Thursday, July 30, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
The Sufficiency of Scripture and Conservatism
"‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’" (Genesis 3:2)
Eve's response to the serpent in Genesis 3 is the first example of man's refusal to trust in the sufficiency of Scripture. Trusting in the sufficiency of Scripture simply means believing that in the Bible God has given us everything we need to be "equipped for every good work." It means that we don't feel the need to add our own morality to the inspired words of Scripture. Granted, in Genesis 3 Adam and Eve did not have the full revelation of Scripture that we have today. But they did have all the information that God intended them to have at that time to live in His perfect will for their lives.
The mistake that conservatives make is that they do not trust in the sufficiency of Scripture. They simply do not trust God enough to believe that everything we need to live our lives in ways that would glorify Him is in the Bible. In addition they are arrogant enough to believe that they can add their own thoughts, preferences, traditions, and morality to God's word. How offensive must that be to a holy and perfect God. To think that God needs your input or advice in instructing people how to live lives pleasing to Him must infuriate Him.
In addition conservatives tend to see themselves as holier or better than everyone else because of the rules they follow (rules which they made up). Conservatives tend to fiercely dislike and argue with liberals. In reality conservatives are no better than liberals even though they would look down on liberals for their refusal to follow or hold to the traditional interpretation of Scripture. I have news for conservatives: you are in exactly the same boat as liberals. Neither of you trust in Scripture. Liberals do not trust in the authority of Scripture while conservatives do not trust in the sufficiency of Scripture. You are both in sin and in need of repentance.
In his book "Christian Beliefs", Wayne Grudem writes "There are issues and situations for which God has not provided the precise direction or rules that we sometimes desire. But because Scripture is sufficient, we do not have the right to add to it's commands or teachings." For example, conservatives who look down on others for smoking cigarettes probably wish there was a verse in the Bible that prohibited the smoking of cigarettes. Since there isn't, conservatives will then find an obscure verse and add their own meaning to it resulting in the opinion that smoking is a sin. Grudem continues "In the same way, with regard to living the Christian life, the sufficiency of Scripture reminds us that nothing is sin that is not forbidden by Scripture either explicitally or by implication. Therefore we are not to add prohibitions where we don't believe Scripture is precise enough." There are situations in a Christian's life where drinking alcohol, going to a movie theater, or eating meat offered to idols would be inappropriate (1 Cor. 8-10). But since there is no explicit or implied teaching that forbids these actions, they cannot be called sinful.
Since the first man and woman we have had a tendency to distrust the creator God and put our trust in His creation, most frequently ourselves. We do this by relying on our own knowledge and insight by adding our own words to the words of a perfect and holy God. This brings us back to our mother Eve. Eve did like many of us continue to do by"exchanging the truth about God for a lie and worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator." We should learn from her the serious consequenses of not trusting in the sufficiency of the word of God. As a result of her and Adam's sin, mankind fell and death and decay entered the world. Let us not be like our mother Eve. Let us rest in the peace of the knowledge that in God's word is everything we need to live lives pleasing to Him.
Eve's response to the serpent in Genesis 3 is the first example of man's refusal to trust in the sufficiency of Scripture. Trusting in the sufficiency of Scripture simply means believing that in the Bible God has given us everything we need to be "equipped for every good work." It means that we don't feel the need to add our own morality to the inspired words of Scripture. Granted, in Genesis 3 Adam and Eve did not have the full revelation of Scripture that we have today. But they did have all the information that God intended them to have at that time to live in His perfect will for their lives.
The mistake that conservatives make is that they do not trust in the sufficiency of Scripture. They simply do not trust God enough to believe that everything we need to live our lives in ways that would glorify Him is in the Bible. In addition they are arrogant enough to believe that they can add their own thoughts, preferences, traditions, and morality to God's word. How offensive must that be to a holy and perfect God. To think that God needs your input or advice in instructing people how to live lives pleasing to Him must infuriate Him.
In addition conservatives tend to see themselves as holier or better than everyone else because of the rules they follow (rules which they made up). Conservatives tend to fiercely dislike and argue with liberals. In reality conservatives are no better than liberals even though they would look down on liberals for their refusal to follow or hold to the traditional interpretation of Scripture. I have news for conservatives: you are in exactly the same boat as liberals. Neither of you trust in Scripture. Liberals do not trust in the authority of Scripture while conservatives do not trust in the sufficiency of Scripture. You are both in sin and in need of repentance.
In his book "Christian Beliefs", Wayne Grudem writes "There are issues and situations for which God has not provided the precise direction or rules that we sometimes desire. But because Scripture is sufficient, we do not have the right to add to it's commands or teachings." For example, conservatives who look down on others for smoking cigarettes probably wish there was a verse in the Bible that prohibited the smoking of cigarettes. Since there isn't, conservatives will then find an obscure verse and add their own meaning to it resulting in the opinion that smoking is a sin. Grudem continues "In the same way, with regard to living the Christian life, the sufficiency of Scripture reminds us that nothing is sin that is not forbidden by Scripture either explicitally or by implication. Therefore we are not to add prohibitions where we don't believe Scripture is precise enough." There are situations in a Christian's life where drinking alcohol, going to a movie theater, or eating meat offered to idols would be inappropriate (1 Cor. 8-10). But since there is no explicit or implied teaching that forbids these actions, they cannot be called sinful.
Since the first man and woman we have had a tendency to distrust the creator God and put our trust in His creation, most frequently ourselves. We do this by relying on our own knowledge and insight by adding our own words to the words of a perfect and holy God. This brings us back to our mother Eve. Eve did like many of us continue to do by"exchanging the truth about God for a lie and worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator." We should learn from her the serious consequenses of not trusting in the sufficiency of the word of God. As a result of her and Adam's sin, mankind fell and death and decay entered the world. Let us not be like our mother Eve. Let us rest in the peace of the knowledge that in God's word is everything we need to live lives pleasing to Him.
Managing Your Household Well
"He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?" (1 Timothy 3:4-5)
This is a pretty clear verse. Paul says that before becoming an elder a man must have proven that he is able to manage his own household well. The logic, Paul says, is that “if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?” (v5). So what does it mean to “manage his own household”?
Paul says in verse 4 that “with all dignity” a man must “keep his children submissive”. A man must have the respect of his children and command their attention and obedience. Also, he must keep his position with his children in treating them with dignity. Children are of no less worth than parents and should be treated with respect. However, as with the relationship between Jesus and the Father, and between husband and wife there is an authority structure inherent to the parent-child relationship. A good snapshot of this part of the parent-child relationship is given by Paul in his letter to the Ephesian church:
As long as parents are not instructing children to sin, (this is what Paul means by bringing them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord) children are to obey and respect their parents. It is the parents obligation to treat their children with love and respect, not provoking them to anger but raise them in a household that places Jesus above everything.
So now that we see what the parent-child relationship is to be let’s look at the husband-wife relationship. The same principal applies here. Husbands and wives are of equal worth in the eyes of God but there is a definite authority structure to the relationship. Let’s look at what husbands are commanded: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph 5:25). “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Eph. 5:31). “...let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband” (Eph. 5:33). I love the ESV Study Bible commentary on these verses:
In conclusion, if a man desires to be an elder he must treat his children with respect and love his wife in such a sacrificial way that they find pleasure and protection in their obedience to him. He will manage his household well and prove himself fit to manage God’s church.
For further reading I recommend John Piper's commentary on 1 Timothy 3:4-5: Click here.
This is a pretty clear verse. Paul says that before becoming an elder a man must have proven that he is able to manage his own household well. The logic, Paul says, is that “if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?” (v5). So what does it mean to “manage his own household”?
Paul says in verse 4 that “with all dignity” a man must “keep his children submissive”. A man must have the respect of his children and command their attention and obedience. Also, he must keep his position with his children in treating them with dignity. Children are of no less worth than parents and should be treated with respect. However, as with the relationship between Jesus and the Father, and between husband and wife there is an authority structure inherent to the parent-child relationship. A good snapshot of this part of the parent-child relationship is given by Paul in his letter to the Ephesian church:
“Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”
(Eph. 6:1-4)
(Eph. 6:1-4)
As long as parents are not instructing children to sin, (this is what Paul means by bringing them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord) children are to obey and respect their parents. It is the parents obligation to treat their children with love and respect, not provoking them to anger but raise them in a household that places Jesus above everything.
So now that we see what the parent-child relationship is to be let’s look at the husband-wife relationship. The same principal applies here. Husbands and wives are of equal worth in the eyes of God but there is a definite authority structure to the relationship. Let’s look at what husbands are commanded: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph 5:25). “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Eph. 5:31). “...let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband” (Eph. 5:33). I love the ESV Study Bible commentary on these verses:
…husbands are to love their wives in a self-sacrificial manner, following the example of Christ, who “gave himself up for” the church in loving self-sacrifice. Clearly the biblical picture of a husband laying down his life for his wife is directly opposed to any kind of male tyranny or oppression. The husband is bound by love to ensure that his wife finds their marriage a source of rich fulfillment and joyful service to the Lord. Notably, Paul devotes three times more space to the husband's duty (nine verses) than to the wife's (three verses).
In conclusion, if a man desires to be an elder he must treat his children with respect and love his wife in such a sacrificial way that they find pleasure and protection in their obedience to him. He will manage his household well and prove himself fit to manage God’s church.
For further reading I recommend John Piper's commentary on 1 Timothy 3:4-5: Click here.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
Qualifications for Elders, part 2
"...not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money." (1 Timothy 3:3)
The qualifications for elders continue in verse 3. Verse 2 was a list of characteristics that men should posses to be an elder. Verse 3 continues with a list of characteristics that men shouldn’t have.
Paul says that an elder must not be “a drunkard”. This means that an elder must not have a drinking problem. He must not rely on alcohol for a good time. The guy who needs a beer first thing in the morning just to get going is not going to qualify for eldership. I’ll go a step further and say that even if the man doesn’t have a drinking problem there should not even be a suspicion that he does. Remember that an elder is supposed to be “above reproach”. So what I mean is this: if a member of your church sees you out to dinner or watching a ball game or at a pub with friends and every time they see you you have a drink in your hand it may appear to them that you have a drinking problem since they always see you with a drink. Now you may not have a drinking problem at all but as an elder you are held to a stricter standard which means you will have to sacrifice some things. It would be unfortunate for members of your church to even have a question in their minds as to whether or not you, an elder, struggle with alcohol. I think it would take you out of the “above reproach” category and cause others to think twice about the authority you have.
With that being said, let me say this clearly: drinking alcohol is not a sin. It’s honestly amazing to me that this is even a debate and shows how legalistic people tend to get. There are plenty of verses in the Bible that speak of Christians drinking and one that even says “No longer drink only water, but l use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.” I would think the nail in the coffin to the issue of whether or not alcohol is a sin would be Jesus speaking in Matthew 26:29 where he says “I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.” Here is the point: Jesus lived a sinless life, Jesus drank alcohol, therefore alcohol is not a sin. If you say alcohol is a sin then you are saying Jesus was a sinner. End of discussion.
Next Paul says that elders should not to be “violent, but gentle.” I think this goes along with “self-controlled” in verse 2. Elders are not to become violent in their anger. Elders should have enough control over themselves to find appropriate release of their frustration and anger. As elders, you will have a front row seat to the ugly side of peoples lives. You will hear their confessions. You will hear how they have been victimized and abused. What Paul is saying is that elders will see so much that will arouse in them righteous anger that they should not be prone to violence or else church discipline might look like an episode of “The Ultimate Fighter.” Righteous anger is a gift from God and there are things that should make us furious but we should not release that anger in the form of violence.
Paul also says that as a qualification elders should be “not quarrelsome.” We all know people who are always looking for an argument. They always seem to be picking out the negative in everything and complaining about it. They do not offer solutions to any problems, but just like to argue about them. These people are a cancer to relationships, families and organizations, including the church. The last place we want these type of men is in church leadership.
The final qualification in verse 3 is that elders should “not be a lover of money.” Much of an elders life will be devoted to serving God by serving his local congregation. Jesus makes it clear in Luke 16:13 “You cannot serve God and money.” The man who loves money will use it to serve his own desires and needs and do whatever he can to get more of it. This type of man has no place in church leadership. The parable of the shrewd manager in Luke 16 makes it clear that our money is not our own and we should be using it, not for our own comfort and desires, but to, at every opportunity, advance the kingdom of God. The easiest way to tell if you are a lover of money is to look at your bank statement or checkbook and ask yourself where your money is going. If it is not being used for the purposes God has given us but is being used for worthless “stuff” you are not serving God and should not be an elder.
The qualifications for elders continue in verse 3. Verse 2 was a list of characteristics that men should posses to be an elder. Verse 3 continues with a list of characteristics that men shouldn’t have.
Paul says that an elder must not be “a drunkard”. This means that an elder must not have a drinking problem. He must not rely on alcohol for a good time. The guy who needs a beer first thing in the morning just to get going is not going to qualify for eldership. I’ll go a step further and say that even if the man doesn’t have a drinking problem there should not even be a suspicion that he does. Remember that an elder is supposed to be “above reproach”. So what I mean is this: if a member of your church sees you out to dinner or watching a ball game or at a pub with friends and every time they see you you have a drink in your hand it may appear to them that you have a drinking problem since they always see you with a drink. Now you may not have a drinking problem at all but as an elder you are held to a stricter standard which means you will have to sacrifice some things. It would be unfortunate for members of your church to even have a question in their minds as to whether or not you, an elder, struggle with alcohol. I think it would take you out of the “above reproach” category and cause others to think twice about the authority you have.
With that being said, let me say this clearly: drinking alcohol is not a sin. It’s honestly amazing to me that this is even a debate and shows how legalistic people tend to get. There are plenty of verses in the Bible that speak of Christians drinking and one that even says “No longer drink only water, but l use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.” I would think the nail in the coffin to the issue of whether or not alcohol is a sin would be Jesus speaking in Matthew 26:29 where he says “I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.” Here is the point: Jesus lived a sinless life, Jesus drank alcohol, therefore alcohol is not a sin. If you say alcohol is a sin then you are saying Jesus was a sinner. End of discussion.
Next Paul says that elders should not to be “violent, but gentle.” I think this goes along with “self-controlled” in verse 2. Elders are not to become violent in their anger. Elders should have enough control over themselves to find appropriate release of their frustration and anger. As elders, you will have a front row seat to the ugly side of peoples lives. You will hear their confessions. You will hear how they have been victimized and abused. What Paul is saying is that elders will see so much that will arouse in them righteous anger that they should not be prone to violence or else church discipline might look like an episode of “The Ultimate Fighter.” Righteous anger is a gift from God and there are things that should make us furious but we should not release that anger in the form of violence.
Paul also says that as a qualification elders should be “not quarrelsome.” We all know people who are always looking for an argument. They always seem to be picking out the negative in everything and complaining about it. They do not offer solutions to any problems, but just like to argue about them. These people are a cancer to relationships, families and organizations, including the church. The last place we want these type of men is in church leadership.
The final qualification in verse 3 is that elders should “not be a lover of money.” Much of an elders life will be devoted to serving God by serving his local congregation. Jesus makes it clear in Luke 16:13 “You cannot serve God and money.” The man who loves money will use it to serve his own desires and needs and do whatever he can to get more of it. This type of man has no place in church leadership. The parable of the shrewd manager in Luke 16 makes it clear that our money is not our own and we should be using it, not for our own comfort and desires, but to, at every opportunity, advance the kingdom of God. The easiest way to tell if you are a lover of money is to look at your bank statement or checkbook and ask yourself where your money is going. If it is not being used for the purposes God has given us but is being used for worthless “stuff” you are not serving God and should not be an elder.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Health, Wealth, and Prosperity (false) Gospel
Before I offer any commentary on this topic please watch the 5 minute video below so you have a frame of reference for what I'm writing about:
The “health, wealth, and prosperity gospel” has taken off in American culture today and the man at the forefront of this false gospel is Joel Osteen. In fairness he is not the only one preaching this but he is the most prominent voice. For the record I don’t have a problem with Joel Osteen talking about becoming wealthy, improving your relationships, living pain free, having total victory or living without anxiety. I do have a problem with him “preaching” these topics under the guise of Christianity. If he wants to call himself a “self-help” expert, have a daytime talk show right after Dr. Phil and make his millions that way, more power to him. But when he sells his methods for “your best life now” as Christianity it becomes disgusting.
To paraphrase Mark Driscoll, just because something is in a “Christian” bookstore, or on “Christian” radio or “Christian” TV doesn’t mean it’s Christian. People have to be discerning about the things they read, watch, and listen to.
Let’s think clearly about this. According to Joel Osteen being a Christian means God will bless you with the following: wealth, good relationships, a pain free life, and a life free of anxiety or worry. Listen to me very carefully: Joel Osteen’s version of Christianity, by definition, must exclude Jesus Christ. Think about that. Christianity without Christ is nothing at all. Allow me to explain.
The “health, wealth, and prosperity gospel” says that as a Christian you will be blessed with wealth. Jesus was born in a barn (Luke 2:12), grew up working a blue-collar job as a carpenter (Mark 6:3), had no money to pay taxes (Matt. 17:27), and no home to live in (Matt 8:20). This is not exactly a picture of wealth.
This false gospel also says as a Christian your relationships will be without strain and full of blessings. Again, lets look at Jesus. His family disowned him (John 7:5), his friends abandoned him (Matt 26:75), Judas betrayed him (Luke 22:48), and the crowds screamed “crucify him!” (Mark 15:13). Why doesn’t Osteen tell us about this?
According to Osteen we will also live pain free lives if we become Christian. Jesus was beaten (Mark 14:65), scourged (Mark 15:15), had his beard plucked out (50:6), had a crown of thorns shoved into his face (John 19:2) and was nailed to a cross (Mark 15:25). That does not sound like a pain free life to me.
Lastly, Osteen says that as Christians we will live lives free of worry or anxiety. The night before Jesus’ crucifixion he was so overcome with dread and worry that he physically sweat drops of blood (Luke 22:44). I don’t personally know anyone who has suffered that much anxiety.
If we believe Joel Osteen and all those who preach the “health, wealth, and prosperity gospel” we end up with a Christless Christianity. We end up with self-help.
I have said this before: life gets much more difficult when you become a Christian. It is not all laughs and smiles and cotton candy. It is pain and heartache and conviction and repentance. But along with it comes joy and peace that I would never trade for the happiness this world has to offer.
The “health, wealth, and prosperity gospel” has taken off in American culture today and the man at the forefront of this false gospel is Joel Osteen. In fairness he is not the only one preaching this but he is the most prominent voice. For the record I don’t have a problem with Joel Osteen talking about becoming wealthy, improving your relationships, living pain free, having total victory or living without anxiety. I do have a problem with him “preaching” these topics under the guise of Christianity. If he wants to call himself a “self-help” expert, have a daytime talk show right after Dr. Phil and make his millions that way, more power to him. But when he sells his methods for “your best life now” as Christianity it becomes disgusting.
To paraphrase Mark Driscoll, just because something is in a “Christian” bookstore, or on “Christian” radio or “Christian” TV doesn’t mean it’s Christian. People have to be discerning about the things they read, watch, and listen to.
Let’s think clearly about this. According to Joel Osteen being a Christian means God will bless you with the following: wealth, good relationships, a pain free life, and a life free of anxiety or worry. Listen to me very carefully: Joel Osteen’s version of Christianity, by definition, must exclude Jesus Christ. Think about that. Christianity without Christ is nothing at all. Allow me to explain.
The “health, wealth, and prosperity gospel” says that as a Christian you will be blessed with wealth. Jesus was born in a barn (Luke 2:12), grew up working a blue-collar job as a carpenter (Mark 6:3), had no money to pay taxes (Matt. 17:27), and no home to live in (Matt 8:20). This is not exactly a picture of wealth.
This false gospel also says as a Christian your relationships will be without strain and full of blessings. Again, lets look at Jesus. His family disowned him (John 7:5), his friends abandoned him (Matt 26:75), Judas betrayed him (Luke 22:48), and the crowds screamed “crucify him!” (Mark 15:13). Why doesn’t Osteen tell us about this?
According to Osteen we will also live pain free lives if we become Christian. Jesus was beaten (Mark 14:65), scourged (Mark 15:15), had his beard plucked out (50:6), had a crown of thorns shoved into his face (John 19:2) and was nailed to a cross (Mark 15:25). That does not sound like a pain free life to me.
Lastly, Osteen says that as Christians we will live lives free of worry or anxiety. The night before Jesus’ crucifixion he was so overcome with dread and worry that he physically sweat drops of blood (Luke 22:44). I don’t personally know anyone who has suffered that much anxiety.
If we believe Joel Osteen and all those who preach the “health, wealth, and prosperity gospel” we end up with a Christless Christianity. We end up with self-help.
I have said this before: life gets much more difficult when you become a Christian. It is not all laughs and smiles and cotton candy. It is pain and heartache and conviction and repentance. But along with it comes joy and peace that I would never trade for the happiness this world has to offer.
Response to "This guy is a kook!"
I recently received a response to Matt Chandler's video which I posted here. Below is the comment I received and after that is my response:
Anonymous Comment:
This guy is a kook! the real reason is... some of us ask why, what, where, who, and prove it. then we get some x convict/ criminal/ gangster/ bad man/ (you fill in the blank) trying to give there version of what they feel the truth is to promote there chosen propaganda, then these self proclaimed "sinners" or "men of god" feel they have the authority to tell you how you should live your life even though you walk a straighter path than they do. They are good because A book told them to be, or because they fear something. Some of us dont need a book to tell us how to be a good human, and some of us dont fear the after life. You should not act in fear, you should act in a way that you know is good because it is the right thing to do and it makes you feel good.
In short, we are all in our own journey for the truth, some of us dont believe we can go somewhere to learn this truth ( like church) although this works for some. We dont choose when our journey begins or often know that it has, and some may never have a journey. and we never know where it may lead us. This is why i left the church, i asked allot of questions with no answers, and the folks that were feeding me the information were not credible in my eyes.
Most of all.... because we dont want to hang out with kooks like that guy!
My Response:
The first thing I want to say to the person who posted this comment is that I apologize on behalf of Christians for the lack of engagement and apparent lack of effort put into answering all of your questions about Christianity. Doubt and inquiry are an essential part of maturing faith so I commend you for asking questions. I sincerely hope you will forgive the people who did the wrong thing by not taking the time to talk through those issues with you. I would love to sit down and talk with you about any questions you may have. I can be sure I won’t have all the answers as I don’t know much but I can promise you I will work through questions with you. If you would like to do this you can email me at rlg024@gmail.com and we can set something up.
Secondly, this posting was not meant to say that this is the only reason that people become “de-churched”, but was intended to offer one explanation for how this happens. So when you say “the real reason (people become de-churched) is….” I would completely agree with you that yours is a valid reason for wanting to leave the church body.
Thirdly, you write a lot about the nature of people. Most of the time you are referring to yourself being “a good human” or “walking a straight path.” I would say that how you define a “good human” is completely subjective, as is everyone else’s opinion, mine included. That is why it is necessary to have an absolute standard of what “good” is. Scripture tells us that “No one is good but God alone” (Mark 10:18). So with God as our standard for good it is important to see that in comparison, none of us is good. Nobody walks a “straight path”, we are by nature rebellious people. Let me stress this: Christians are no better than non-Christians in terms of how “good” we are or how straight a path we walk. Many Christians act as if they are better or more holy than non-Christians which is unfortunate and a misrepresentation of the Gospel. One of the most basic truths of the Bible is that we are all bad people, Christians included, and it is only by Jesus that God does not look at our evil but instead counts Jesus’ perfect life and righteousness as ours.
Fourth, you write about leaders in the church “giving their version of what they feel the truth is to promote their chosen propaganda, then…they feel they have the authority to tell you how you should live your life…” If this is representative of what you have seen in church you have fallen under misguided, uninformed, and likely non-Christian leadership. A pastor, or any Christian for that matter, understands that there are no personal “versions of the truth”. There is one truth, which is communicated in the Bible. Leaders, also, should never “promote their chosen propaganda” but instead faithfully teach the entire message of the Gospel, not just the parts they like. Leaders also understand that in them there is absolutely no authority, but that absolute authority lies in the Bible itself. Man’s words carry no weight if they are contrary to the words of Scripture.
Fifth and possibly the most alarming statement that I read was that you believe that people should do things because “it makes you feel good.” This is called hedonism and is dangerous. As I stated earlier, we are by nature bad people prone to do rebellious things and enjoy doing them. You cannot tell the child molester that it is okay to rape a child because “it makes you feel good.” You cannot tell the Hutu that the murder of one million Tutsi in Rwanda is okay because it “made them feel good.”
Lastly I would like to present you with a very brief description of the Gospel presented in the Bible: Jesus, the son of God, lived the life we should live and died the death we should have died to give us the forgiveness we all need.
Anonymous Comment:
This guy is a kook! the real reason is... some of us ask why, what, where, who, and prove it. then we get some x convict/ criminal/ gangster/ bad man/ (you fill in the blank) trying to give there version of what they feel the truth is to promote there chosen propaganda, then these self proclaimed "sinners" or "men of god" feel they have the authority to tell you how you should live your life even though you walk a straighter path than they do. They are good because A book told them to be, or because they fear something. Some of us dont need a book to tell us how to be a good human, and some of us dont fear the after life. You should not act in fear, you should act in a way that you know is good because it is the right thing to do and it makes you feel good.
In short, we are all in our own journey for the truth, some of us dont believe we can go somewhere to learn this truth ( like church) although this works for some. We dont choose when our journey begins or often know that it has, and some may never have a journey. and we never know where it may lead us. This is why i left the church, i asked allot of questions with no answers, and the folks that were feeding me the information were not credible in my eyes.
Most of all.... because we dont want to hang out with kooks like that guy!
My Response:
The first thing I want to say to the person who posted this comment is that I apologize on behalf of Christians for the lack of engagement and apparent lack of effort put into answering all of your questions about Christianity. Doubt and inquiry are an essential part of maturing faith so I commend you for asking questions. I sincerely hope you will forgive the people who did the wrong thing by not taking the time to talk through those issues with you. I would love to sit down and talk with you about any questions you may have. I can be sure I won’t have all the answers as I don’t know much but I can promise you I will work through questions with you. If you would like to do this you can email me at rlg024@gmail.com and we can set something up.
Secondly, this posting was not meant to say that this is the only reason that people become “de-churched”, but was intended to offer one explanation for how this happens. So when you say “the real reason (people become de-churched) is….” I would completely agree with you that yours is a valid reason for wanting to leave the church body.
Thirdly, you write a lot about the nature of people. Most of the time you are referring to yourself being “a good human” or “walking a straight path.” I would say that how you define a “good human” is completely subjective, as is everyone else’s opinion, mine included. That is why it is necessary to have an absolute standard of what “good” is. Scripture tells us that “No one is good but God alone” (Mark 10:18). So with God as our standard for good it is important to see that in comparison, none of us is good. Nobody walks a “straight path”, we are by nature rebellious people. Let me stress this: Christians are no better than non-Christians in terms of how “good” we are or how straight a path we walk. Many Christians act as if they are better or more holy than non-Christians which is unfortunate and a misrepresentation of the Gospel. One of the most basic truths of the Bible is that we are all bad people, Christians included, and it is only by Jesus that God does not look at our evil but instead counts Jesus’ perfect life and righteousness as ours.
Fourth, you write about leaders in the church “giving their version of what they feel the truth is to promote their chosen propaganda, then…they feel they have the authority to tell you how you should live your life…” If this is representative of what you have seen in church you have fallen under misguided, uninformed, and likely non-Christian leadership. A pastor, or any Christian for that matter, understands that there are no personal “versions of the truth”. There is one truth, which is communicated in the Bible. Leaders, also, should never “promote their chosen propaganda” but instead faithfully teach the entire message of the Gospel, not just the parts they like. Leaders also understand that in them there is absolutely no authority, but that absolute authority lies in the Bible itself. Man’s words carry no weight if they are contrary to the words of Scripture.
Fifth and possibly the most alarming statement that I read was that you believe that people should do things because “it makes you feel good.” This is called hedonism and is dangerous. As I stated earlier, we are by nature bad people prone to do rebellious things and enjoy doing them. You cannot tell the child molester that it is okay to rape a child because “it makes you feel good.” You cannot tell the Hutu that the murder of one million Tutsi in Rwanda is okay because it “made them feel good.”
Lastly I would like to present you with a very brief description of the Gospel presented in the Bible: Jesus, the son of God, lived the life we should live and died the death we should have died to give us the forgiveness we all need.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Qualifications for Elders, part 1
"Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach..." (1 Timothy 3:2-3)
Here Paul begins listing the qualifications for elders or overseers.
He begins with “an overseer must be above reproach”. That seems to be a pretty vague term. So what does without reproach mean anyway. We know it doesn’t mean that a man has to be without sin. As Paul tells us in Romans 3:23 “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” It can’t mean that the man has to get along and be liked by everyone. Romans 12:18 tells us “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.” Paul understood that it is not possible to like everyone or be liked by everyone but tells us to do our best to live peacefully with everyone. What Paul is saying here is that if a man desires to be an elder he must, as Ligon Duncan puts it, be “free from scandalous sins and offensive habits that would lay him open to public criticism.” So now the question is what is the definition of a “scandalous sin?” John Calvin would comment: “There will be no one found among men that is free from every vice; but it is one thing to be blemished with ordinary vices, which do not hurt the reputation, because they are found in men of the highest excellence, and another thing to have a disgraceful name, or to be stained with any baseness.” The point is this: no man is free of sin but he must not have any habitual, ongoing, unrepentant sin that would give reason for other Christians to question his character or chafe under his authority.
Paul then says that the elder must be “the husband of one wife”. This raises more questions. This certainly does not mean that the elder must be married. Paul was not married and Timothy probably wasn’t either. Both were single men who ruled over their churches. It also does not mean that divorced men can’t hold the office of elder, as long as their divorce was biblically warranted (Matt. 19:1-9; 1 Cor. 7:12-16). Being “the husband of one wife” means that the husband is a one woman man. This means he takes the covenant of marriage seriously and loves his wife as Christ loves the church. He doesn’t look at porn, he doesn’t flirt with other women, and he doesn’t think of old girlfriends. After Jesus, his wife is the most important person in his life and the way he lives is a testament to that.
An elder must also be “sober-minded”. The elder has to be of sound mind meaning he has to be able to face situations and think through them without overreacting. He cannot be an emotional roller-coaster who has the ups and downs of a teenage girl.
He must also be “self controlled”. The elder must be able to control himself in all areas of his life. He must not be controlled by anything but rather have control of himself. Practically this means being able to say no to the temptations that call out to him daily.
He must be “respectable”. An elder should be the kind of man a person looks at with a great deal of respect for the life that he lives. His life should preach the Gospel as much or more than his words.
An elder should be “hospitable”. The Christian life is not to be lived out alone. There are no “lone rangers” in the body of Christ. One way we live this out is by being hospitable to others. We should welcome others to live the Christian life with us and that means having them into our homes. We should be inviting Christians and non-Christians alike to join us in what Jesus has done in our lives.
The last qualification listed in verse 2 is “able to teach”. This is the qualification that sets elders apart from deacons. An elder must have both a good enough grasp of the gospel and the ability to clearly communicate it so that others may learn and be built up by it.
Here Paul begins listing the qualifications for elders or overseers.
He begins with “an overseer must be above reproach”. That seems to be a pretty vague term. So what does without reproach mean anyway. We know it doesn’t mean that a man has to be without sin. As Paul tells us in Romans 3:23 “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” It can’t mean that the man has to get along and be liked by everyone. Romans 12:18 tells us “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.” Paul understood that it is not possible to like everyone or be liked by everyone but tells us to do our best to live peacefully with everyone. What Paul is saying here is that if a man desires to be an elder he must, as Ligon Duncan puts it, be “free from scandalous sins and offensive habits that would lay him open to public criticism.” So now the question is what is the definition of a “scandalous sin?” John Calvin would comment: “There will be no one found among men that is free from every vice; but it is one thing to be blemished with ordinary vices, which do not hurt the reputation, because they are found in men of the highest excellence, and another thing to have a disgraceful name, or to be stained with any baseness.” The point is this: no man is free of sin but he must not have any habitual, ongoing, unrepentant sin that would give reason for other Christians to question his character or chafe under his authority.
Paul then says that the elder must be “the husband of one wife”. This raises more questions. This certainly does not mean that the elder must be married. Paul was not married and Timothy probably wasn’t either. Both were single men who ruled over their churches. It also does not mean that divorced men can’t hold the office of elder, as long as their divorce was biblically warranted (Matt. 19:1-9; 1 Cor. 7:12-16). Being “the husband of one wife” means that the husband is a one woman man. This means he takes the covenant of marriage seriously and loves his wife as Christ loves the church. He doesn’t look at porn, he doesn’t flirt with other women, and he doesn’t think of old girlfriends. After Jesus, his wife is the most important person in his life and the way he lives is a testament to that.
An elder must also be “sober-minded”. The elder has to be of sound mind meaning he has to be able to face situations and think through them without overreacting. He cannot be an emotional roller-coaster who has the ups and downs of a teenage girl.
He must also be “self controlled”. The elder must be able to control himself in all areas of his life. He must not be controlled by anything but rather have control of himself. Practically this means being able to say no to the temptations that call out to him daily.
He must be “respectable”. An elder should be the kind of man a person looks at with a great deal of respect for the life that he lives. His life should preach the Gospel as much or more than his words.
An elder should be “hospitable”. The Christian life is not to be lived out alone. There are no “lone rangers” in the body of Christ. One way we live this out is by being hospitable to others. We should welcome others to live the Christian life with us and that means having them into our homes. We should be inviting Christians and non-Christians alike to join us in what Jesus has done in our lives.
The last qualification listed in verse 2 is “able to teach”. This is the qualification that sets elders apart from deacons. An elder must have both a good enough grasp of the gospel and the ability to clearly communicate it so that others may learn and be built up by it.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Who Wants a Stricter Judgement?
"The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task." (1 Timothy 3:1)
“According to the New Testament, elders are responsible for the primary leadership and oversight of a church. The function and role of an elder is well summarized by Alexander Strauch in his book Biblical Eldership: "Elders lead the church [1 Tim 5:17; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 5:1-2], teach and preach the Word [1 Timothy 3:2; 2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 1:9], protect the church from false teachers [Acts 20:17, 28-31], exhort and admonish the saints in sound doctrine [1 Timothy 4:13; 2 Timothy 3:13-17; Titus 1:9], visit the sick and pray [James 5:14; Acts 20:35], and judge doctrinal issues [Acts 15:16]. In biblical terminology, elders shepherd, oversee, lead, and care for the local church" (Staff, 2006).
Elders or overseers are men called by God. One of the ways a man knows he is called to be an elder is that he has a desire to do it. Men should not serve as elders or overseers of the church out of duty or because nobody else is stepping up. This is a position that God calls men to and puts a desire in their hearts to fill. Too often we tend to find men in the church who are faithful attendees, faithful givers, good fathers and husbands and push them into the office of elder. I think part of the reason we do this is that, even though these should be the minimum standards for all Christian men, there are not many men who these standards. When a church finds a man that does meet these standards they automatically push him to a position of leadership. This is clearly a mistake for a number of reasons. Among them are the fact that most men don’t meet the further qualifications set forth in verses 2-7. A man that fills the office of elder solely out of feelings of obligation or responsibility is doing a disservice to himself and the church. A man must not accept the position of elder simply because others in the church are elevating him to elder status and requesting that he fill that role. Men should not accept the office of elder light-heartedly. They should know that upon accepting the role elder they will be judged more strictly: “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” – James 3:1 (Being able to teach is one qualification for eldership). The decision of eldership must be made in light of Scripture by both the man and his church. They must both assure that he meets all of the qualification set forth in verses 2-7. Before it even gets to that point though, they must determine if God has put a desire in the mans heart to fill the office of elder. If he has no desire, he is not called.
“According to the New Testament, elders are responsible for the primary leadership and oversight of a church. The function and role of an elder is well summarized by Alexander Strauch in his book Biblical Eldership: "Elders lead the church [1 Tim 5:17; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 5:1-2], teach and preach the Word [1 Timothy 3:2; 2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 1:9], protect the church from false teachers [Acts 20:17, 28-31], exhort and admonish the saints in sound doctrine [1 Timothy 4:13; 2 Timothy 3:13-17; Titus 1:9], visit the sick and pray [James 5:14; Acts 20:35], and judge doctrinal issues [Acts 15:16]. In biblical terminology, elders shepherd, oversee, lead, and care for the local church" (Staff, 2006).
Elders or overseers are men called by God. One of the ways a man knows he is called to be an elder is that he has a desire to do it. Men should not serve as elders or overseers of the church out of duty or because nobody else is stepping up. This is a position that God calls men to and puts a desire in their hearts to fill. Too often we tend to find men in the church who are faithful attendees, faithful givers, good fathers and husbands and push them into the office of elder. I think part of the reason we do this is that, even though these should be the minimum standards for all Christian men, there are not many men who these standards. When a church finds a man that does meet these standards they automatically push him to a position of leadership. This is clearly a mistake for a number of reasons. Among them are the fact that most men don’t meet the further qualifications set forth in verses 2-7. A man that fills the office of elder solely out of feelings of obligation or responsibility is doing a disservice to himself and the church. A man must not accept the position of elder simply because others in the church are elevating him to elder status and requesting that he fill that role. Men should not accept the office of elder light-heartedly. They should know that upon accepting the role elder they will be judged more strictly: “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” – James 3:1 (Being able to teach is one qualification for eldership). The decision of eldership must be made in light of Scripture by both the man and his church. They must both assure that he meets all of the qualification set forth in verses 2-7. Before it even gets to that point though, they must determine if God has put a desire in the mans heart to fill the office of elder. If he has no desire, he is not called.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
