneous reality. There was no process, no time lapse, no fear of purgatory. He "went down to his house justified" (v. 14)—not because of anything he had done, but because of what had been done on his behalf.
Notice that the tax-collector understood his own helplessness. He owed an impossible debt he knew he could not pay. All he could do was repent and plead for mercy. Contrast his prayer with that of the arrogant Pharisee. He did not recite what he had done. He knew that even his best works were sin. He did not offer to do anything for God. He simply pleaded for divine mercy. He was looking for God to do for him what he could not do for himself. That is the very nature of the penitence Jesus called for.
By Faith Alone
Furthermore, this man went away justified without performing any works of penance, without doing any sacrament or ritual, without any meritorious works whatsoever. His justification was complete without any of those things, because it was solely on the basis of faith. Everything necessary to atone for his sin and provide forgiveness had already been done on his behalf. He was justified by faith on the spot.
Again, he makes a stark contrast with the smug Pharisee, who was so certain that all his fasting and tithing and other works made him acceptable to God. But while the working Pharisee remained unjustified, the believing tax-gatherer received full justification by faith alone.
An Imputed Righteousness
Remember Jesus' statement from the Sermon on the Mount, "Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:20)? Yet now He states that this tax-gatherer—the most wicked of men—was justified! How did such a sinner obtain a righteousness that exceeded that of the Pharisee? If the standard is divine perfection (v. 48), how could a traitorous tax-collector ever become just in God's eyes?
The only possible answer is that he received a righteousness that was not his own (cf. Phil. 3:9). Righteousness was imputed to him by faith (Rom. 4:9-11).
Whose righteousness was reckoned to him? It could only be the perfect righteousness of a flawless Substitute, who in turn must bear the tax-gatherer's sins and suffer the penalty of God's wrath in his place. And the gospel tells us that is precisely what Jesus did.
The tax-gatherer was justified. God declared him righteous, imputing to him the full and perfect righteousness of Christ, forgiving him of all unrighteousness, and delivering him from all condemnation. Forever thereafter he stood before God on the ground of a perfect righteousness that had been reckoned to his account.
That is what justification means. It is the only true gospel. All other points of theology emanate from it. As Packer wrote, "The doctrine of justification by faith is like Atlas: it bears a world on its shoulders, the entire evangelical knowledge of saving grace."4 The difference between sola fide and every other formula for justification is not theological hair-splitting. A right understanding of justification by faith is the very foundation of the gospel. You cannot go wrong on this point without ultimately corrupting every other doctrine as well.
And that is why every "different gospel" is under the eternal curse of God.
Monday, February 12, 2007
GREAT NEW BLOG SITE
Check out Joe Morrison's blog site, for those of you who do not know Joe is my executive minister. His site is found on our front page @ www.phillycommunitychurch.org
HOW IS THE TENTHWOMEN CONFERENCE LIKE THE LIBERTY BELL?????
This posting is from the office at Tenth Church.
Jessie Bible sent this in:In the Philly region we have great treasures – like the Liberty Bell – that people come from all over to see. But often the locals don’t come. I, for one, have never been to many of our cities treasures. Sometimes I feel bad about this, and I resolve to go – but I never find the time.The TenthWomen Conference, “Living the Gospel in Relationships” is somewhat like that. Our speaker, Tara Barthel, is nationally recognized for the deep and practical biblical teaching she gives – particularly in the area of biblical peacemaking and conflict resolution.I’ve had contacts from far and wide about this event. Today I was contacted by a woman from Connecticut who wants to bring a group of women. Last week we received registrations from Mechanicsburg PA. But, to date, over 50% of the registrations we’ve received are from women outside the Tenth community. It would truly be a shame if women at Tenth missed out on this great opportunity.Do you have conflict? Do you ever feel overwhelmed? Does your life feel anything but peaceful? Do you want to see change, but have no idea how to do it? Or perhaps you know how, but do you find that you just can’t live out what you know to be true?If you could receive biblical teaching that could transform your life in these areas, wouldn’t you make every effort to go? I know that our Saturdays are often chock-full of things to do. But I encourage you to do whatever you need to do in order to attend this event. I promise you’ll be glad you did.For more information, and to hear a 15 minute interview with our speaker, go to http://www.tenth.org/index.php?id=127The registration deadline is 2/18 if you want to eat a catered lunch (from Marathon Grill!) on site. You can also register at the door on 2/24. If you register at the door, you must either bring your own lunch or else eat at an area restaurant. (Note that our lunch period is only 1 hour this year rather than 1 ½ hours as in prior years).
Jessie Bible sent this in:In the Philly region we have great treasures – like the Liberty Bell – that people come from all over to see. But often the locals don’t come. I, for one, have never been to many of our cities treasures. Sometimes I feel bad about this, and I resolve to go – but I never find the time.The TenthWomen Conference, “Living the Gospel in Relationships” is somewhat like that. Our speaker, Tara Barthel, is nationally recognized for the deep and practical biblical teaching she gives – particularly in the area of biblical peacemaking and conflict resolution.I’ve had contacts from far and wide about this event. Today I was contacted by a woman from Connecticut who wants to bring a group of women. Last week we received registrations from Mechanicsburg PA. But, to date, over 50% of the registrations we’ve received are from women outside the Tenth community. It would truly be a shame if women at Tenth missed out on this great opportunity.Do you have conflict? Do you ever feel overwhelmed? Does your life feel anything but peaceful? Do you want to see change, but have no idea how to do it? Or perhaps you know how, but do you find that you just can’t live out what you know to be true?If you could receive biblical teaching that could transform your life in these areas, wouldn’t you make every effort to go? I know that our Saturdays are often chock-full of things to do. But I encourage you to do whatever you need to do in order to attend this event. I promise you’ll be glad you did.For more information, and to hear a 15 minute interview with our speaker, go to http://www.tenth.org/index.php?id=127The registration deadline is 2/18 if you want to eat a catered lunch (from Marathon Grill!) on site. You can also register at the door on 2/24. If you register at the door, you must either bring your own lunch or else eat at an area restaurant. (Note that our lunch period is only 1 hour this year rather than 1 ½ hours as in prior years).
UPDATE ON PEG GREEN
I spoke with her son Bob today, who told me they had to put the breathing tube back into Peg to help her. She is still in ICU and is resting. Bob will update us with more news. Please check back for his comments.
Please keep Peg in your prayers along with her family.
Please keep Peg in your prayers along with her family.
WHAT IS THE PASTOR'S HEART?
What is the Pastor’s Heart?
by Dr. Ken Matto
Whenever we speak of the Pastor’s heart, we normally think of a person who has a genuine calling on their life to shepherd a flock of God’s people. We would normally think of them as having a gentle spirit, one who has the spirit of being able to sit with a person and listen to them unfold their lives. We find them to be able to counsel a person one on one or the whole congregation from the pulpit. We would hope he would be a person who could be trusted with confidential information. We would see him as a leader of the church who has the ability to guide and to teach with all biblical absolutes and one who is not owned and operated by a certain group or persons in the church and that he would be unbiased in his decisions. We would also expect him to respond to a crisis or commiserate in sadness. We would also expect him to be a man who would aptly teach the Word of God. So basically, this is how we would normally structure our view on what a pastor should be like.
The question now arises, is there any phase or phases of pastoral leadership which have been left out or neglected? I believe there are some very important characteristics which have been eluded when considering the heart of the pastor. These characteristics have long been put out to pasture resulting in the death of the true church.
(1 Sam 17:34-36 KJV) And David said unto Saul, Thy servant kept his father's sheep, and there came a lion, and a bear, and took a lamb out of the flock: {35} And I went out after him, and smote him, and delivered it out of his mouth: and when he arose against me, I caught him by his beard, and smote him, and slew him. {36} Thy servant slew both the lion and the bear: and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them, seeing he hath defied the armies of the living God.
(1 Pet 5:8 KJV) Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
(Rev 13:2 KJV) And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
(Prov 28:15 KJV) As a roaring lion, and a ranging bear; so is a wicked ruler over the poor people.
Here in these four verses we find that a lion and a bear refer to Satan and his emissaries as they come against the church of Christ. In the Samuel passage we see that when David was tending his father’s sheep when both a lion and bear took one of the lambs out of the flock to devour it. We see that David went right after the lion and bear, which would be risking his own life, to retrieve that lamb from the jaws of death.
Now let us look at the spiritual meaning of that passage which would be of great interest to us. First, we look at the lamb. The lamb would be representing a believer. (Luke 10:3 KJV) Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves. We see that the Lord Jesus Christ views His children as lambs. We see that term "father’s sheep." This term would represent the position of the believer that we belong to God the Father. We also see that both the bear and the lion represent Satan who comes against the church. David would also represent the Lord Jesus Christ here in that He went after Satan to retrieve His elect from the kingdom of Satan. Should the pastor of a local congregation do any less?
These passages give us some good insight as to what a shepherd or pastor should be doing. I want to give some other duties which the pastor must do to keep his flock intact. If these duties are avoided then the pastor has proven he is just another hand-picked, valueless, establishment pastor who is in it for the free ride.
"If a sheep stray from the flock, the shepherd sets his dog after it, not to devour it, but to bring it in again; even so our Heavenly Shepherd." -Daniel Cawdray
Biblical Instructor
(Acts 20:27 KJV) For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
A true pastor is supposed to be one who is a good biblical instructor not fearing the congregation when he wants to or needs to speak on a certain subject. He is to proclaim the full counsel of God which means he is to teach as strongly on hell as well as heaven, the holiness of God as well as the love of God. He is to teach all aspects of Scripture and is not to shun any part nor skip passages of Scripture unless, in all honesty, he has not done a full study and would be speculating. He is to teach from the Scriptures alone and not adulterate the teachings with outside sources such as theology books, theologians, magazines, or other publications. He is to compare Scripture with Scripture. He should also be using a King James Version, since it is the best version. The modern versions just engender confusion especially when you have ten different versions in one congregation.
Protector
(Acts 20:29 KJV) For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
We saw in our passages from 1 Samuel 17 that when the bear and lion came into the flock that David was keeping, he immediately went after those beasts with the job of freeing the lamb and bringing it back to safety. The pastor must have the same mindset in protecting his flock. He must be vigilant in protecting his flock from false gospels coming into the church. If a person comes into the church with some type of false gospel, then he needs to address it immediately. The best way to protect his flock from the incursion of false gospels is to escort the person out and in this way the false gospel will have been expunged. If he does not deal with it immediately, then the poison will spread and there will eventually be a divided congregation which will lead to a great church upheaval and a church split. 2 different gospels cannot survive inside the same building. I know this from experience. The problem is too many pastors sacrifice truth for the sake of the phony love being propagated in the church. Would you let a bank robber in your house with a gun and say he is welcome because you love him? Then why would you want a soul stealer in your church with a false gospel? Protect your sheep at all cost because this is your calling.
Battle worthy
(Deu 20:1 KJV) When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the LORD thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
Every true pastor will realize that the battle against truth comes from two places: Outside the church and inside the church. The pastor is one who must be prepared for the battle which WILL come against him but in reality it is against Christ and the church. He is not to acquiesce but is to remain firm in the truth even if it means some will leave the church. The minute a compromise is made, there begins a breach in the strength of the church. For a pastor to be battle worthy he must be strong and remain strong in the Scriptures.
Fearless
(Jer 1:8 KJV) Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the LORD.
As David did not fear the bear and the lion, the pastor must not fear the power brokers, the cliques, or the good givers in the church. When the pastor encounters a problem in the church, he must face that problem no matter who is doing it. There can be no respecter of persons. All should be equal. When you look at a herd of sheep, what do you notice? The first thing I notice is that they all look alike. Some may have imperfections, some may be smaller or larger but nevertheless they all look alike. This is how the congregation must look to the pastor, none are more or less important than the other, no matter who they are. Remember, all God’s children are precious and of equal value to Him and are to be treated equally by the pastor. Playing favorites is an abomination unto the Lord.
Pursuer
(Mat 18:12 KJV) How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
How many times have you seen people leave a church and the pastor and elders do nothing about it except say oh well, let them go. The true pastor will investigate as to why a person wants to leave the church and will even go to their home. Maybe something is happening in the church that the pastor does not know about. When a person leaves the church it is a serious matter and an indictment against that assembly if the person left for legitimate reasons. The pastor must go after the sheep as the one who lost the 1 and left the 99. There may be a misunderstanding and if it is not addressed, bad feelings will be generated and an atmosphere of acrimony will arise. Whatever the reason or excuse a person gives for leaving, it should be addressed by the pastor for further edification and to be able to identify the problem and head it off at the pass if it happens again.
Not Afraid to Discipline
(Mat 18:15 KJV) Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
There should be no fear on the pastor’s part to do unbiased discipline in the church. I use the word unbiased because the pastor and elders should not only admonish the one in poor clothing but also the one in the $400 suit who sits up front. If a person needs to be disciplined, then it must be done not only for the person’s spiritual benefit but as an example to others in the church. There is no church discipline anymore and this is why we have such free thinking congregations with multiple gospels inside the four walls. If discipline is initiated at the point an infraction is discovered it saves the person and congregation much heartache.
Summary
(Jer 10:21 KJV) For the pastors are become brutish, and have not sought the LORD: therefore they shall not prosper, and all their flocks shall be scattered.
The word "brutish" means irrational or stupid." There are many churches out there under the condemnation of God because the leadership has chosen to do things the way of the world instead of leading the church in a biblical manner. The heart of the true pastor will always seek the way of the Lord and allow the Bible to be their guide. When a pastor deals with his congregation in an equal manner towards all, there is a good chance that church will be a faithful church unless it is founded on a false gospel. In that case then, it doesn’t matter what they do. They are founded on sand. When a pastor allows 2 gospels to remain inside a single church, they have become brutish and has total disregard for the truth and that means they do not possess the true pastor’s heart. There is much more to being a pastor than just walking around with a smile and appeasing everyone. God requires him to be walking and leading in truth. If they do not, they should be fired. If you run a business and have an employee which is not performing the duties they were hired to do, you get rid of them. The modern church is the only entity on earth that rewards faithlessness with a raise, car, and a house.
by Dr. Ken Matto
Whenever we speak of the Pastor’s heart, we normally think of a person who has a genuine calling on their life to shepherd a flock of God’s people. We would normally think of them as having a gentle spirit, one who has the spirit of being able to sit with a person and listen to them unfold their lives. We find them to be able to counsel a person one on one or the whole congregation from the pulpit. We would hope he would be a person who could be trusted with confidential information. We would see him as a leader of the church who has the ability to guide and to teach with all biblical absolutes and one who is not owned and operated by a certain group or persons in the church and that he would be unbiased in his decisions. We would also expect him to respond to a crisis or commiserate in sadness. We would also expect him to be a man who would aptly teach the Word of God. So basically, this is how we would normally structure our view on what a pastor should be like.
The question now arises, is there any phase or phases of pastoral leadership which have been left out or neglected? I believe there are some very important characteristics which have been eluded when considering the heart of the pastor. These characteristics have long been put out to pasture resulting in the death of the true church.
(1 Sam 17:34-36 KJV) And David said unto Saul, Thy servant kept his father's sheep, and there came a lion, and a bear, and took a lamb out of the flock: {35} And I went out after him, and smote him, and delivered it out of his mouth: and when he arose against me, I caught him by his beard, and smote him, and slew him. {36} Thy servant slew both the lion and the bear: and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them, seeing he hath defied the armies of the living God.
(1 Pet 5:8 KJV) Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
(Rev 13:2 KJV) And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
(Prov 28:15 KJV) As a roaring lion, and a ranging bear; so is a wicked ruler over the poor people.
Here in these four verses we find that a lion and a bear refer to Satan and his emissaries as they come against the church of Christ. In the Samuel passage we see that when David was tending his father’s sheep when both a lion and bear took one of the lambs out of the flock to devour it. We see that David went right after the lion and bear, which would be risking his own life, to retrieve that lamb from the jaws of death.
Now let us look at the spiritual meaning of that passage which would be of great interest to us. First, we look at the lamb. The lamb would be representing a believer. (Luke 10:3 KJV) Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves. We see that the Lord Jesus Christ views His children as lambs. We see that term "father’s sheep." This term would represent the position of the believer that we belong to God the Father. We also see that both the bear and the lion represent Satan who comes against the church. David would also represent the Lord Jesus Christ here in that He went after Satan to retrieve His elect from the kingdom of Satan. Should the pastor of a local congregation do any less?
These passages give us some good insight as to what a shepherd or pastor should be doing. I want to give some other duties which the pastor must do to keep his flock intact. If these duties are avoided then the pastor has proven he is just another hand-picked, valueless, establishment pastor who is in it for the free ride.
"If a sheep stray from the flock, the shepherd sets his dog after it, not to devour it, but to bring it in again; even so our Heavenly Shepherd." -Daniel Cawdray
Biblical Instructor
(Acts 20:27 KJV) For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
A true pastor is supposed to be one who is a good biblical instructor not fearing the congregation when he wants to or needs to speak on a certain subject. He is to proclaim the full counsel of God which means he is to teach as strongly on hell as well as heaven, the holiness of God as well as the love of God. He is to teach all aspects of Scripture and is not to shun any part nor skip passages of Scripture unless, in all honesty, he has not done a full study and would be speculating. He is to teach from the Scriptures alone and not adulterate the teachings with outside sources such as theology books, theologians, magazines, or other publications. He is to compare Scripture with Scripture. He should also be using a King James Version, since it is the best version. The modern versions just engender confusion especially when you have ten different versions in one congregation.
Protector
(Acts 20:29 KJV) For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
We saw in our passages from 1 Samuel 17 that when the bear and lion came into the flock that David was keeping, he immediately went after those beasts with the job of freeing the lamb and bringing it back to safety. The pastor must have the same mindset in protecting his flock. He must be vigilant in protecting his flock from false gospels coming into the church. If a person comes into the church with some type of false gospel, then he needs to address it immediately. The best way to protect his flock from the incursion of false gospels is to escort the person out and in this way the false gospel will have been expunged. If he does not deal with it immediately, then the poison will spread and there will eventually be a divided congregation which will lead to a great church upheaval and a church split. 2 different gospels cannot survive inside the same building. I know this from experience. The problem is too many pastors sacrifice truth for the sake of the phony love being propagated in the church. Would you let a bank robber in your house with a gun and say he is welcome because you love him? Then why would you want a soul stealer in your church with a false gospel? Protect your sheep at all cost because this is your calling.
Battle worthy
(Deu 20:1 KJV) When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the LORD thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
Every true pastor will realize that the battle against truth comes from two places: Outside the church and inside the church. The pastor is one who must be prepared for the battle which WILL come against him but in reality it is against Christ and the church. He is not to acquiesce but is to remain firm in the truth even if it means some will leave the church. The minute a compromise is made, there begins a breach in the strength of the church. For a pastor to be battle worthy he must be strong and remain strong in the Scriptures.
Fearless
(Jer 1:8 KJV) Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the LORD.
As David did not fear the bear and the lion, the pastor must not fear the power brokers, the cliques, or the good givers in the church. When the pastor encounters a problem in the church, he must face that problem no matter who is doing it. There can be no respecter of persons. All should be equal. When you look at a herd of sheep, what do you notice? The first thing I notice is that they all look alike. Some may have imperfections, some may be smaller or larger but nevertheless they all look alike. This is how the congregation must look to the pastor, none are more or less important than the other, no matter who they are. Remember, all God’s children are precious and of equal value to Him and are to be treated equally by the pastor. Playing favorites is an abomination unto the Lord.
Pursuer
(Mat 18:12 KJV) How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
How many times have you seen people leave a church and the pastor and elders do nothing about it except say oh well, let them go. The true pastor will investigate as to why a person wants to leave the church and will even go to their home. Maybe something is happening in the church that the pastor does not know about. When a person leaves the church it is a serious matter and an indictment against that assembly if the person left for legitimate reasons. The pastor must go after the sheep as the one who lost the 1 and left the 99. There may be a misunderstanding and if it is not addressed, bad feelings will be generated and an atmosphere of acrimony will arise. Whatever the reason or excuse a person gives for leaving, it should be addressed by the pastor for further edification and to be able to identify the problem and head it off at the pass if it happens again.
Not Afraid to Discipline
(Mat 18:15 KJV) Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
There should be no fear on the pastor’s part to do unbiased discipline in the church. I use the word unbiased because the pastor and elders should not only admonish the one in poor clothing but also the one in the $400 suit who sits up front. If a person needs to be disciplined, then it must be done not only for the person’s spiritual benefit but as an example to others in the church. There is no church discipline anymore and this is why we have such free thinking congregations with multiple gospels inside the four walls. If discipline is initiated at the point an infraction is discovered it saves the person and congregation much heartache.
Summary
(Jer 10:21 KJV) For the pastors are become brutish, and have not sought the LORD: therefore they shall not prosper, and all their flocks shall be scattered.
The word "brutish" means irrational or stupid." There are many churches out there under the condemnation of God because the leadership has chosen to do things the way of the world instead of leading the church in a biblical manner. The heart of the true pastor will always seek the way of the Lord and allow the Bible to be their guide. When a pastor deals with his congregation in an equal manner towards all, there is a good chance that church will be a faithful church unless it is founded on a false gospel. In that case then, it doesn’t matter what they do. They are founded on sand. When a pastor allows 2 gospels to remain inside a single church, they have become brutish and has total disregard for the truth and that means they do not possess the true pastor’s heart. There is much more to being a pastor than just walking around with a smile and appeasing everyone. God requires him to be walking and leading in truth. If they do not, they should be fired. If you run a business and have an employee which is not performing the duties they were hired to do, you get rid of them. The modern church is the only entity on earth that rewards faithlessness with a raise, car, and a house.
WELCOME TOM & DANA
I want to welcome Tom and Dana Kim, who have been attending PCC for the last two weeks. I pray that we can be a blessing to each other as we aim to bring Glory to Christ alone.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
PLEASE PRAY FOR JACKIE WILLIAMS By Benji Wood
Visitation Update: 02/11/07
Jackie Williams has been suffering with cancer for quite some time now, and just recently the treatments have ceased. Each week members of the Philadelphia Community Church visit her at Philadelphia Nursing Home following the close of our Sunday service. It has been a great encouragement to her, as evidenced by her increased enthusiasm each time for fellowship and prayer. During the visits, we sing worship songs together and take time to read the Bible. Today two of her eight children came in as we were beginning to read 1 John and she excitedly asked that we read together before we left her to have private time with her kids. Even when we arrived, she was attending a church service offered at the nursing home. She has been up and about, walking herself down to hear the word of God! It is exciting to see what God is doing in her life. Please join us in praying for her continued growth in her relationship with God and for the salvation of her family.
Jackie Williams has been suffering with cancer for quite some time now, and just recently the treatments have ceased. Each week members of the Philadelphia Community Church visit her at Philadelphia Nursing Home following the close of our Sunday service. It has been a great encouragement to her, as evidenced by her increased enthusiasm each time for fellowship and prayer. During the visits, we sing worship songs together and take time to read the Bible. Today two of her eight children came in as we were beginning to read 1 John and she excitedly asked that we read together before we left her to have private time with her kids. Even when we arrived, she was attending a church service offered at the nursing home. She has been up and about, walking herself down to hear the word of God! It is exciting to see what God is doing in her life. Please join us in praying for her continued growth in her relationship with God and for the salvation of her family.
FROM THE DESK OF JOSEPH J. MORRISON
from the desk of the
Executive Minister
Joseph J. Morrison, Jr.
Last week I had the privilege to accompany Pastor Chuck Paul to the Newtown Reformed Church. He was invited as the guest speaker.
During the move from the old facility, several members from Newtown Reformed Church volunteered, and during the move indicated they had listened to some of Pastor Chuck sermons from the website and wanted him to come preach at their church. We learned that they were currently without a pastor and were inviting preachers and students from around the area to come an assist with Sunday service.
When we arrived, we were warmly greeted and recognized several of the people who had helped out with our move. Approximately 35-40 people arrived to worship, and Pastor Chuck conducted the entire service, which was a fairly traditional Order of Worship.
Then, Pastor Chuck got up to preach, expositing a text from Galatians 3:
1-3. He entitled the sermon Faith Beyond Foolishness. From his opening statement to the closing prayer, Pastor Chuck was filled with the Holy Spirit. He shared how preachers, and those who are called to stand at the “Holy Desk” must not only take this calling seriously, but also be so faithful to, engaged in, and careful with, God’s Holy Word that they almost “leave a trail of blood” up the aisle and to the pulpit because they have been cut to the marrow in struggling to reveal God’s Holy Truth.
It appeared to me that the congregation had not heard such powerful and passionate preaching in a long time. One person, after the service, commented “I’ve been here 13 years, and have never heard anything like that.” We took that as a good sign, and felt that Pastor Chuck had hit the mark, since, as we were leaving, we were called back into the office and told “There’s a rumor going around. Everyone really liked you, Pastor, and what you had to say. The rumor is they’d like to have you come back.” Pastor Chuck agreed, chose a date in April, and will be returning with even more passionate preaching next time.
Executive Minister
Joseph J. Morrison, Jr.
Last week I had the privilege to accompany Pastor Chuck Paul to the Newtown Reformed Church. He was invited as the guest speaker.
During the move from the old facility, several members from Newtown Reformed Church volunteered, and during the move indicated they had listened to some of Pastor Chuck sermons from the website and wanted him to come preach at their church. We learned that they were currently without a pastor and were inviting preachers and students from around the area to come an assist with Sunday service.
When we arrived, we were warmly greeted and recognized several of the people who had helped out with our move. Approximately 35-40 people arrived to worship, and Pastor Chuck conducted the entire service, which was a fairly traditional Order of Worship.
Then, Pastor Chuck got up to preach, expositing a text from Galatians 3:
1-3. He entitled the sermon Faith Beyond Foolishness. From his opening statement to the closing prayer, Pastor Chuck was filled with the Holy Spirit. He shared how preachers, and those who are called to stand at the “Holy Desk” must not only take this calling seriously, but also be so faithful to, engaged in, and careful with, God’s Holy Word that they almost “leave a trail of blood” up the aisle and to the pulpit because they have been cut to the marrow in struggling to reveal God’s Holy Truth.
It appeared to me that the congregation had not heard such powerful and passionate preaching in a long time. One person, after the service, commented “I’ve been here 13 years, and have never heard anything like that.” We took that as a good sign, and felt that Pastor Chuck had hit the mark, since, as we were leaving, we were called back into the office and told “There’s a rumor going around. Everyone really liked you, Pastor, and what you had to say. The rumor is they’d like to have you come back.” Pastor Chuck agreed, chose a date in April, and will be returning with even more passionate preaching next time.
YES, GOD IS GOOD!.....BY DR Martyn Lloyd Jones
Yes, God is good!
Things may be going wrong with you.... Blow upon blow may be descending upon you. You have been living the Christian life, reading your Bible, working for God, and yet the blows have come.... Everything seems to be going wrong.... One trouble follows hard after another.... Are you able to say in the face of it all, God is always good?' . . . Are you able to say, 'All things work together for good' without any hesitation? That is the test. But ... while the Psalmist says, 'God is always good to Israel', he is careful to add, 'Even to such as are of a clean heart'. . . . if you and I are sinning against God, then God will have to deal with us, and it is going to be painful. But even when God chastises us He is still good to us. It is because He is good to us that He chastises us.... But ... if we want to see this clearly we must be of a clean heart.... I sometimes think that the very essence of the whole Christian position, and the secret of a successful spiritual life, is just to realize two things. They are in these first two verses [of Psalm 73].... I must have complete, absolute confidence in God, and no confidence in myself. As long as you and I are in the position in which' we worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh' all is well with us. That is to be truly Christian.... If I take that view of myself, it means that I shall always be looking to God. And in that position I shall never fail. May God grant us grace to apply some of these simple principles to ourselves and, as we do so, let us remember that we have the greatest and the grandest illustration of it all in our blessed Lord Himself. I see Him in the Garden of Gethsemane, the very Son of God, and I hear Him uttering these words, 'Father, if it be possible. . . .' There was perplexity.... But He humbled Himself. . . . He just committed Himself to God saying in effect, 'Thy ways are always right, Thou art always good.... Not My will, but Thine, be done'
Things may be going wrong with you.... Blow upon blow may be descending upon you. You have been living the Christian life, reading your Bible, working for God, and yet the blows have come.... Everything seems to be going wrong.... One trouble follows hard after another.... Are you able to say in the face of it all, God is always good?' . . . Are you able to say, 'All things work together for good' without any hesitation? That is the test. But ... while the Psalmist says, 'God is always good to Israel', he is careful to add, 'Even to such as are of a clean heart'. . . . if you and I are sinning against God, then God will have to deal with us, and it is going to be painful. But even when God chastises us He is still good to us. It is because He is good to us that He chastises us.... But ... if we want to see this clearly we must be of a clean heart.... I sometimes think that the very essence of the whole Christian position, and the secret of a successful spiritual life, is just to realize two things. They are in these first two verses [of Psalm 73].... I must have complete, absolute confidence in God, and no confidence in myself. As long as you and I are in the position in which' we worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh' all is well with us. That is to be truly Christian.... If I take that view of myself, it means that I shall always be looking to God. And in that position I shall never fail. May God grant us grace to apply some of these simple principles to ourselves and, as we do so, let us remember that we have the greatest and the grandest illustration of it all in our blessed Lord Himself. I see Him in the Garden of Gethsemane, the very Son of God, and I hear Him uttering these words, 'Father, if it be possible. . . .' There was perplexity.... But He humbled Himself. . . . He just committed Himself to God saying in effect, 'Thy ways are always right, Thou art always good.... Not My will, but Thine, be done'
Saturday, February 10, 2007
NOW WE CAN SAY IT'S ALWAYS A GOOD MORNING
When I say "good morning" I mean :
G -od
O - ffers us His
O - utstanding
D - evotion to
M -ake us
O- bedient &
R - eady for a
N - ew day with Him.
I - nspire others please, and
N - ever forget
G - od loves you!
G -od
O - ffers us His
O - utstanding
D - evotion to
M -ake us
O- bedient &
R - eady for a
N - ew day with Him.
I - nspire others please, and
N - ever forget
G - od loves you!
UPDATE ON PEGGY GREEN
I just spoke with peg's son Bob, he said that peg came through the surgery fine, it was a 6 hour surgery, but the doctor is confident that he removed all of the cancer from her lungs.
Peg will be in the hospital for about a week, after that it will be a time of recovery. On behalf of the family thank you all for your prayers, but let's continue to hold Peg and the family up in our prayers. I will report again on her condition.
Peg will be in the hospital for about a week, after that it will be a time of recovery. On behalf of the family thank you all for your prayers, but let's continue to hold Peg and the family up in our prayers. I will report again on her condition.
KEEP THIS IN MIND MEN AS YOU GET READY TO PREACH THE WORD.
''We must get the Word from our lips to people's ears: the Holy Spirit can carry the Word from their ears to their hearts'' Martin Luther
EXPOSITIONAL PREACHING AND APPLICATION
Expositional Preaching and Application
By Mark Dever
The other day I was asked a question that I realize has often been asked of me¯when you preach expositionally, how do you apply the text in the sermon?
First, we should note that behind this question, there may be many questionable assumptions. The questioner may be remembering "expositional" sermons he has heard (or maybe even preached) which were no different from Bible lectures at college or seminary. They may have been well-structured and accurate, but there seemed to be little godly urgency, or pastoral wisdom in them. These expositional sermons may have had little if any application. On the other hand, the questioner may be simply misunderstanding application. There could have been a great deal of application in the sermons in question, but he may simply not have recognized it.
William Perkins, the great sixteenth-century puritan theologian in Cambridge, instructed preachers to imagine the various kinds of hearers who would be listening to their sermons, and to think through applications of the truth preached to several different kinds of hearts¯hardened sinners, questioning doubters, weary saints, young enthusiasts¯the list goes on and on. I want to approach the question slightly differently, though. Many of us who are called to preach God's Word will surely know this already, but it will be helpful to remind ourselves again of this fact: Not only are there different kinds of hearers, but there are also different kinds of application which are themselves all legitimately considered application.
When I preach the Word, I am called to expound the Scriptures, to take a passage of God's Word and explain it clearly, compellingly, even urgently. In this process, there are at least three different kinds of application which reflect three different kinds of problems we find in our own Christian pilgrimage. First, we struggle under the blight of ignorance. Second, we wrestle with doubt, often more than we at first realize. Finally, we sin¯whether through direct disobedient acts, or through sinful negligence. All three of these we long to see changed in us and our hearers every time we preach God's Word. And each gives rise to a different kind of legitimate application.
Ignorance is a fundamental problem in a fallen world. We have alienated God from us. We have cut ourselves off from direct fellowship with our Creator. It is not surprising then that informing people of the truth about God is itself a powerful type of application¯and one which we desperately need. This is not an excuse for cold or passionless sermons. I can be every bit as excited (and more) by indicative statements as I can be by imperative commands. The commands of the gospel to repent and believe mean nothing apart from the indicative statements about God, ourselves and Christ. Information is vital. We are called to teach the truth, to proclaim a great message about God. We want people who hear our messages to change from ignorance to knowledge of the truth. Such heartfelt informing is application.
Doubt is different than simple ignorance. In doubt, we take ideas or truths familiar to us, and we question them. This kind of questioning is not rare among Christians. In fact, doubt may well be one of the most important issues to be thoughtfully explored and thoroughly challenged in our preaching. We may sometimes imagine that a little pre-conversion apologetics is the only time we preachers need to directly address doubt, but this is not the case. Some people who sat and listened to your sermon last Sunday, and who knew all the facts that you mentioned about Christ, or God, or Onesimus, may well have been struggling with whether or not they really believed those very facts to be true. Sometimes such doubt is not even articulated. We may not even be aware of it ourselves. But when we begin searchingly to consider Scripture, we find lingering in the shadows questions and uncertainties and hesitancies, all of which make us sadly aware of that gravitational pull of doubt, off there in the distance, drawing us away from the faithful pilgrim's path. To such people¯perhaps to such parts of our own hearts¯we want to argue for and to urge the truthfulness of God's Word and the urgency of believing it. We are called to urge on hearers the truthfulness of God's Word. We want people who hear our messages to change from doubt to full-hearted belief of the truth. Such urgent, searching preaching of the truth is application.
Sin, too, is a problem in this fallen world. Ignorance and doubt may be either themselves specific sins, or the result of specific sins, or neither. But sin is certainly more than neglect or doubt. Be assured that people listening to your sermons will have struggled with disobeying God in the week just passed, and they will almost certainly struggle with disobeying him in the week that they are just beginning. The sins will be various. Some will be a disobedience of action; others will be a disobedience of inaction. But whether of commission or omission, sins are disobedience to God. Part of what we are to do when we preach is to challenge God's people to a holiness of life that will reflect the holiness of God Himself. So part of our applying the passage of Scripture we're preaching is to draw out what the implications of that passage for our actions this week. We as preachers are called to exhort God's people to obedience to His Word. We want people who hear our message to change from sinful disobedience, to joyful, glad obedience to God, according to His will revealed in His word. Such exhortation to obedience is certainly application.
The main message that we need to apply every time we preach is the gospel. Some people do not yet know the Good News of Jesus Christ. Some people even who have been sitting under your preaching may have been distracted, or asleep, or day-dreaming, or otherwise not paying attention. They need to be informed of the Gospel. They need to be told.
Others may have heard, understood, and perhaps even genuinely have accepted the truth, but now find themselves struggling with doubt about the very matters you were addressing (or assuming) in your message. Such people need to be urged to believe the truth of the Good News of Christ.
And, too, people may have heard and understood, but may be slow to repent of their sins. They may not even doubt the truth of what you're saying; they may simply be slow to repent of their sins and to turn to Christ. For such hearers, the most powerful application you can make is to exhort them to hate their sins and flee to Christ. In all our sermons, we should seek to apply the Gospel by informing, urging and exhorting.
One common challenge we preachers face in applying God's Word in our sermons is that sometimes those who have their problems mainly in one area or another will think that you are NOT applying Scripture in your preaching, if you are not addressing their particular problem. Are they right? Not necessarily. While your preaching might improve if you do start addressing doubt more often, or more thoroughly, it is not wrong for you to preach to those who need to be informed, or who need to be exhorted to forsake sin, even if the person talking to you isn't so aware of that need.
One final note. Proverbs 23:12 says "Apply your heart to instruction and your ears to words of knowledge." In English translations, it seems that the words translated "apply" in the Bible almost always (maybe always?) have reference not to the preacher's work (as homiletics teaches us) nor even to the Holy Spirit's (as systematics rightly teaches us) but to the work of the one who hears the Word. We are called to apply the word to our own hearts, and to apply ourselves to that work.
That, perhaps, is the single most important application we could make next Sunday for the benefit of all of God's people.
By Mark Dever
The other day I was asked a question that I realize has often been asked of me¯when you preach expositionally, how do you apply the text in the sermon?
First, we should note that behind this question, there may be many questionable assumptions. The questioner may be remembering "expositional" sermons he has heard (or maybe even preached) which were no different from Bible lectures at college or seminary. They may have been well-structured and accurate, but there seemed to be little godly urgency, or pastoral wisdom in them. These expositional sermons may have had little if any application. On the other hand, the questioner may be simply misunderstanding application. There could have been a great deal of application in the sermons in question, but he may simply not have recognized it.
William Perkins, the great sixteenth-century puritan theologian in Cambridge, instructed preachers to imagine the various kinds of hearers who would be listening to their sermons, and to think through applications of the truth preached to several different kinds of hearts¯hardened sinners, questioning doubters, weary saints, young enthusiasts¯the list goes on and on. I want to approach the question slightly differently, though. Many of us who are called to preach God's Word will surely know this already, but it will be helpful to remind ourselves again of this fact: Not only are there different kinds of hearers, but there are also different kinds of application which are themselves all legitimately considered application.
When I preach the Word, I am called to expound the Scriptures, to take a passage of God's Word and explain it clearly, compellingly, even urgently. In this process, there are at least three different kinds of application which reflect three different kinds of problems we find in our own Christian pilgrimage. First, we struggle under the blight of ignorance. Second, we wrestle with doubt, often more than we at first realize. Finally, we sin¯whether through direct disobedient acts, or through sinful negligence. All three of these we long to see changed in us and our hearers every time we preach God's Word. And each gives rise to a different kind of legitimate application.
Ignorance is a fundamental problem in a fallen world. We have alienated God from us. We have cut ourselves off from direct fellowship with our Creator. It is not surprising then that informing people of the truth about God is itself a powerful type of application¯and one which we desperately need. This is not an excuse for cold or passionless sermons. I can be every bit as excited (and more) by indicative statements as I can be by imperative commands. The commands of the gospel to repent and believe mean nothing apart from the indicative statements about God, ourselves and Christ. Information is vital. We are called to teach the truth, to proclaim a great message about God. We want people who hear our messages to change from ignorance to knowledge of the truth. Such heartfelt informing is application.
Doubt is different than simple ignorance. In doubt, we take ideas or truths familiar to us, and we question them. This kind of questioning is not rare among Christians. In fact, doubt may well be one of the most important issues to be thoughtfully explored and thoroughly challenged in our preaching. We may sometimes imagine that a little pre-conversion apologetics is the only time we preachers need to directly address doubt, but this is not the case. Some people who sat and listened to your sermon last Sunday, and who knew all the facts that you mentioned about Christ, or God, or Onesimus, may well have been struggling with whether or not they really believed those very facts to be true. Sometimes such doubt is not even articulated. We may not even be aware of it ourselves. But when we begin searchingly to consider Scripture, we find lingering in the shadows questions and uncertainties and hesitancies, all of which make us sadly aware of that gravitational pull of doubt, off there in the distance, drawing us away from the faithful pilgrim's path. To such people¯perhaps to such parts of our own hearts¯we want to argue for and to urge the truthfulness of God's Word and the urgency of believing it. We are called to urge on hearers the truthfulness of God's Word. We want people who hear our messages to change from doubt to full-hearted belief of the truth. Such urgent, searching preaching of the truth is application.
Sin, too, is a problem in this fallen world. Ignorance and doubt may be either themselves specific sins, or the result of specific sins, or neither. But sin is certainly more than neglect or doubt. Be assured that people listening to your sermons will have struggled with disobeying God in the week just passed, and they will almost certainly struggle with disobeying him in the week that they are just beginning. The sins will be various. Some will be a disobedience of action; others will be a disobedience of inaction. But whether of commission or omission, sins are disobedience to God. Part of what we are to do when we preach is to challenge God's people to a holiness of life that will reflect the holiness of God Himself. So part of our applying the passage of Scripture we're preaching is to draw out what the implications of that passage for our actions this week. We as preachers are called to exhort God's people to obedience to His Word. We want people who hear our message to change from sinful disobedience, to joyful, glad obedience to God, according to His will revealed in His word. Such exhortation to obedience is certainly application.
The main message that we need to apply every time we preach is the gospel. Some people do not yet know the Good News of Jesus Christ. Some people even who have been sitting under your preaching may have been distracted, or asleep, or day-dreaming, or otherwise not paying attention. They need to be informed of the Gospel. They need to be told.
Others may have heard, understood, and perhaps even genuinely have accepted the truth, but now find themselves struggling with doubt about the very matters you were addressing (or assuming) in your message. Such people need to be urged to believe the truth of the Good News of Christ.
And, too, people may have heard and understood, but may be slow to repent of their sins. They may not even doubt the truth of what you're saying; they may simply be slow to repent of their sins and to turn to Christ. For such hearers, the most powerful application you can make is to exhort them to hate their sins and flee to Christ. In all our sermons, we should seek to apply the Gospel by informing, urging and exhorting.
One common challenge we preachers face in applying God's Word in our sermons is that sometimes those who have their problems mainly in one area or another will think that you are NOT applying Scripture in your preaching, if you are not addressing their particular problem. Are they right? Not necessarily. While your preaching might improve if you do start addressing doubt more often, or more thoroughly, it is not wrong for you to preach to those who need to be informed, or who need to be exhorted to forsake sin, even if the person talking to you isn't so aware of that need.
One final note. Proverbs 23:12 says "Apply your heart to instruction and your ears to words of knowledge." In English translations, it seems that the words translated "apply" in the Bible almost always (maybe always?) have reference not to the preacher's work (as homiletics teaches us) nor even to the Holy Spirit's (as systematics rightly teaches us) but to the work of the one who hears the Word. We are called to apply the word to our own hearts, and to apply ourselves to that work.
That, perhaps, is the single most important application we could make next Sunday for the benefit of all of God's people.
Friday, February 09, 2007
INVITING THEM TO COME
A team will be meeting in front of the church on Brown street, tomorrow Saturday the 10th at 11am. The team will be headed up by Benji, the goal is to let the nieborhood know about our Sunday service at 8:30am [by passing out flyers]. They will be going to 100 homes in the area, if you would like to be apart of this outreach please meet the team out front of the church by 11am.
ANY DAY NOW........
Well it will be any day now, Stephanie Bivans that's Brian's wife our music director. They are excepting their second child any day now, lets keep them in our prayers.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
PHILIPPIANS UP NEXT
I am currently in chapter 10 of Hebrews, it has been a very exciting and challenging book. But it has also proved to be a blessing to me, and I pray it has also been a blessing to those listing.
When we conclude Hebrews I will be starting next with the book of Philippians, I hope you will join us as we travel through Hebrews, and get ready with us to start Philippians.
When we conclude Hebrews I will be starting next with the book of Philippians, I hope you will join us as we travel through Hebrews, and get ready with us to start Philippians.
PRAYERS FOR PEG GREEN SURGERY
I spoke with peg today, she is in good spirits and ready for her surgery. It is set for tomorrow at 9am. Lets keep her in prayer[peg has lung cancer stage one]
WORKSHOP ON BIBLICAL EXPOSITION
I would like to thank Kent Hughes, Paul Rees, And Dr Phil Ryken who put on the best workshop on preaching that I have ever been a part of. For the last three days Men who are serious about preaching the Word, gathered together at Tenth Church to sharpen our call put on our lives by God. We all left challenged and hungry for more.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
WHAT IS AN ELDER...... By Mark Dever
WHAT AN ELDER IS NOT
A biblical elder is not simply an older male.
There are plenty of godly older men who do meet the character qualifications for biblical eldership. I hope the Lord blesses our church with more! But bare chronological advancement, even when married to upstanding church membership, is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements outlined in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1. In fact, there are some thirty year old men (or even younger) who are more qualified to be elders than some men twice their age. Life experience alone does not qualify a man as an elder.
A biblical elder is not simply a successful businessman.
In fact, some of the very principles or character traits that get some businessmen to the top of the business ladder may actually put them on the bottom rung of the church leadership ladder.[2] We’re not looking for people who "know what they want and know how to get it." Nor are we looking for people who know how to manage people, raise money, climb the ladder, or close the deal. Leadership in the church is fundamentally different than leadership in the business world.[3] The church is not simply a non-profit business. It is the body of Christ, and as such is the most unique corporate institution in the world. It operates on principles of distinctively Christian doctrine, servant-hood, holiness, faith, hope, and love. This is not, of course, to say that it is impossible to be a biblically qualified elder and a successful business man at the same time. It is simply to say that success and leadership in the business world do not always or necessarily bode well for eldership in the local church.
A biblical elder is not simply an involved community member.
Being elected to sit on a city or neighborhood council is a wonderful privilege and a unique evangelistic opportunity for any Christian. But again, it is neither necessary nor sufficient for meeting the qualifications of elder. A man can be the president of the PTA, coach little league, be an alderman, and lead a boy scout troop and still not be qualified as an elder. Serving the community in these ways certainly doesn’t preclude a man from qualifying. But as we look around to see who might meet the biblical requirements, community service alone cannot be our ultimate criteria.
A biblical elder is not simply a "good ole’ boy".
Living in the same location and having the same friends or even being a member of the same church for 30+ years doesn’t make a man an elder. Serving in the capacity of elder in a local church should not be dependent on whether a man is willing to "play ball", or whether he is a part of the right social network, or whether he’s from the right part of the country (or county, depending on where you live!). Likeability can often be deceptive.
A biblical elder is not a female.
The criteria laid out in 1Tim 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 assume male leadership in the church. The office of elder is an office that requires the ones holding it to be able to teach. Teaching is an authoritative act, and women are forbidden to exercise authority over men in the church (1Tim 2:9-15). Paul roots that prohibition in the order of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 – Adam was created before Eve, revealing Adam’s God-given place of headship over her. Both are equally created in the image of God, but God has given them different yet complementary roles to fill both in the home and in the church.[4]
A biblical elder is not a politician.
The biblical office of elder is an elected office. But the man who fills it should not be one who subtly or overtly campaigns for it, or one who is noticeably vocal about promoting political positions in the context of the local church.
What, then, is a biblical elder?
WHAT IS AN ELDER?
Our question can be answered first in terms of the office and second in terms of the man. The office of elder is an office designed for the leadership of the church through the teaching of the Word.[5] The character of the man who qualifies to fulfill that office is described in 1Tim 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9. An elder is simply a man of exemplary, Christ-like character who is able to lead God’s people by teaching them God’s Word in a way that profits them spiritually. We are looking, then, for men who display this character and demonstrate both an aptitude for and fruitfulness in teaching God’s Word to others in an edifying way.[6] This definition might serve as a good spiritual snapshot or profile of the kind of men you’re looking for to be elders.
A biblical elder is not simply an older male.
There are plenty of godly older men who do meet the character qualifications for biblical eldership. I hope the Lord blesses our church with more! But bare chronological advancement, even when married to upstanding church membership, is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements outlined in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1. In fact, there are some thirty year old men (or even younger) who are more qualified to be elders than some men twice their age. Life experience alone does not qualify a man as an elder.
A biblical elder is not simply a successful businessman.
In fact, some of the very principles or character traits that get some businessmen to the top of the business ladder may actually put them on the bottom rung of the church leadership ladder.[2] We’re not looking for people who "know what they want and know how to get it." Nor are we looking for people who know how to manage people, raise money, climb the ladder, or close the deal. Leadership in the church is fundamentally different than leadership in the business world.[3] The church is not simply a non-profit business. It is the body of Christ, and as such is the most unique corporate institution in the world. It operates on principles of distinctively Christian doctrine, servant-hood, holiness, faith, hope, and love. This is not, of course, to say that it is impossible to be a biblically qualified elder and a successful business man at the same time. It is simply to say that success and leadership in the business world do not always or necessarily bode well for eldership in the local church.
A biblical elder is not simply an involved community member.
Being elected to sit on a city or neighborhood council is a wonderful privilege and a unique evangelistic opportunity for any Christian. But again, it is neither necessary nor sufficient for meeting the qualifications of elder. A man can be the president of the PTA, coach little league, be an alderman, and lead a boy scout troop and still not be qualified as an elder. Serving the community in these ways certainly doesn’t preclude a man from qualifying. But as we look around to see who might meet the biblical requirements, community service alone cannot be our ultimate criteria.
A biblical elder is not simply a "good ole’ boy".
Living in the same location and having the same friends or even being a member of the same church for 30+ years doesn’t make a man an elder. Serving in the capacity of elder in a local church should not be dependent on whether a man is willing to "play ball", or whether he is a part of the right social network, or whether he’s from the right part of the country (or county, depending on where you live!). Likeability can often be deceptive.
A biblical elder is not a female.
The criteria laid out in 1Tim 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 assume male leadership in the church. The office of elder is an office that requires the ones holding it to be able to teach. Teaching is an authoritative act, and women are forbidden to exercise authority over men in the church (1Tim 2:9-15). Paul roots that prohibition in the order of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 – Adam was created before Eve, revealing Adam’s God-given place of headship over her. Both are equally created in the image of God, but God has given them different yet complementary roles to fill both in the home and in the church.[4]
A biblical elder is not a politician.
The biblical office of elder is an elected office. But the man who fills it should not be one who subtly or overtly campaigns for it, or one who is noticeably vocal about promoting political positions in the context of the local church.
What, then, is a biblical elder?
WHAT IS AN ELDER?
Our question can be answered first in terms of the office and second in terms of the man. The office of elder is an office designed for the leadership of the church through the teaching of the Word.[5] The character of the man who qualifies to fulfill that office is described in 1Tim 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9. An elder is simply a man of exemplary, Christ-like character who is able to lead God’s people by teaching them God’s Word in a way that profits them spiritually. We are looking, then, for men who display this character and demonstrate both an aptitude for and fruitfulness in teaching God’s Word to others in an edifying way.[6] This definition might serve as a good spiritual snapshot or profile of the kind of men you’re looking for to be elders.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)