Perhaps the most famous verse in the world is John 3:16. For years, almost every sports event had someone holding up a sign with John 3:16 on it. It’s not uncommon for children to list it as their favorite verse. And even people who never attend church find it warmly familiar. But have you ever thought of it as a Christmas verse? Christmas, after all, celebrates the reality of God’s love. And John 3:16 specifically is about that topic. Let’s break the verse down into four Christmas principles.
1. Love came down for the world.
"For God so loved the world . . ." (John 3:16a)
Think about this first statement carefully. God so loved the world. The sentence in the original biblical Greek is constructed to emphasize God’s love. In other words, this phrase is saying, “God really, deeply, extraordinarily, from the depths of His heart loved the world.”
What makes this so remarkable is not that the fact that God loves. Certainly any conception of a good God would have to include love. But what makes this passage so remarkable is the object of God’s love . . . the world. The world is a bad place. Pick up your newspaper and you’ll read of murder, greed, lust, selfishness and a whole host of other major problems. We are creatures plagued with deep issues. We are not attractive to a perfect being. Yet, He so loves us!
Years ago, when my youngest daughter was three, she was in a school play dressed as a cow. Well, plagued with the thought that I would be a terrible dad if I didn’t videotape every play my kids ever performed in, I charged up the huge video camera we had then, focused the lens directly on her, and started to record. Imagine my surprise when the first image was of her picking her nose in front of God and all creation! It wasn’t her most attractive moment. But here’s the deal. Why did I take the time to bring her to the play, unpack a camera that could kill an elephant, and video tape her concert? Because I love her. I deeply, deeply adore her, from the depths of my heart. Or, to use biblical language, I so love her.
We’re part of the world that love came down for and we are messes. Every single one of us has flaws, and I mean deep flaws. There are things about us that are ugly and make us cringe to even think about. In some sense, we all have our fingers in our noses. But you know what. God adores us! Love came down for the world!
2. Love came down through sacrifice.
". . . that he gave his one and only Son . . ." (John 3:16b)
It’s remarkable that God loves us, but can you imagine how much God must love His son? If you read about the life of Jesus in the Bible, you can’t help but fall in love with Him. His life includes touching the sick, feeding the hungry, and loving the outcast. He is the kindest person to ever walk the planet. And he showed up on Christmas morning as a precious baby in a manger. Can you imagine how hard it must have been for God the Father to give up that child at the first Christmas? That’s how much love came down to us! What sacrifice!
You may be thinking, “God doesn’t love me. How could He love me with all my problems? I don’t even love myself.” Well, I want to encourage you to look at the manger and the cross. God so loved you that He gave His one and only Son to give you the great news that you can be forgiven and have peace with God forever. God gave Jesus to the earth to give us forgiveness and peace with Him.
3. Love came down to those who believe.
". . .that whoever believes in him . . ." (John 3:16c)
Have you ever found a perfect gift for someone and you just knew, “Yes, this is it! This is the best gift I could give!” Well, that’s what the gift of Jesus is like.
But, as with any gift, there is one requirement that you and I have to fulfill in order to get it. We have to accept the gift! The gift will not be ours until we actually reach out and receive it.
John 3:16 says that God has a present for you this Christmas and it’s an eternal, intimate, wonderful relationship with Him that will touch every area of your life. It will give you better health and meaning, improve your relationships, guide you to your purpose in life, and give you a pipeline to the greatest counselor in the universe, God’s Holy Spirit. But the requirement is that you have to receive the gift. The word “believes” above has the connotation of receiving. It means to trust that Jesus was the Son of God and accept His death on the cross alone as the payment for your sins.
You may not know God. You know about Him and admire Him; but you don’t know Him in your heart. Your inner life isn’t intimate with Him. It’s like you watch Him on television, but He’s never been in your living room. Yet somewhere deep inside of you there is a hole. You know something is missing. That void is Jesus . . . an intimate, life-transforming, deep relationship with God. And God is offering you that gift today.
If you haven’t accepted that gift, why not do it this Christmas?
4. Love came down to lift us up.
". . . shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16d)
What does it mean to accept the gift of Jesus, the gift of Christmas? It means eternal life starting now and moving on into the afterlife. It means having a big dose of God in this life and living in Heaven after death. It means God lifts us up eternally.
One of my favorite Christmas carols is “Hark the Herald Angels Sing.” Remember the line, “God and sinners reconciled?” That’s talking about the payment of Jesus on the cross so that we sinners can be reconciled to God. That’s why Jesus came. Christmas isn’t just about silver and gold, greeting cards, and Santa Clause. It is about eternal life. This Christmas, be lifted up because the love of God Himself actually came down for you. Merry Christmas!!!
Soulman: Provider of Soul Food.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Are We in the End Times?
I’ve been in ministry for about 20 years and have often been asked, “Are we in the end times?” The question is usually connected with some current catastrophic event. When some major calamity occurs, the query is natural. The Tsunami, Katrina, the Recession, Global Warming, Social Unrest, and the Israeli/Arab Conflict have all solicited such questions. The world often seems to be in turmoil, so it makes sense to wonder if we’re close.
This question also was on the minds of the early church. For example, in 2 Thessalonians, the church had received news that the “day of the Lord” had begun. A false prophecy had circulated claiming that the world was in the terrible end times’ period known as “the tribulation.” The Prophet Daniel prophecied that a time of judgment would come that would be seven years long. Jesus referred to it in Matthew 24:29 as the tribulation as did other prophets throughout Scripture. It was also frequently called the “day of the Lord” by the prophets. The term “day” in this phrase had more of an “age” connotation to it (like when we say “your day is coming!”). Since the Thessalonian church was in a time of great persecution, they naturally were prone to believe that they were actually in the tribulation and had missed God’s deliverance from it known as “the rapture.” In a previous letter (1 Thes. 5:9), Paul had promised them that they were not appointed to God’s wrath (speaking of the tribulation), and therefore it is logical to assume that the church would be “taken out” before the tribulation by the rapture. So, if the false prophecy claiming the tribulation was upon them was true, then they must have missed the rapture’s rescue from the tribulation. To ease their fears, Paul writes 2 Thes. 2. His answers also provide clarity for us about the end times.
Check out vv. 1-4:
“1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.” (2 Thes. 2:1-4).
Notice, Paul refers to “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him.” This is the rapture. They thought they may have missed it. But Paul calms them down. In v. 2 he encourages them to not “become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy . . . saying the day of the Lord has already come.” They thought they were in the end times and that the tribulation had come. And they were freaking out over it! But Paul says that they were given a false prophecy. Just recently, a radio personality and self-proclaimed Bible scholar predicted the coming of Jesus in May of this year and then again in October. He gave false prophecies and many people believed him, even selling their homes. That kind of thing has happened over and over again for thousands of years. Even while the Apostles themselves were still alive, people were making false prophecies and frightening many. But Paul corrects the error and says in v. 3, “Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way.” We’re to keep our eyes open for spiritual deception and counter it with biblical truth. Then Paul reminds them of what was predicted by Daniel hundreds of years earlier, namely, that the Antichrist will be clearly identified in the last days. Specifically, he will be “revealed” and will set himself up as God in the temple in Jerusalem (v. 4). Since that had not happened at the time of the Thessalonian church, they were assured that they were not in the tribulation, and, therefore, had not missed the rapture.
This teaching applies to us today as well. While the earth is in chaos in many ways and Christians are persecuted terribly throughout the world, we have not yet arrived at the end. How do we know? Well, the Antichrist has not been revealed yet and we have not seen him exalt himself in the Temple of Jerusalem and demand that the world worship him. However, just because we’re not in the tribulation yet doesn’t mean it’s not near. Scripture is clear that it could start at any time, like a “thief in the night” (1 Thes. 5:4). Therefore, it’s important to make sure you’re on God’s side because the end will not be pretty for His enemies. Take a few moments right now and make sure you are Christ’s. If you’re not, tell Him you believe in Him, repent of your sins, ask His forgiveness, and accept the gospel. Then get ready for the rapture!
This question also was on the minds of the early church. For example, in 2 Thessalonians, the church had received news that the “day of the Lord” had begun. A false prophecy had circulated claiming that the world was in the terrible end times’ period known as “the tribulation.” The Prophet Daniel prophecied that a time of judgment would come that would be seven years long. Jesus referred to it in Matthew 24:29 as the tribulation as did other prophets throughout Scripture. It was also frequently called the “day of the Lord” by the prophets. The term “day” in this phrase had more of an “age” connotation to it (like when we say “your day is coming!”). Since the Thessalonian church was in a time of great persecution, they naturally were prone to believe that they were actually in the tribulation and had missed God’s deliverance from it known as “the rapture.” In a previous letter (1 Thes. 5:9), Paul had promised them that they were not appointed to God’s wrath (speaking of the tribulation), and therefore it is logical to assume that the church would be “taken out” before the tribulation by the rapture. So, if the false prophecy claiming the tribulation was upon them was true, then they must have missed the rapture’s rescue from the tribulation. To ease their fears, Paul writes 2 Thes. 2. His answers also provide clarity for us about the end times.
Check out vv. 1-4:
“1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.” (2 Thes. 2:1-4).
Notice, Paul refers to “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him.” This is the rapture. They thought they may have missed it. But Paul calms them down. In v. 2 he encourages them to not “become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy . . . saying the day of the Lord has already come.” They thought they were in the end times and that the tribulation had come. And they were freaking out over it! But Paul says that they were given a false prophecy. Just recently, a radio personality and self-proclaimed Bible scholar predicted the coming of Jesus in May of this year and then again in October. He gave false prophecies and many people believed him, even selling their homes. That kind of thing has happened over and over again for thousands of years. Even while the Apostles themselves were still alive, people were making false prophecies and frightening many. But Paul corrects the error and says in v. 3, “Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way.” We’re to keep our eyes open for spiritual deception and counter it with biblical truth. Then Paul reminds them of what was predicted by Daniel hundreds of years earlier, namely, that the Antichrist will be clearly identified in the last days. Specifically, he will be “revealed” and will set himself up as God in the temple in Jerusalem (v. 4). Since that had not happened at the time of the Thessalonian church, they were assured that they were not in the tribulation, and, therefore, had not missed the rapture.
This teaching applies to us today as well. While the earth is in chaos in many ways and Christians are persecuted terribly throughout the world, we have not yet arrived at the end. How do we know? Well, the Antichrist has not been revealed yet and we have not seen him exalt himself in the Temple of Jerusalem and demand that the world worship him. However, just because we’re not in the tribulation yet doesn’t mean it’s not near. Scripture is clear that it could start at any time, like a “thief in the night” (1 Thes. 5:4). Therefore, it’s important to make sure you’re on God’s side because the end will not be pretty for His enemies. Take a few moments right now and make sure you are Christ’s. If you’re not, tell Him you believe in Him, repent of your sins, ask His forgiveness, and accept the gospel. Then get ready for the rapture!
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Can We Support a Mormon?
The recent controversy surrounding Mitt Romney's faith has stirred up confusion within the evangelical landscape. Below is an article by Dr. Wayne Grudem posted on townhall.com. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on it. For the record, Dr. Grudem is an outstanding evangelical theologian. I'll give my thoughts in a later blog.
Why Evangelicals Should Support Mitt Romney
By Wayne Grudem
10/18/2007 As an evangelical professor of Bible and theology, I have decided to support Mitt Romney for President (even though he is a Mormon) for two old-fashioned reasons: First, he is the best-qualified candidate, and second, he holds moral and political values consistent with those in the Bible.
Best-qualified: The best predictor of future performance is a person’s past track record. Romney’s record is stellar:
Intellectual ability: He was in the top 5 percent of his class at Harvard Business School and simultaneously in the top 1/3 of his class at Harvard Law School. He is incredibly intelligent.
Governor of Massachusetts: He won the governor’s race as a Republican in Massachusetts and restored financial discipline to the state. He was a successful governor of a liberal state. This also means he has a good shot at winning some New England states away from the Democrats in the general election.
Business success: He was hired by Bain & Company, one of the elite business consulting firms in the country, and was so successful that he became a partner. He then founded Bain Capital and made it a highly successful investment company. He built a personal fortune of around $200,000,000 in the process, an amazing business achievement. He knows how to run businesses, and what makes them profitable. This indicates a deep and also practical understanding of what kind of policies will be helpful or harmful to an economy, and second, an outstanding management ability proven in both state government and in business, which is a good predictor of ability to be an excellent President. By contrast, no Democratic candidate has ever run a business, a state or even a city.
Chairman of Olympic Games: He also rescued the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games. When he was brought in to run the Games he turned what was heading to a scandal-ridden financial and PR disaster into a widely-praised success. This involved massive skill in public relations, media management, diplomacy, morale building, and financial administration. This is Romney’s consistent track record: he solves large problems.
Conservative positions: Romney’s positions on social, economic, and international issues are all soundly conservative. On major issues such as protection of the unborn, a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, strong national defense and victory against radical Islamic terrorists, securing our border, a signed pledge of no tax increases, promoting school choice, and appointment of Supreme Court justices who will interpret law, not make new law, Romney holds solidly conservative positions. His positions are the ones the majority of evangelicals have supported in the past.
Some people object that Romney has “flip-flopped” on some of these positions. I think that accusation is exaggerated. He hasn’t flip-flopped back and forth, he has simply become more consistently conservative. I think that’s a good thing in a political and media climate that is more and more liberal. (In fact, Ronald Reagan also changed from signing a liberal abortion law as governor of California to being a consistently pro-life president.) Evangelicals have worked for decades to persuade people of the pro-life position, and Romney has been persuaded, and he is strongly on our side on this issue.
What about his religion? Romney is a Mormon, and I strongly disagree with a significant number of Mormon theological beliefs, which I find to be inconsistent with the Bible and with historic Christian teachings. But many Mormon teachings on ethics and values are similar to those in the Bible, and those teachings support Romney’s conservative political values.
Can evangelicals support a candidate who is politically conservative but not an evangelical Christian? Yes, certainly. In fact, it would demonstrate the falsehood of the liberal accusation that evangelicals are just trying to make this a “Christian nation” and only want evangelical Christians in office. For evangelicals to support a Mormon candidate would be similar to supporting a conservative Jewish candidate—someone we don’t consider a Christian but who comes from a religious tradition that believes in absolute moral values very similar to those that Christians learn from the Bible. Here in Arizona a few years ago I voted for Matt Salmon, a Mormon candidate for governor. He lost, but his policies would have been much more conservative than those of Janet Napolitano, who has now vetoed dozens of pro-life, pro-family bills.
Or have we come to the point where evangelicals will only vote for people they consider Christians? I hope not, for nothing in the Bible says that people have to be born again Christians before they can be governmental authorities who are used greatly by God to advance his purposes. God used Pharaoh, King of Egypt, to raise Joseph to a position of authority over the whole country, so he could save his people from famine (Genesis 41:37-57). God used Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, to protect and raise up Daniel and his Jewish friends to positions of high authority over Babylon (Daniel 2:46-49). God used Cyrus, King of Persia, to restore the Jewish exiles to their homeland (Isaiah 45:16; Ezra 1:1-4), and used Darius, King of Persia, to protect the Jewish people as they rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem (Ezra 6:1-12). God used Ahashuerus, King of Persia, to raise up Esther as Queen and to give Mordecai high authority and honor in his kingdom (Esther 6:10-11; 8:1-2, 7-15). In the New Testament age, God used the peace enforced by the secular Roman Empire, the Pax Romana, to enable the early Christians to travel freely and spread the Gospel throughout the Mediterranean world.
Here in the United States, God used not only Founding Fathers who were strong Christians, but also Deists such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, to build the foundation of our nation. Jefferson even became our third President in 1801, a demonstration of the wisdom of Article 6 of the Constitution, which says, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
The Bible tells us to pray not just for Christians who happen to have government offices, but “for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way" (1 Timothy 2:2). It is not just Christians in government but all governing authorities who are “instituted by God” (Romans 13:1) and whom Paul can call “God’s servant for your good” (Romans 13:4).
People may object, “But a lot of people won’t vote for Romney because he’s a Mormon.” I suppose there will be some people like that, but there are three current and historical facts that make me think that problem will diminish as the campaign goes on: First, look to Massachusetts, where Romney won the governor’s race in a very liberal state because people saw his competence and common decency and elected him, and his Mormonism didn’t matter to them. Second, consider the situation in Iowa, where there are a lot of evangelicals, and Romney remains the front-runner in the polls. Third, remember Michigan, where Mitt Romney’s father George was a popular governor from 1963 to 1969, even though he was a Mormon.
When people get to know who Romney is, his Mormonism seems not to be a big deal in a political election. The hypothetical question, “Would you vote for a Mormon?” is very different from, “Now that you have gotten to know who Mitt Romney is, would you vote for him?” The more voters get to know him, the more his Mormonism doesn’t matter much.
Ability to win: Romney grew up in Michigan, where his father was governor, and he still has strong name recognition there. This gives him a good chance at winning some Midwest industrial states, a key to the election. And he would make Massachusetts highly competitive, since he was recently governor there. In fact, by winning the governor’s race as a Republican in a solidly Democratic state, he has proven that he can win large numbers of Democratic votes in an election.
In addition, I think Romney would not just tie but win in presidential debates against Hillary Clinton: he’s smarter, more articulate, and more experienced. And the conservative values he stands for still resonate with the majority of Americans. In addition, nearly everyone who has known Romney finds him genuinely likable, which would work to his advantage over Hillary’s abrasive personality in the long months of a campaign.
There are other Republican candidates with conservative positions, but they haven’t generated anywhere near as much support as Romney, probably because more and more voters are deciding that Romney is much better qualified (my point above), and that he is simply the best candidate: articulate, persuasive, intelligent, mature, strong, successful in several fields and a genuine leader.
Therefore it seems to me that supporting Mitt Romney who has a very reasonable chance of winning makes more sense at this point than supporting someone who is not persuading many Republican voters, or speculating about supporting a third-party candidate who can’t win and who would effectively hand Hillary Clinton 2 to 4 Supreme Court appointments and thereby undo 25 years of pro-life work in trying to change the Supreme Court.
The situation as it looks today: Apart from Romney, I don’t think there is any other solidly conservative candidate who can beat Giuliani in the primaries. As for McCain and Thompson, they are not reliably conservative. Among the “second-tier” candidates, there are some good men with solid positions, but they have not generated much support. With the early primary schedule nearly upon us it isn’t reasonable to hope that one of them will suddenly “take off.” There is not enough time now to build sufficient funding and a large enough support structure before January.
So it seems to me that if evangelicals don’t support Romney in a significant way, Giuliani will be the Republican candidate. So then we will have a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights candidate who is on his third marriage and had a messy affair prior to his divorce from his second wife. Then we will lose any high moral ground and the enthusiasm of the evangelical vote (many of whom will just sit it out), and the difference between Giuliani and Clinton will be only one of degrees as he shifts leftward in the general election to appeal to the “middle.” So then if we lose, we lose, and even if we win, we lose on the crucial moral issues of abortion and protection of marriage. Romney is a much better choice. But he needs evangelical support now if he is going to win.
Wayne Grudem
Wayne Grudem is Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary in Phoenix, Arizona.
Why Evangelicals Should Support Mitt Romney
By Wayne Grudem
10/18/2007 As an evangelical professor of Bible and theology, I have decided to support Mitt Romney for President (even though he is a Mormon) for two old-fashioned reasons: First, he is the best-qualified candidate, and second, he holds moral and political values consistent with those in the Bible.
Best-qualified: The best predictor of future performance is a person’s past track record. Romney’s record is stellar:
Intellectual ability: He was in the top 5 percent of his class at Harvard Business School and simultaneously in the top 1/3 of his class at Harvard Law School. He is incredibly intelligent.
Governor of Massachusetts: He won the governor’s race as a Republican in Massachusetts and restored financial discipline to the state. He was a successful governor of a liberal state. This also means he has a good shot at winning some New England states away from the Democrats in the general election.
Business success: He was hired by Bain & Company, one of the elite business consulting firms in the country, and was so successful that he became a partner. He then founded Bain Capital and made it a highly successful investment company. He built a personal fortune of around $200,000,000 in the process, an amazing business achievement. He knows how to run businesses, and what makes them profitable. This indicates a deep and also practical understanding of what kind of policies will be helpful or harmful to an economy, and second, an outstanding management ability proven in both state government and in business, which is a good predictor of ability to be an excellent President. By contrast, no Democratic candidate has ever run a business, a state or even a city.
Chairman of Olympic Games: He also rescued the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games. When he was brought in to run the Games he turned what was heading to a scandal-ridden financial and PR disaster into a widely-praised success. This involved massive skill in public relations, media management, diplomacy, morale building, and financial administration. This is Romney’s consistent track record: he solves large problems.
Conservative positions: Romney’s positions on social, economic, and international issues are all soundly conservative. On major issues such as protection of the unborn, a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, strong national defense and victory against radical Islamic terrorists, securing our border, a signed pledge of no tax increases, promoting school choice, and appointment of Supreme Court justices who will interpret law, not make new law, Romney holds solidly conservative positions. His positions are the ones the majority of evangelicals have supported in the past.
Some people object that Romney has “flip-flopped” on some of these positions. I think that accusation is exaggerated. He hasn’t flip-flopped back and forth, he has simply become more consistently conservative. I think that’s a good thing in a political and media climate that is more and more liberal. (In fact, Ronald Reagan also changed from signing a liberal abortion law as governor of California to being a consistently pro-life president.) Evangelicals have worked for decades to persuade people of the pro-life position, and Romney has been persuaded, and he is strongly on our side on this issue.
What about his religion? Romney is a Mormon, and I strongly disagree with a significant number of Mormon theological beliefs, which I find to be inconsistent with the Bible and with historic Christian teachings. But many Mormon teachings on ethics and values are similar to those in the Bible, and those teachings support Romney’s conservative political values.
Can evangelicals support a candidate who is politically conservative but not an evangelical Christian? Yes, certainly. In fact, it would demonstrate the falsehood of the liberal accusation that evangelicals are just trying to make this a “Christian nation” and only want evangelical Christians in office. For evangelicals to support a Mormon candidate would be similar to supporting a conservative Jewish candidate—someone we don’t consider a Christian but who comes from a religious tradition that believes in absolute moral values very similar to those that Christians learn from the Bible. Here in Arizona a few years ago I voted for Matt Salmon, a Mormon candidate for governor. He lost, but his policies would have been much more conservative than those of Janet Napolitano, who has now vetoed dozens of pro-life, pro-family bills.
Or have we come to the point where evangelicals will only vote for people they consider Christians? I hope not, for nothing in the Bible says that people have to be born again Christians before they can be governmental authorities who are used greatly by God to advance his purposes. God used Pharaoh, King of Egypt, to raise Joseph to a position of authority over the whole country, so he could save his people from famine (Genesis 41:37-57). God used Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, to protect and raise up Daniel and his Jewish friends to positions of high authority over Babylon (Daniel 2:46-49). God used Cyrus, King of Persia, to restore the Jewish exiles to their homeland (Isaiah 45:16; Ezra 1:1-4), and used Darius, King of Persia, to protect the Jewish people as they rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem (Ezra 6:1-12). God used Ahashuerus, King of Persia, to raise up Esther as Queen and to give Mordecai high authority and honor in his kingdom (Esther 6:10-11; 8:1-2, 7-15). In the New Testament age, God used the peace enforced by the secular Roman Empire, the Pax Romana, to enable the early Christians to travel freely and spread the Gospel throughout the Mediterranean world.
Here in the United States, God used not only Founding Fathers who were strong Christians, but also Deists such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, to build the foundation of our nation. Jefferson even became our third President in 1801, a demonstration of the wisdom of Article 6 of the Constitution, which says, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
The Bible tells us to pray not just for Christians who happen to have government offices, but “for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way" (1 Timothy 2:2). It is not just Christians in government but all governing authorities who are “instituted by God” (Romans 13:1) and whom Paul can call “God’s servant for your good” (Romans 13:4).
People may object, “But a lot of people won’t vote for Romney because he’s a Mormon.” I suppose there will be some people like that, but there are three current and historical facts that make me think that problem will diminish as the campaign goes on: First, look to Massachusetts, where Romney won the governor’s race in a very liberal state because people saw his competence and common decency and elected him, and his Mormonism didn’t matter to them. Second, consider the situation in Iowa, where there are a lot of evangelicals, and Romney remains the front-runner in the polls. Third, remember Michigan, where Mitt Romney’s father George was a popular governor from 1963 to 1969, even though he was a Mormon.
When people get to know who Romney is, his Mormonism seems not to be a big deal in a political election. The hypothetical question, “Would you vote for a Mormon?” is very different from, “Now that you have gotten to know who Mitt Romney is, would you vote for him?” The more voters get to know him, the more his Mormonism doesn’t matter much.
Ability to win: Romney grew up in Michigan, where his father was governor, and he still has strong name recognition there. This gives him a good chance at winning some Midwest industrial states, a key to the election. And he would make Massachusetts highly competitive, since he was recently governor there. In fact, by winning the governor’s race as a Republican in a solidly Democratic state, he has proven that he can win large numbers of Democratic votes in an election.
In addition, I think Romney would not just tie but win in presidential debates against Hillary Clinton: he’s smarter, more articulate, and more experienced. And the conservative values he stands for still resonate with the majority of Americans. In addition, nearly everyone who has known Romney finds him genuinely likable, which would work to his advantage over Hillary’s abrasive personality in the long months of a campaign.
There are other Republican candidates with conservative positions, but they haven’t generated anywhere near as much support as Romney, probably because more and more voters are deciding that Romney is much better qualified (my point above), and that he is simply the best candidate: articulate, persuasive, intelligent, mature, strong, successful in several fields and a genuine leader.
Therefore it seems to me that supporting Mitt Romney who has a very reasonable chance of winning makes more sense at this point than supporting someone who is not persuading many Republican voters, or speculating about supporting a third-party candidate who can’t win and who would effectively hand Hillary Clinton 2 to 4 Supreme Court appointments and thereby undo 25 years of pro-life work in trying to change the Supreme Court.
The situation as it looks today: Apart from Romney, I don’t think there is any other solidly conservative candidate who can beat Giuliani in the primaries. As for McCain and Thompson, they are not reliably conservative. Among the “second-tier” candidates, there are some good men with solid positions, but they have not generated much support. With the early primary schedule nearly upon us it isn’t reasonable to hope that one of them will suddenly “take off.” There is not enough time now to build sufficient funding and a large enough support structure before January.
So it seems to me that if evangelicals don’t support Romney in a significant way, Giuliani will be the Republican candidate. So then we will have a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights candidate who is on his third marriage and had a messy affair prior to his divorce from his second wife. Then we will lose any high moral ground and the enthusiasm of the evangelical vote (many of whom will just sit it out), and the difference between Giuliani and Clinton will be only one of degrees as he shifts leftward in the general election to appeal to the “middle.” So then if we lose, we lose, and even if we win, we lose on the crucial moral issues of abortion and protection of marriage. Romney is a much better choice. But he needs evangelical support now if he is going to win.
Wayne Grudem
Wayne Grudem is Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary in Phoenix, Arizona.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Kid Shows
The following is written for Breitbart's Big Hollywood website (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/twood/2011/09/17/childrens-programming-not-so-innocent-anymore/) by a friend of mine and filmmaker, Tommy Wood. Tommy and I have worked on one film project and are currently discussing other film possibilities. He's a follower of Christ who has a very bright future in movies. Please pray for his success. This article has gained some attention and is an excellent example of how Christians should speak up in their sphere's of influence for the greater good of our culture. Check out Tommy's insights.
Children’s Programming Not So Innocent Anymore
Posted By Tommy Wood On September 17, 2011 @ 5:55 am In Culture, Featured Story, Politics, Television | 111 Comments
Editor’s Note: Please welcome Tommy Wood and encourage his return! — JN
Could it be that somewhere, someone is targeting our kids? Not with bullets made of lead but with surgical strikes of agenda. A scheme scripted and softly veiled (sometimes not) into the nonsensical programming they love so much. As if the ridiculous plot points and mind-numbing hyperactivity aren’t bad enough, there is something else in play that’s even more contrived than their recycled storylines. Some might think me hypersensitive, but consider this… if you see it in media, it is on purpose. It was written, rehearsed, shot, edited and delivered.
If it’s in there, it’s intentional. Never forget that.
[1]How about a date?
So what, then, am I so tweaked about? I’m a father of three children; ages six, eleven and thirteen. For years, it has troubled me that a selection of children’s shows were laced with strains of propaganda and amoral thought. Some suggest they have scientific proof that modern children’s programming dumbs one down. But, it has the potential to be much more dangerous than that. No matter what side of the political fence you are on, there is one thing upon which I think we can all agree. We don’t want our children exposed to certain subject matter before they are ready, much less have someone else’s opinion subconsciously embedded in their minds.
I’m guessing by now you would like an example. I’m cool with that. As funny as the show can be, one of the repeat offenders is Nickelodeon’s iCarly. They follow the standard “aimed at tweens” obsession with first kisses, gross-out gags, rebellion and celebrity status. The show is full of small desensitizing moments that include a half-naked chubby boy, made up “cuss” words and disrespect for adults. Not too long ago, an episode called iWant MY Website Back aired. Spencer, Carly’s crazy adult brother, dressed in elderly drag in order to hoodwink the grating Nevel. The affable Jerry Trainor, who plays Spencer, sold the gag and yes, it was funny when an older man was mistakenly taken with her… I mean him. If it stopped there, fine. Of course, it did not. Later in the episode the doorbell rings, and it’s the old man. With a desperate tone, he tells Spencer to put the wig back on, and they can try again. At a minimum, this brings into question sexual orientation. So many issues are layered in that moment that we almost have to applaud the writer’s skill at subtext (just kidding). Still, should this content be couched in a primetime kids’ show on a kids’ network?
Don’t answer yet.
I have an even more unsettling example. Remember … if it’s in there, it is on purpose.
Disney just launched a new series called Kickin’ It. (Speaking of new Disney series… Disney, please cancel A.N.T. Farm. It just sucks. I digress.) The third episode of Kickin It contains a suggestion I would never have expected to see in a kids’ show. Ever. One of the characters, Jerry, claims to have the ability to talk to dogs. Because he was raised by wolves. In the episode, Dummy Dancing, Jerry distracts a police K-9 dog, so his friends can sneak into an office and steal a flash drive. Jerry talks to the dog. The dog just sits there, as you would expect. Then, with romantic undertones, Jerry tells the dog, “My perfect day would end with a moonlit walk on the beach.” Next, a policewoman walks up and the conversation goes like this…
POLICEWOMAN – What are you doing with my dog?
JERRY – I’m just getting to know her.
POLICEWOMAN – You know he’s a boy right?
JERRY – This is really awkward.
Cue the LAUGH TRACK
POLICEWOMAN – It is for all of us.
I agree. Awkward.
Am I going to point to sexual orientation here? No. At least not the way you might think. This moment in the story is nothing short of a subtle implication towards bestiality. Call me crazy, but it’s in there. It’s on purpose. The suggestion is that if this dog were a female… maybe Jerry has a shot with her. Liberal or conservative… this is wrong. Not right. With some people in this world trying to remove the stigma of pedophilia, I have no doubt there are those who have no limits.
Parents should not have to be on guard concerning children’s programming. They should be able to feel comfortable about leaving their kids in front of the TV for thirty minutes. I want to commend a couple of shows that, in my opinion, give them that. Even though many times they follow the recipe of talking louder than the last person who spoke, shows like Good Luck Charlie, So Random and Spongebob Squarepants give parents that level of security. At least for now.
We all have to be aware. Turn it off it you deem it wrong for your family. Don’t just accept it. Demand better. Support the good stuff. Let the producers know what matters to you. And, if this doesn’t matter to you… it should.
Full Episode of iCarly – iWant My Website Back [2]
Full Episode of Kickin It – Dummy Dancing [3]
Children’s Programming Not So Innocent Anymore
Posted By Tommy Wood On September 17, 2011 @ 5:55 am In Culture, Featured Story, Politics, Television | 111 Comments
Editor’s Note: Please welcome Tommy Wood and encourage his return! — JN
Could it be that somewhere, someone is targeting our kids? Not with bullets made of lead but with surgical strikes of agenda. A scheme scripted and softly veiled (sometimes not) into the nonsensical programming they love so much. As if the ridiculous plot points and mind-numbing hyperactivity aren’t bad enough, there is something else in play that’s even more contrived than their recycled storylines. Some might think me hypersensitive, but consider this… if you see it in media, it is on purpose. It was written, rehearsed, shot, edited and delivered.
If it’s in there, it’s intentional. Never forget that.
[1]How about a date?
So what, then, am I so tweaked about? I’m a father of three children; ages six, eleven and thirteen. For years, it has troubled me that a selection of children’s shows were laced with strains of propaganda and amoral thought. Some suggest they have scientific proof that modern children’s programming dumbs one down. But, it has the potential to be much more dangerous than that. No matter what side of the political fence you are on, there is one thing upon which I think we can all agree. We don’t want our children exposed to certain subject matter before they are ready, much less have someone else’s opinion subconsciously embedded in their minds.
I’m guessing by now you would like an example. I’m cool with that. As funny as the show can be, one of the repeat offenders is Nickelodeon’s iCarly. They follow the standard “aimed at tweens” obsession with first kisses, gross-out gags, rebellion and celebrity status. The show is full of small desensitizing moments that include a half-naked chubby boy, made up “cuss” words and disrespect for adults. Not too long ago, an episode called iWant MY Website Back aired. Spencer, Carly’s crazy adult brother, dressed in elderly drag in order to hoodwink the grating Nevel. The affable Jerry Trainor, who plays Spencer, sold the gag and yes, it was funny when an older man was mistakenly taken with her… I mean him. If it stopped there, fine. Of course, it did not. Later in the episode the doorbell rings, and it’s the old man. With a desperate tone, he tells Spencer to put the wig back on, and they can try again. At a minimum, this brings into question sexual orientation. So many issues are layered in that moment that we almost have to applaud the writer’s skill at subtext (just kidding). Still, should this content be couched in a primetime kids’ show on a kids’ network?
Don’t answer yet.
I have an even more unsettling example. Remember … if it’s in there, it is on purpose.
Disney just launched a new series called Kickin’ It. (Speaking of new Disney series… Disney, please cancel A.N.T. Farm. It just sucks. I digress.) The third episode of Kickin It contains a suggestion I would never have expected to see in a kids’ show. Ever. One of the characters, Jerry, claims to have the ability to talk to dogs. Because he was raised by wolves. In the episode, Dummy Dancing, Jerry distracts a police K-9 dog, so his friends can sneak into an office and steal a flash drive. Jerry talks to the dog. The dog just sits there, as you would expect. Then, with romantic undertones, Jerry tells the dog, “My perfect day would end with a moonlit walk on the beach.” Next, a policewoman walks up and the conversation goes like this…
POLICEWOMAN – What are you doing with my dog?
JERRY – I’m just getting to know her.
POLICEWOMAN – You know he’s a boy right?
JERRY – This is really awkward.
Cue the LAUGH TRACK
POLICEWOMAN – It is for all of us.
I agree. Awkward.
Am I going to point to sexual orientation here? No. At least not the way you might think. This moment in the story is nothing short of a subtle implication towards bestiality. Call me crazy, but it’s in there. It’s on purpose. The suggestion is that if this dog were a female… maybe Jerry has a shot with her. Liberal or conservative… this is wrong. Not right. With some people in this world trying to remove the stigma of pedophilia, I have no doubt there are those who have no limits.
Parents should not have to be on guard concerning children’s programming. They should be able to feel comfortable about leaving their kids in front of the TV for thirty minutes. I want to commend a couple of shows that, in my opinion, give them that. Even though many times they follow the recipe of talking louder than the last person who spoke, shows like Good Luck Charlie, So Random and Spongebob Squarepants give parents that level of security. At least for now.
We all have to be aware. Turn it off it you deem it wrong for your family. Don’t just accept it. Demand better. Support the good stuff. Let the producers know what matters to you. And, if this doesn’t matter to you… it should.
Full Episode of iCarly – iWant My Website Back [2]
Full Episode of Kickin It – Dummy Dancing [3]
Friday, August 19, 2011
Priesthood of Believers
Proponents of congregationalism often cite 1 Peter 2 in support of the idea that every member of a local church is to have authority with regard to the decisions of the church. The texts quoted are:
"4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 2:4-5)
"9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." (1 Pet. 2:9).
The Evangelical Free denomination (EFCA) states “based on the priesthood of all believers (1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6; 5:9), we believe that the will of Christ for his church is best discerned through the collective understanding of the congregation. Therefore, the congregation is the highest governing authority under Christ for the local church.” (Evangelical Convictions, p. 261).
But is this what the phrase actually means in Scripture? I’m not so sure. The Holman Bible Dictionary indicates that the priesthood of the believer primarily refers to two aspects: 1. Believers have direct access to God and can respond to the Spirit’s activity in their lives without the need for a professional priest to mediate their contact with Him. 2. Believers have the right and responsibility to minister directly to one another and the world. A professional priest is not the only one who can be a direct channel of God’s Spirit to others. In the Old Testament, usually only the professionally ordained priests could directly hear God for the people and communicate to the people on God’s behalf. Now, since the death and resurrection of Christ, anyone who is a true Christian has direct access to God. What a wonderful blessing!
But, personally, I believe the EFCA statement above takes the doctrine too far when it suggests that this phrase pertains to local church government. The 1 Peter passages listed above say nothing about church government or decision making in a local body. On the contrary, Peter is very specific about the implications of this priesthood. He states that it is a position where “offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” are to be made (1 Pet. 2:5) and where “the praises of him” are to be “declared” (1 Pet. 2:9). This corresponds to Holman’s explanation above. However, later in the same publication, the EFCA qualifies its interpretation by stating that the Scriptures clearly teach that pastors and elders are given the mandate and authority to lead local churches. Specifically, the denomination states that “an EFC (Evangelical Free Church) entrusts much of the decision-making to godly leaders who are trained, trusted and allowed to lead.”
Where do I land? Well, I believe that the priesthood enables any believing member of a local church the possibility to hear directly from God. I also believe that God has clearly indicated that the Sr. Pastor, other elders (often in the form of a Church Council), and the staff of a local church are entrusted with the authority and leadership of local churches and that such authority is ordained by God and not man. In light of this, I think any Sr. Pastor of a local church would be wise to have a system of prayerful congregational participation for major decisions under the guidance of ordained leaders. Specifically, I think a church should have congregational membership meetings covered in prayer with biblical rules of order where the church membership should inform decisions regarding five areas: 1. Selection of the governing board. 2. Selection of the Sr. Pastor. 3. Alterations in the Constitution/bylaws. 4. Approval of the Annual Church Budget. 5. Approval of major purchases. This, it seems to me, offers a balance between hyper-democratic church government (which so often leads to stagnation and a least common denominator, popularity-based decision process) and an extreme hierarchical church government (which leaves the clergy with little accountability).
No system of church government is perfect this side of Heaven. It also seems to me that the Bible is purposely vague on the particulars of church government at times, leaving each local body and branch of Christ’s Church to turn to His Spirit for guidance in how to function most effectively for its particular community and time in history. Ultimately, it’s all about Him and regardless of what government a church has, if the Pastor and the people are passionate about Christ and submissive to His leadership, God will bless the fellowship. May we all seek this blessed ideal!
"4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 2:4-5)
"9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." (1 Pet. 2:9).
The Evangelical Free denomination (EFCA) states “based on the priesthood of all believers (1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6; 5:9), we believe that the will of Christ for his church is best discerned through the collective understanding of the congregation. Therefore, the congregation is the highest governing authority under Christ for the local church.” (Evangelical Convictions, p. 261).
But is this what the phrase actually means in Scripture? I’m not so sure. The Holman Bible Dictionary indicates that the priesthood of the believer primarily refers to two aspects: 1. Believers have direct access to God and can respond to the Spirit’s activity in their lives without the need for a professional priest to mediate their contact with Him. 2. Believers have the right and responsibility to minister directly to one another and the world. A professional priest is not the only one who can be a direct channel of God’s Spirit to others. In the Old Testament, usually only the professionally ordained priests could directly hear God for the people and communicate to the people on God’s behalf. Now, since the death and resurrection of Christ, anyone who is a true Christian has direct access to God. What a wonderful blessing!
But, personally, I believe the EFCA statement above takes the doctrine too far when it suggests that this phrase pertains to local church government. The 1 Peter passages listed above say nothing about church government or decision making in a local body. On the contrary, Peter is very specific about the implications of this priesthood. He states that it is a position where “offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” are to be made (1 Pet. 2:5) and where “the praises of him” are to be “declared” (1 Pet. 2:9). This corresponds to Holman’s explanation above. However, later in the same publication, the EFCA qualifies its interpretation by stating that the Scriptures clearly teach that pastors and elders are given the mandate and authority to lead local churches. Specifically, the denomination states that “an EFC (Evangelical Free Church) entrusts much of the decision-making to godly leaders who are trained, trusted and allowed to lead.”
Where do I land? Well, I believe that the priesthood enables any believing member of a local church the possibility to hear directly from God. I also believe that God has clearly indicated that the Sr. Pastor, other elders (often in the form of a Church Council), and the staff of a local church are entrusted with the authority and leadership of local churches and that such authority is ordained by God and not man. In light of this, I think any Sr. Pastor of a local church would be wise to have a system of prayerful congregational participation for major decisions under the guidance of ordained leaders. Specifically, I think a church should have congregational membership meetings covered in prayer with biblical rules of order where the church membership should inform decisions regarding five areas: 1. Selection of the governing board. 2. Selection of the Sr. Pastor. 3. Alterations in the Constitution/bylaws. 4. Approval of the Annual Church Budget. 5. Approval of major purchases. This, it seems to me, offers a balance between hyper-democratic church government (which so often leads to stagnation and a least common denominator, popularity-based decision process) and an extreme hierarchical church government (which leaves the clergy with little accountability).
No system of church government is perfect this side of Heaven. It also seems to me that the Bible is purposely vague on the particulars of church government at times, leaving each local body and branch of Christ’s Church to turn to His Spirit for guidance in how to function most effectively for its particular community and time in history. Ultimately, it’s all about Him and regardless of what government a church has, if the Pastor and the people are passionate about Christ and submissive to His leadership, God will bless the fellowship. May we all seek this blessed ideal!
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Congregational Voting
In my last entry, I suggested the possibility of a mature membership, thus negating many of the problems Dr. MacDonald correctly addressed in many, if not most, congregational structures. But my argument has a weakness, namely it does not provide a biblical example of such a membership. We will, therefore, turn to three of the most cited passages in support of congregationalism: Acts 6:2-5, Matthew 18:17, and 2 Cor. 2:6. Once again, I will use a conversational format to engage with Dr. MacDonald’s blog. Let’s start with him:
(Dr. MacDonald’s Blog). Voting Is Not Biblical
The right to vote may be an American right given by the Constitution, but it is not a kingdom right given in the Word of God. It may be a tradition of some wonderful streams of church history, e.g. Baptist, but it is not biblical. There is not a shred of biblical evidence for a congregation voting on what its direction should be, but many church members believe it is their ‘God-given right’ to stand in judgement over the Pastors and Elders that are seeking to lead them. Even Mark Dever, a personal friend, champion for congregationalism, and credible scholar admits, “But the functioning of a purely congregational system is both unwieldy and lacking biblical support. Instead the establishment of a body of elders to serve in the day-to-day leadership in spiritual matters, serving at the pleasure of the congregation, enables us to maintain both the traditional distinctive of congregational life and the clearly biblical structure of elders.”
****(Rusty). Dr. MacDonald is correct in his assertion that much of what we call congregationalism is simply a sanctified form of American democracy. But I do not agree that there is not a shred of biblical evidence for voting. There is, at least, a shred. Let’s look at the three above mentioned passages.
Acts 6:2-5: “So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.” 5 This proposal pleased the whole group.”
In this passage, the Twelve Apostles asked “all the disciples” (v. 2) to “choose seven men from among” them to be the first deacons (v.3). Granted, the passage doesn’t say there was a vote that happened, but some democratic mechanism for choosing was certainly used. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that a congregation of committed “disciples” (that is, mature believers who are serious about God) should be involved in the selection of officers for the church body. It should also be pointed out, however, that the Apostles (who at the time were in the role of Elders) held final veto authority on the selected candidates. In Acts 6:6, we see the Apostles (Elders) confirming the vote by praying and laying their hands on the candidates. So, this was not an extreme democratic procedure, but a congregational affirmation process. Recently, at First Free, we made a motion to do away with a purely popular vote process of appointing candidates for our elder level roles at the church (Council and Elders) and moved to a more exhaustive screening process complete with congregational nomination, congregational affirmation, and pastoral/elder confirmation.
Matthew 18:17: “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” This passage shows the culmination of the quintessential scriptural process of church discipline. The context gives a normative pattern for conflict: 1. Go to the offender privately. 2. If unresolved, take one or two godly witnesses (many argue these witnesses should be elders). 3. If still unresolved due to unrepentance, present it to the church. Clearly, the passage indicates that the church body has some role in the discipline of an unrepentant, disruptive member. But, again, no vote is specifically indicated. When combined with other passages (ie. 1 Tim. 5:17), it seems reasonable that the leaders of the church who serve and represent the congregation should handle the mechanics of this process and at some point present such situations to the congregation in a report format. Recently, at First Free, we had an unrepentant member removed from church membership due to disciplinary action on the part of the Elders. During our business meeting, we asked all non-members to exit the room and then reported the action to the church body. While no vote took place, the congregation was made aware of the situation appropriately and in accordance with the clear instruction given in the passage to “tell it to the church.” This passage, however, is admittedly weak if used as a defense for a congregation voting on all decisions of the church.
2 Cor. 2:6: “The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient for him.” Again, we have a situation concerning church discipline in which the congregation is clearly included. There can be no doubt that some sins are of such a severity that it becomes necessary for an entire congregation to be made aware of them. We know from 1 Tim. 5:19-20 that gross sin by a Pastor is definitely to be stated publicly to the congregation. Other examples also seem to apply (as in perverse sexual sin, see 1 Cor. 5). Voting may be a part of the idea here as in a congregation voting to remove the one disciplined. This could arguably be an application of the idea of punishment being inflicted on him or her by the majority. However, the passage does not state any procedure of congregational voting and more naturally lends itself to appropriate “shunning” by a congregation for blatant and damaging sin to the body. For example, a Sr. Pastor caught embezzling large amounts of the church’s finances or an Elder abusing children in the church without remorse or repentance should feel the strong disapproval of the church body. This is a “punishment” that Paul teaches as appropriate in certain egregious situations. But, again, voting on all church decisions is not clearly articulated or endorsed by the passage.
Since these three passages are often prominently used to support congregationalism, MacDonald's theological disagreement with congregationalists is understandable. However, just because these passages don’t clearly promote voting per se, we can't make the argument that they forbid voting. And they certainly do endorse the idea of congregational participation, or, at the very least, congregational affirmation. I, therefore, do not agree with Dr. MacDonald that congregationalism is necessarily satanic or that it is without a shred of evidence in the Bible. But I am persuaded that many of the congregational patterns in our churches are counterproductive, inefficient, and, at times, sinful and should be seriously evaluated.
Another passage that is also cited as a primary scripture in favor of congregationalism is 1 Peter 2:9: “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.”
I will elaborate on this passage in my next entry.
(Dr. MacDonald’s Blog). Voting Is Not Biblical
The right to vote may be an American right given by the Constitution, but it is not a kingdom right given in the Word of God. It may be a tradition of some wonderful streams of church history, e.g. Baptist, but it is not biblical. There is not a shred of biblical evidence for a congregation voting on what its direction should be, but many church members believe it is their ‘God-given right’ to stand in judgement over the Pastors and Elders that are seeking to lead them. Even Mark Dever, a personal friend, champion for congregationalism, and credible scholar admits, “But the functioning of a purely congregational system is both unwieldy and lacking biblical support. Instead the establishment of a body of elders to serve in the day-to-day leadership in spiritual matters, serving at the pleasure of the congregation, enables us to maintain both the traditional distinctive of congregational life and the clearly biblical structure of elders.”
****(Rusty). Dr. MacDonald is correct in his assertion that much of what we call congregationalism is simply a sanctified form of American democracy. But I do not agree that there is not a shred of biblical evidence for voting. There is, at least, a shred. Let’s look at the three above mentioned passages.
Acts 6:2-5: “So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.” 5 This proposal pleased the whole group.”
In this passage, the Twelve Apostles asked “all the disciples” (v. 2) to “choose seven men from among” them to be the first deacons (v.3). Granted, the passage doesn’t say there was a vote that happened, but some democratic mechanism for choosing was certainly used. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that a congregation of committed “disciples” (that is, mature believers who are serious about God) should be involved in the selection of officers for the church body. It should also be pointed out, however, that the Apostles (who at the time were in the role of Elders) held final veto authority on the selected candidates. In Acts 6:6, we see the Apostles (Elders) confirming the vote by praying and laying their hands on the candidates. So, this was not an extreme democratic procedure, but a congregational affirmation process. Recently, at First Free, we made a motion to do away with a purely popular vote process of appointing candidates for our elder level roles at the church (Council and Elders) and moved to a more exhaustive screening process complete with congregational nomination, congregational affirmation, and pastoral/elder confirmation.
Matthew 18:17: “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” This passage shows the culmination of the quintessential scriptural process of church discipline. The context gives a normative pattern for conflict: 1. Go to the offender privately. 2. If unresolved, take one or two godly witnesses (many argue these witnesses should be elders). 3. If still unresolved due to unrepentance, present it to the church. Clearly, the passage indicates that the church body has some role in the discipline of an unrepentant, disruptive member. But, again, no vote is specifically indicated. When combined with other passages (ie. 1 Tim. 5:17), it seems reasonable that the leaders of the church who serve and represent the congregation should handle the mechanics of this process and at some point present such situations to the congregation in a report format. Recently, at First Free, we had an unrepentant member removed from church membership due to disciplinary action on the part of the Elders. During our business meeting, we asked all non-members to exit the room and then reported the action to the church body. While no vote took place, the congregation was made aware of the situation appropriately and in accordance with the clear instruction given in the passage to “tell it to the church.” This passage, however, is admittedly weak if used as a defense for a congregation voting on all decisions of the church.
2 Cor. 2:6: “The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient for him.” Again, we have a situation concerning church discipline in which the congregation is clearly included. There can be no doubt that some sins are of such a severity that it becomes necessary for an entire congregation to be made aware of them. We know from 1 Tim. 5:19-20 that gross sin by a Pastor is definitely to be stated publicly to the congregation. Other examples also seem to apply (as in perverse sexual sin, see 1 Cor. 5). Voting may be a part of the idea here as in a congregation voting to remove the one disciplined. This could arguably be an application of the idea of punishment being inflicted on him or her by the majority. However, the passage does not state any procedure of congregational voting and more naturally lends itself to appropriate “shunning” by a congregation for blatant and damaging sin to the body. For example, a Sr. Pastor caught embezzling large amounts of the church’s finances or an Elder abusing children in the church without remorse or repentance should feel the strong disapproval of the church body. This is a “punishment” that Paul teaches as appropriate in certain egregious situations. But, again, voting on all church decisions is not clearly articulated or endorsed by the passage.
Since these three passages are often prominently used to support congregationalism, MacDonald's theological disagreement with congregationalists is understandable. However, just because these passages don’t clearly promote voting per se, we can't make the argument that they forbid voting. And they certainly do endorse the idea of congregational participation, or, at the very least, congregational affirmation. I, therefore, do not agree with Dr. MacDonald that congregationalism is necessarily satanic or that it is without a shred of evidence in the Bible. But I am persuaded that many of the congregational patterns in our churches are counterproductive, inefficient, and, at times, sinful and should be seriously evaluated.
Another passage that is also cited as a primary scripture in favor of congregationalism is 1 Peter 2:9: “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.”
I will elaborate on this passage in my next entry.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
What if the "Congregation" is all Mature?
In response to Dr. MacDonald’s Blog entry on Congregationalism, I felt it would be best to directly interact with it in a conversational style. That is to say, I’ll post his blog in thought units and then respond immediately to them. My comments will be marked with the following ***. I will also deal with each point in separate blogs, so this subject will be on our radar for some time.
Dr. James MacDonald - Blog
"NOTE: the tone of this post is intentionally aimed at influencing those who are engulfed in this system of church government that neither honors the Scriptures nor advances the gospel.
***(Rusty)I think it’s important to note that Dr. MacDonald qualifies what he is talking about. Specifically, he’s addressing a church government “that neither honors the Scriptures nor advances the gospel.” In another blog article, Dr. MacDonald further defines this government as one in which the congregation actually rules the church, trumping all elder and pastoral authority to the point where Robert’s Rules of Order are more important than the Bible itself. He is addressing a form of extreme democracy in the church where issues of theological importance are left in the hands of a voting system where every member has equal authority regardless of spiritual maturity. He is not addressing a church government with leaders who encourage congregational participation and even voting on certain issues (ie. the selection of elders). Note the following quote from Dr. MacDonald, “Clearly the congregation has a role in church life. Those who believe in Elder rule should recognize this participation by the congregation and the need to bring them into important church actions. However, a role of participation is a long way from final authority, voting, and Robert’s Rules of Order. Congregational participation under Eldership is not congregational government and the conversation would be advanced if proponents would stop using this passage (Matt. 18) to defend the most common configurations of congregationalism today.” It should also be pointed out that Dr. MacDonald’s post is, by his own admission, a “rant” and not an exhaustive theological treatise on the subject. Make no mistake about it, James MacDonald knows the Bible well and is highly intelligent. It is likely that most of us would be smashed to pieces in an actual debate with him and end up sucking our thumbs and crying “MaMa!” afterwards. This is not to say he’s correct. Just because someone is an excellent debater doesn’t mean he’s right. But, he’s no theological novice and his arguments should be taken seriously. Note his response to some vicious criticism that came his way after this post, “Many commented demanding I refute the biblical passages used to defend congregational government, as though I had failed to do so because I was not able. Oh please, it was a rant, not an air-tight argument (as many rightly observed). Ranting is okay on a blog, isn’t it? (Crazy how even some blogs that pride themselves on their hyperbole and sarcasm can’t see it in others.)”
MacDonald Blog again: That’s right! It’s actually the title to a book I have had percolating in my mind for a long time. After almost 30 years in ministry I have come irreversibly to this conclusion: congregational government is an invention and tool of the enemy of our souls to destroy the church of Jesus Christ. So there, I have said the strongest part of the message first; now some commentary.
1) Congregational Meetings Are Forums for Division:
When church life is going well, the leaders of a church struggle to get a quorum for decision making. When things are going wrong, every carnal member lines up at a microphone to spew their venom and destroy the work of Christ in the church. I saw it growing up, and I have seen it since in churches that are fighting to survive and do something courageous for their future. Good people being held hostage by bad people, minorities hijacking the majority because a set of ‘by-laws’ get higher regard than the Scriptures. Satan does want to rip church unity to shreds like a devouring lion (1 Peter 5:8). He is accomplishing that again and again through a system of church government which elevates the fleshly and the worldly—often even those who no longer attend—to a status of influence equal to the most spiritually and biblically-minded in any congregation.
***(Rusty)When I interviewed at First Free, Rockford, I was asked how I thought a church should be run. My answer was that I believed the best way was to follow a “Staff Led, Elder Protected, and Congregation Fulfilled” model. It has been my experience that every healthy church I’ve ever seen or served in had a similar model of church leadership and I made it clear that this would be the ideal I would influence First Free toward. Dr. MacDonald states, rather vividly, some reasons why I believe in this model. Recently I was talking to another pastor of a large church in our area about their church government. After years of hard work and uncomfortable church meetings, he had finally led his fellowship to an efficient and effective leadership model. As we were discussing it, he stated the problem with the church’s previous government succinctly with a memory of his childhood. He said, “When we were kids, we’d sit in the balcony during business meetings. We loved it because we got to watch our parents in the circus down below.” He described memories of church members assaulting one another during business meetings and the microphone being handed out indiscriminately to anyone who wanted to share “their concerns.” For the kids, it was a show full of drama, posturing, and appalling attacks the likes of which would make Congress blush. I’ve seen this in churches I’ve attended and have no doubt such displays are disastrous for the church and grievous to the heart of a loving God. There can be no doubt that any church government that encourages such a travesty in the Body of Christ is, at best, dysfunctional and, at worst, sinful. I completely agree with Dr. MacDonald on his point that our churches cannot in any way elevate fleshly and worldly voices to a place of influence that Scripture clearly assigns to the most spiritually mature. However, what if all the members of a church had a level of maturity that would be considered highly developed? What if the membership process was carried out so skillfully that only those who are truly devoted to Christ and His Word have a voice in such meetings? I think Pastor Rick Warren’s insights into the three concentric circles of every church is helpful here. There are three groups that overlap in every church: The crowd, the congregation, and the core. The crowd includes everyone who shows up for Easter. The church is their church insomuch as when they attend church, they go to this particular church (however, this may be as little as once a year or quarter). These are usually not the mature Christians of the fellowship, and often they are not saved at all. The congregation consists of those who regularly attend the church weekly, but are not involved in the programs greatly. They value worship on Sundays and may even be growing spiritually, but they are not committed to the fellowship enough to give sacrificially or serve in any meaningful capacity. These are typically more mature than the crowd, but probably do not possess leadership-level maturity. The core is the faithful, sacrificial, regular, and biblical members of the church. They are sold out for Christ and have demonstrated as much through their lives. These people are the mature and are, typically, in healthy churches, the leaders of the church. The church’s leadership posts are usually filled by such people and, biblically, they should indeed be given greater authority. Also, it should be noted, that Pastors, Staff, and Elders (or Church Council in First Free’s structure) should be heavily screened and tested to ensure that they embody this group and are, therefore, the most mature (or, at the very least, represent well the most mature) in the church (see 1 Tim. 3).
The problem I see with Dr. MacDonald’s critique at this point of the discussion is that he doesn’t seem to make allowance for the possibility that the core (which may number more than the Pastor, Staff, and Elders—that is to say, there may be more mature people in a church than offices they can fill) could conceivably be the membership, and, therefore would be led of the Lord in a congregational business-meeting setting. This is one of the issues with which I’m currently challenging our leadership. I want to know that all leaders are very serious about God and are spiritually mature. I also want to have a more excellent process by which to evaluate the maturity of those we nominate for office. And, I’m pushing for a more rigorous membership process. There have been times I’ve been puzzled with how individuals could have possibly become members of our church when serious flaws in character are so readily apparent by their actions. Due diligence is often not followed when it comes to membership, and this should be taken more seriously in all of our churches. Dr. MacDonald’s blog further strengthens my resolve to move away from popularity contests for leadership positions and hyper-democracy (ie. anyone can go to the microphone, even if clearly dysfunctional) in the future.
Dr. James MacDonald - Blog
"NOTE: the tone of this post is intentionally aimed at influencing those who are engulfed in this system of church government that neither honors the Scriptures nor advances the gospel.
***(Rusty)I think it’s important to note that Dr. MacDonald qualifies what he is talking about. Specifically, he’s addressing a church government “that neither honors the Scriptures nor advances the gospel.” In another blog article, Dr. MacDonald further defines this government as one in which the congregation actually rules the church, trumping all elder and pastoral authority to the point where Robert’s Rules of Order are more important than the Bible itself. He is addressing a form of extreme democracy in the church where issues of theological importance are left in the hands of a voting system where every member has equal authority regardless of spiritual maturity. He is not addressing a church government with leaders who encourage congregational participation and even voting on certain issues (ie. the selection of elders). Note the following quote from Dr. MacDonald, “Clearly the congregation has a role in church life. Those who believe in Elder rule should recognize this participation by the congregation and the need to bring them into important church actions. However, a role of participation is a long way from final authority, voting, and Robert’s Rules of Order. Congregational participation under Eldership is not congregational government and the conversation would be advanced if proponents would stop using this passage (Matt. 18) to defend the most common configurations of congregationalism today.” It should also be pointed out that Dr. MacDonald’s post is, by his own admission, a “rant” and not an exhaustive theological treatise on the subject. Make no mistake about it, James MacDonald knows the Bible well and is highly intelligent. It is likely that most of us would be smashed to pieces in an actual debate with him and end up sucking our thumbs and crying “MaMa!” afterwards. This is not to say he’s correct. Just because someone is an excellent debater doesn’t mean he’s right. But, he’s no theological novice and his arguments should be taken seriously. Note his response to some vicious criticism that came his way after this post, “Many commented demanding I refute the biblical passages used to defend congregational government, as though I had failed to do so because I was not able. Oh please, it was a rant, not an air-tight argument (as many rightly observed). Ranting is okay on a blog, isn’t it? (Crazy how even some blogs that pride themselves on their hyperbole and sarcasm can’t see it in others.)”
MacDonald Blog again: That’s right! It’s actually the title to a book I have had percolating in my mind for a long time. After almost 30 years in ministry I have come irreversibly to this conclusion: congregational government is an invention and tool of the enemy of our souls to destroy the church of Jesus Christ. So there, I have said the strongest part of the message first; now some commentary.
1) Congregational Meetings Are Forums for Division:
When church life is going well, the leaders of a church struggle to get a quorum for decision making. When things are going wrong, every carnal member lines up at a microphone to spew their venom and destroy the work of Christ in the church. I saw it growing up, and I have seen it since in churches that are fighting to survive and do something courageous for their future. Good people being held hostage by bad people, minorities hijacking the majority because a set of ‘by-laws’ get higher regard than the Scriptures. Satan does want to rip church unity to shreds like a devouring lion (1 Peter 5:8). He is accomplishing that again and again through a system of church government which elevates the fleshly and the worldly—often even those who no longer attend—to a status of influence equal to the most spiritually and biblically-minded in any congregation.
***(Rusty)When I interviewed at First Free, Rockford, I was asked how I thought a church should be run. My answer was that I believed the best way was to follow a “Staff Led, Elder Protected, and Congregation Fulfilled” model. It has been my experience that every healthy church I’ve ever seen or served in had a similar model of church leadership and I made it clear that this would be the ideal I would influence First Free toward. Dr. MacDonald states, rather vividly, some reasons why I believe in this model. Recently I was talking to another pastor of a large church in our area about their church government. After years of hard work and uncomfortable church meetings, he had finally led his fellowship to an efficient and effective leadership model. As we were discussing it, he stated the problem with the church’s previous government succinctly with a memory of his childhood. He said, “When we were kids, we’d sit in the balcony during business meetings. We loved it because we got to watch our parents in the circus down below.” He described memories of church members assaulting one another during business meetings and the microphone being handed out indiscriminately to anyone who wanted to share “their concerns.” For the kids, it was a show full of drama, posturing, and appalling attacks the likes of which would make Congress blush. I’ve seen this in churches I’ve attended and have no doubt such displays are disastrous for the church and grievous to the heart of a loving God. There can be no doubt that any church government that encourages such a travesty in the Body of Christ is, at best, dysfunctional and, at worst, sinful. I completely agree with Dr. MacDonald on his point that our churches cannot in any way elevate fleshly and worldly voices to a place of influence that Scripture clearly assigns to the most spiritually mature. However, what if all the members of a church had a level of maturity that would be considered highly developed? What if the membership process was carried out so skillfully that only those who are truly devoted to Christ and His Word have a voice in such meetings? I think Pastor Rick Warren’s insights into the three concentric circles of every church is helpful here. There are three groups that overlap in every church: The crowd, the congregation, and the core. The crowd includes everyone who shows up for Easter. The church is their church insomuch as when they attend church, they go to this particular church (however, this may be as little as once a year or quarter). These are usually not the mature Christians of the fellowship, and often they are not saved at all. The congregation consists of those who regularly attend the church weekly, but are not involved in the programs greatly. They value worship on Sundays and may even be growing spiritually, but they are not committed to the fellowship enough to give sacrificially or serve in any meaningful capacity. These are typically more mature than the crowd, but probably do not possess leadership-level maturity. The core is the faithful, sacrificial, regular, and biblical members of the church. They are sold out for Christ and have demonstrated as much through their lives. These people are the mature and are, typically, in healthy churches, the leaders of the church. The church’s leadership posts are usually filled by such people and, biblically, they should indeed be given greater authority. Also, it should be noted, that Pastors, Staff, and Elders (or Church Council in First Free’s structure) should be heavily screened and tested to ensure that they embody this group and are, therefore, the most mature (or, at the very least, represent well the most mature) in the church (see 1 Tim. 3).
The problem I see with Dr. MacDonald’s critique at this point of the discussion is that he doesn’t seem to make allowance for the possibility that the core (which may number more than the Pastor, Staff, and Elders—that is to say, there may be more mature people in a church than offices they can fill) could conceivably be the membership, and, therefore would be led of the Lord in a congregational business-meeting setting. This is one of the issues with which I’m currently challenging our leadership. I want to know that all leaders are very serious about God and are spiritually mature. I also want to have a more excellent process by which to evaluate the maturity of those we nominate for office. And, I’m pushing for a more rigorous membership process. There have been times I’ve been puzzled with how individuals could have possibly become members of our church when serious flaws in character are so readily apparent by their actions. Due diligence is often not followed when it comes to membership, and this should be taken more seriously in all of our churches. Dr. MacDonald’s blog further strengthens my resolve to move away from popularity contests for leadership positions and hyper-democracy (ie. anyone can go to the microphone, even if clearly dysfunctional) in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)