When you think of worship, not in the general way of offering our bodies as living sacrifices (Rom. 12:1), but of what you do in our worship services on the Lord's Day, what do you think of?
Do you think of what type of music it is that we prefer? Are you grateful that you go to the type of church that does music the way you want, so that you can feel free to express yourself freely?
We often think seriously about who we worship, but not how we worship. You are either worshiping the Triune God revealed in Scripture, of you are worshiping an idol. Even if you worship the Triune God revealed in Scripture, you can be sure that in your everyday life, you are still bowing your heart to idols.
But God not only cares about who we worship, but how. That is why the First Commandment, dealing with who (no other gods before me), is immediately by the Second Commandment, dealing with how (no graven images). We often miss the point of that Second Commandment. A graven image was a means by which man worshiped God on man's own terms. It harkens back to the leaves with which Adam and Eve attempted to cover themselves, or the fruits of the field that self-righteous Cain offered to God. Sinners attempt to come to God on their own terms, and inevitably, God disapproves. God cares about how He's worshiped, or to put it another way, our holy God cares about how sinners relate to Him.
This is why God consumes Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, with fire in Leviticus 10. It is not simply a matter of disobeying God by offering unauthorized fire upon His altar, but by violating His commandment to worship Him upon His own terms. After destroying Nadab and Abihu, God reminded Aaron, "Among those who are near me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified" (Leviticus 10:3).
That is why those in the Reformed tradition of the Christian faith speak of the "Regulative Principle of Worship" (or, the RPW). We believe the Christian is free from a good many things (the guilt of sin, condemnation, non-biblical binding of conscience, etc) and that the Christian is free to do a good many things (i.e., approach the throne of grace with boldness and confidence). But we do not believe that the Christian is free to worship God just however he wants.
Consider it this way--my wife would not approve of my expressing my love to her however I want, without regard for her preferences. This is why the whole Five Love Languages thing became so popular--people often express and understand love differently. I could bring flowers to my wife every day, but if flowers don't mean much to her, but acts of service do, am I truly loving my wife with those flowers? Nope.
God lays down certain broad principles for His worship. It is to be on the Lord's Day (Sunday) and the reading and preaching of the Word is the central part of His worship (Acts 2; Rom. 10; 2 Tim. 4). The preaching of the Word should naturally have Christ as its focal point (Luke 24; all of Hebrews). There should be baptism and the Lord's Supper (Matt. 28; 1 Cor. 11), songs of praise (Col. 2), and prayer (1 Tim. 2). Beyond some of these broad principles, God doesn't really get down in the weeds. He doesn't tell us what time of the day to have worship services, nor the instrumentation for our singing.
But the lover of our souls cares about how we relate to Him. It is thus the responsibility of the officers of the Church to sanctify His Name as they call His people to worship, ultimately with the wonderful goal of seeing God's Name glorified by His people.
And worshiping on God's terms should naturally change the way in which we approach our weekly worship services. We go, not with the thought of what will bring us pleasure, but what will bring Him pleasure. As C.S. Lewis pointed out in Surprised by Joy, we will never find joy if it is joy we pursue. When we pursue the God of glory, it is then that we will find our enjoyment in Him.
The final, joyful note concerning God's worship is this: Though we will never worship God in Spirit and truth as we ought, we worship through a Savior who worshiped God perfectly in our place. Instead of trembling, sinful hands carrying insufficient sacrifices before a holy God, Christ, with unblemished hands, made Himself the sacrifice and was consumed in our place (Heb. 10).
So we approach God in worship, not with fear and trembling, but with gratitude. Let us then get over ourselves and love our God in the way He manner in which He chooses. When His name is sanctified (set apart), it will also be glorified. And in His glory, we will find our greatest joy.
23.2.14
22.2.14
Watch Your Tone!
With my wife's helpful input, I realized recently that I have a tone.
Sometimes, the wrong tone can be found in the begrudging demeanor of a child when he acquiesces to doing a chore. Perhaps it can be found in patronizing parent, or a condescending employer. We often think of the glaring examples, but we should be thinking more about whether we personally have a tone.
For me, it comes with cultural, political, or religious matters. I get really excited about discussing an issue, or like the attention I get from it, so my tone becomes impassioned to the point of overwhelming. I have consoled myself over the years with the thought that it is just an idiosyncratic part of my personality--I am enthusiastic about everything!--or with the disclaimer, "If you have a thought, just interrupt me and chime in."
But people rarely chime in. Is it because I am so profound? I doubt it. I think it's because I carry a tone. Whether it's Facebook, fast food, organic food, the environment, or something even more pedantic--I often shut the conversation down with my "excitement." At times, people find my infamous rants humorous, but at other times, they must clearly be annoying.
And I am embarrassed by my tone. It does not bring me pleasure to dominate a conversation. It does not bring me joy to ask why it is that I get so wound up, and whether it is a mask for some form of insecurity. Perhaps that why I often prefer the more deliberative format of the blog to the perilous navigation of fellowship hall conversations. I'm less likely to make a monkey of myself!
As I look deeper at this neglected area of my speech, I realize anew that there is a biblical issue at stake in one's tone. James, by God's inspiration, tells us to be "quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry" (ch1). So speech, and the lack thereof, is important. Of course, we all know that James then goes on to talk about taming the tongue, and how the sparks of an untamed tongue can ignite a fire.
But those sparks are not only carried by the weight of our words, but the weight of our tone. Peter instructs us that "in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect" (1 Pet. 3:15, italics mine). It is not enough to carefully prepare your platter of arguments and data points, but the platter must be presented in an appetizing manner--that pertains to tone.
And who better to learn this from than Jesus? He is the Word. The world was spoken into existence through Him. And He uses His Word to call people to saving faith, yet, at the same time, He is the Word that every many must call upon to be saved. So He is clearly the reference point for all our speech.
In His grace, He instructs us, "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" (Matt. 11:28-30, italics mine). As He calls you and me to call upon His name, He calls us with gentleness to a Savior's heart, meek and lowly.
Friends, we make our defense with gentleness and respect because the Savior who made us His own is Himself gentle and lowly in heart. And our Good Shepherd bids us and empowers us to do the same--thankfully using the same gentleness in which He saved us.
In gratitude, let us be more deliberate in abiding by that simple parental scold: Watch your tone!
Sometimes, the wrong tone can be found in the begrudging demeanor of a child when he acquiesces to doing a chore. Perhaps it can be found in patronizing parent, or a condescending employer. We often think of the glaring examples, but we should be thinking more about whether we personally have a tone.
For me, it comes with cultural, political, or religious matters. I get really excited about discussing an issue, or like the attention I get from it, so my tone becomes impassioned to the point of overwhelming. I have consoled myself over the years with the thought that it is just an idiosyncratic part of my personality--I am enthusiastic about everything!--or with the disclaimer, "If you have a thought, just interrupt me and chime in."
But people rarely chime in. Is it because I am so profound? I doubt it. I think it's because I carry a tone. Whether it's Facebook, fast food, organic food, the environment, or something even more pedantic--I often shut the conversation down with my "excitement." At times, people find my infamous rants humorous, but at other times, they must clearly be annoying.
And I am embarrassed by my tone. It does not bring me pleasure to dominate a conversation. It does not bring me joy to ask why it is that I get so wound up, and whether it is a mask for some form of insecurity. Perhaps that why I often prefer the more deliberative format of the blog to the perilous navigation of fellowship hall conversations. I'm less likely to make a monkey of myself!
As I look deeper at this neglected area of my speech, I realize anew that there is a biblical issue at stake in one's tone. James, by God's inspiration, tells us to be "quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry" (ch1). So speech, and the lack thereof, is important. Of course, we all know that James then goes on to talk about taming the tongue, and how the sparks of an untamed tongue can ignite a fire.
But those sparks are not only carried by the weight of our words, but the weight of our tone. Peter instructs us that "in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect" (1 Pet. 3:15, italics mine). It is not enough to carefully prepare your platter of arguments and data points, but the platter must be presented in an appetizing manner--that pertains to tone.
And who better to learn this from than Jesus? He is the Word. The world was spoken into existence through Him. And He uses His Word to call people to saving faith, yet, at the same time, He is the Word that every many must call upon to be saved. So He is clearly the reference point for all our speech.
In His grace, He instructs us, "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" (Matt. 11:28-30, italics mine). As He calls you and me to call upon His name, He calls us with gentleness to a Savior's heart, meek and lowly.
Friends, we make our defense with gentleness and respect because the Savior who made us His own is Himself gentle and lowly in heart. And our Good Shepherd bids us and empowers us to do the same--thankfully using the same gentleness in which He saved us.
In gratitude, let us be more deliberate in abiding by that simple parental scold: Watch your tone!
20.2.14
Denominational Breakdown
One of the unfortunate parts about being a Presbyterian chaplain in the US Army comes the ambiguity and general ignorance of "Presbyterian" even means.
If someone outside the church knows the term, they know it as an alternative to Roman Catholicism--as one of the many Protestant denominations.
If someone from a more fundamentalist or conservative church background knows the term, they know it as a liberal denomination that rejects the Bible. They are shocked to learn that there are many Presbyterian bodies, and a number of them love and revere God's Word.
Others from less-churched backgrounds, especially those in non-denominations, assume that all of the labels are just various descriptions of Bible-believing Christians, and are shocked to learn that there are any bodies that identify as Christian, yet reject the Bible.
In his punchy blog, Dr. R. Scott Clark gives a very thoughtful analysis of how to understand the various denominations. In general, each denomination can be considered either "mainline," "borderline," or "sideline." Mainline denominations reject the historic teachings of their own denomination and those of Christianity in general. Sideline denominations have very consciously maintained their fidelity to the Bible and their denominational confessions, even at the cost of numbers and cultural relevance. Borderline denominations tend to straddle the line, often moving from fidelity to apostasy (deserting the faith) over time.
What makes the matter more difficult for those searching for a solid church is that many of these denominations claim the same name somewhere in their title. If you're a Lutheran, do you go to the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America), the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, or the Lutheran Church-Wisconsin Synod? The following is a grossly-oversimplified breakdown of these denominations.
(I will not be touching on Roman Catholicism, with their historic contention with Protestantism and Biblical truth in general. There is also no realistic way to categorize Pentecostalism or "non-denominational" churches. In general, the rule of thumb should be "buyer beware" on the latter two.)
Baptists. Of the remaining denominations, Baptists are hardest to categorize because there is so very many. Some are very much a part of the mainline and should be avoided; others are incredibly legalistic. As a general rule of thumb, the Southern Baptist Convention is the most healthy and sure-fire bet for at least generally-evangelical (Bible-believing) views. This was the one denomination to successfully fend off a liberal (rejection of core Biblical truths) takeover. Of the SBC, approximately one-third could be considered broadly-Reformed (emphasize salvation by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone).
Methodists. This is the next most difficult to categorize because there was never a split in the denomination. Much of the denomination is apostate, but not all of it. The best best for finding a church likely lies in geography. If you are in the Northeast or on the West Coat, the church is probably dead. If you are in the South, or in a rural area elsewhere, it may be somewhat solid. Of course, these folks tend to believe in salvation as a cooperative work between God and man, which means that even though they're believers, they don't appreciate the full beauty of the Gospel.
Episcopalians. This denomination has really just begun to split in the last decade or so. In general, most Episcopalian churches are liberal, but clusters of churches in various parts of the broken off and joined evangelical Episcopalian churches around the world to form more-conservative Anglican denominations. You see this played out with a church like Falls Church Episcopalian in Virginia, which has broken off of the Episcopalian Church and has aligned and submitted to the oversight of Anglican bishops in Africa.
Lutherans. This breakdown is pretty simple. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) is in the mainline. Both of the other two, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and the Lutheran Church-Wisconsin Synod are both sideline. If you're a Lutheran, look for the latter two.
Dutch Reformed. This is a smaller body, historically, but an important one nonetheless. The first break occurred in this group around a century ago, with a split between the Reformed Church in America (RCA) and the Christian Reformed Church (CRC). The former eventually became a part of the mainline, while the CRC stayed on the sideline. For a variety of reasons, the CRC started quickly moving away from their roots in the latter part of this past century. They can only be considered "borderline" at this point. A significant evangelical/Reformed block still remains, but they are in the minority. The majority is moving quickly toward liberalism and the mainline. As a result, the United Reformed Churches (URC) began breaking off in the mid-90's. They are now the mantle-bearers of the Dutch Reformed tradition and confessions.
Presbyterians. This body was at the heart of the great fundamentalist-liberal controversy in the early twentieth century. The Presbyterian Church in the USA (PCUSA) quickly became borderline during this era, resulting in the exodus of the sideline-bound Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). Many evangelical/Reformed churches remained in the denomination or its southern counterpart, the PCUS, for much of the rest of the century, hopefully to change its course. When the semi-liberal PCUS and very-liberal PCUSA began to make moves toward uniting, this forced the hand of the more evangelical/Reformed southern churches to depart, forming the sideline Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). Following their departure, a less conservative body, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC), left the PCUSA. Like the CRC, the EPC is a part of the borderline, drifting slowly toward liberalism as well.
Again, these are all gross over-simplifications. There is no doubt that in the more historic traditions, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodism, and Presbyterians, the largest bodies are in the mainline. But though they are the largest, they are also marked by the greatest declines. And as the borderline denominations move in that same direction, they begin to see their own declines. Meanwhile, the bodies the remain faithful to the Scriptures and their confessions on the sideline have tended to experience growth over the past couple of decades. This may not always prove true, but it is consistent with the reality that when people seek out a Christian Church, they want a truly Christian Church.
And while the historic, evangelical Church within the West has clearly diminished in numbers and influence, that is not the whole story. As Philip Jenkins, amongst many others, has noted, the heart of the Church is quickly moving the global East and South. Some countries in these regions have even begun sending missionaries to the U.S.
The main story, however, is not found in the ebb and flow of numbers and influence, but the over-arching, providential reality that Christ is building His Church by His Word and His Spirit, and the gates of Hell will never prevail against it.
Another Church on the Rise
At an Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals conference a few years ago, hosted at the historic Fourth Presbyterian Church in Bethesda, Maryland, I met a single father and impassioned brother in the Lord named Jason Punches.
Jason had listened extensively to White Horse Inn and had fallen in love with God's Word in accordance with a Reformed view of what God says in His Word. As a result, Jason had started a fellowship of largely-unchurched believers in eastern Maryland, hoping that the fellowship would eventually become a recognized church.
He was not presumptuous in his labors. He desires to go to seminary and would occasionally lead worship services as a lay leader, but more often than not, he tried to draw in ordained pastors to fill the pulpit. He also had no interest in gathering his own cultish following--he wanted his humble fellowship to become part of a Reformed denomination and to call its own ordained pastor.
Within the coming year, all of those dreams will become reality. The fellowship will officially be a church plant of the United Reformed Churches and will be calling an ex-classmate and old friend of mine from Westminster Seminary California, Reuben Sernas, to be its pastor.
Read more about the Somerset Reformed Fellowship.
One of the beautiful things about God's work in this body is the sense of unity fostered between a number of Reformed denominations and churches in helping see Jason's vision realized, by God's grace.
Jason and I became good friends, and I had the pleasure of preaching there on several occasions, as did the Regional Home Missionary (church-planter) of my Presbytery (the pastors/elders of our denomination in a particular region), Steve Doe. Another WSC alum and friend of mine, Dr. Brian Lee, pastor of a URC church in DC, took a more active hand in shepherding the congregation along.
While I would've loved to see this church in my denomination, the OPC, I am thrilled that it is now a sister church in the URC. I noticed that Steve Doe preached there again this month and I will preach there one last time in March. At some point after that, my friend Reuben will take the helm.
In all of this, there has been no spirit of competition for denominational flag-planting. Instead, we have seen the quiet labors of a small host of pastors, with the backing of their churches and denominations, to support the faithful laborers in this small corner of God's vineyard. I desire both my denomination and my church to grow numerically, but ultimately, I desire to see Christ's Church grow, robed in the righteousness of Christ and waving the banner of His grace.
In Princess Anne, Maryland, another banner is planted, bearing all to come and see and know that the Lord is faithful and true.
Jason had listened extensively to White Horse Inn and had fallen in love with God's Word in accordance with a Reformed view of what God says in His Word. As a result, Jason had started a fellowship of largely-unchurched believers in eastern Maryland, hoping that the fellowship would eventually become a recognized church.
He was not presumptuous in his labors. He desires to go to seminary and would occasionally lead worship services as a lay leader, but more often than not, he tried to draw in ordained pastors to fill the pulpit. He also had no interest in gathering his own cultish following--he wanted his humble fellowship to become part of a Reformed denomination and to call its own ordained pastor.
Within the coming year, all of those dreams will become reality. The fellowship will officially be a church plant of the United Reformed Churches and will be calling an ex-classmate and old friend of mine from Westminster Seminary California, Reuben Sernas, to be its pastor.
Read more about the Somerset Reformed Fellowship.
One of the beautiful things about God's work in this body is the sense of unity fostered between a number of Reformed denominations and churches in helping see Jason's vision realized, by God's grace.
Jason and I became good friends, and I had the pleasure of preaching there on several occasions, as did the Regional Home Missionary (church-planter) of my Presbytery (the pastors/elders of our denomination in a particular region), Steve Doe. Another WSC alum and friend of mine, Dr. Brian Lee, pastor of a URC church in DC, took a more active hand in shepherding the congregation along.
While I would've loved to see this church in my denomination, the OPC, I am thrilled that it is now a sister church in the URC. I noticed that Steve Doe preached there again this month and I will preach there one last time in March. At some point after that, my friend Reuben will take the helm.
In all of this, there has been no spirit of competition for denominational flag-planting. Instead, we have seen the quiet labors of a small host of pastors, with the backing of their churches and denominations, to support the faithful laborers in this small corner of God's vineyard. I desire both my denomination and my church to grow numerically, but ultimately, I desire to see Christ's Church grow, robed in the righteousness of Christ and waving the banner of His grace.
In Princess Anne, Maryland, another banner is planted, bearing all to come and see and know that the Lord is faithful and true.
19.2.14
The Philosophical and Practical
Two of my favorite magazines are National Review and The Economist. NR, a high-brow political magazine, engages creatively and extensively in the realm of ideas. The Economist, on the other hand, largely deals with numbers and practicalities in politics. In other words, they tend to write and live by the dictum, "Whatever works, do it."
Now philosophy and practicalities cannot be divorced from one another, as Machen noted:
"What is to-day matter of academic speculation begins to-morrow to move armies and pull down empires. In that second stage, it has gone too far to be combated; the time to stop it was when it was still a matter of impassionate debate. So as Christians we should try to mould the thought of the world in such a way as to make the acceptance of Christianity something more than a logical absurdity."
There is always a connection between ideas and practice, because practice is always rooted in ideas. I take my wife on vacation, for example, because I believe that it is important for a family to enjoy quality time with each other.
But the connection between philosophy and practicalities is not always so immediate as "today" and "tomorrow." The resurgence of conservatism as a political force in the U.S., for one, is the result of several generations of development. First came the philosophers of the movement--Russell Kirk, F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, Richard Weaver, Whittaker Chambers, etc., then came the popularizers, who bring thoughts into the mainstream--William F. Buckley, Irving Kristol, R. Emmett Terrell, etc, and finally the politicians, who bring the popularized thoughts into practice in public policy--Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, The Heritage Foundation, etc.
With this in mind, the most savvy cultural movers and shakers will think in terms of the long game. They will spend as much time seeking to influence institutions and publications as they do the political process. It is much easier to enact ideas if you have the media and popular opinion behind you. By the same token, if you try to push legislation through without winning over popular and media support, you're likely creating a political disaster that will overturn your gains.
These lessons in the history of ideas are important for the Church in America (of which you're a part), which largely embraced an experience-is-everything anti-intellectualism over the past century: "Doctrine divides!" "I don't want to hear people talking to me about the Bible, I want to hear their stories." "That pastor is never practical enough for me!"
The reality is, we all need to be philosophical and practical. We all need to take our thoughts captive for Christ in order for our hearts and those of others to change. This is especially important for the pastor, who must humbly and prayerfully seek to discern the mind of God as it is revealed in Scripture and apply such knowledge with conviction and comfort in Christ to the hearts of God's people.
But the call, as Machen noted above, is not just for pastors, but for all believers. Some will primarily be lovers of ideas and others lovers of people, but in some measure, we all must be lovers of both. The Church is at its strongest, in the sovereign grace of God, when she treasures the Truth of God and the people of God, as well as those "who might believe and have eternal life" (1 Tim. 1:16).
Now philosophy and practicalities cannot be divorced from one another, as Machen noted:
"What is to-day matter of academic speculation begins to-morrow to move armies and pull down empires. In that second stage, it has gone too far to be combated; the time to stop it was when it was still a matter of impassionate debate. So as Christians we should try to mould the thought of the world in such a way as to make the acceptance of Christianity something more than a logical absurdity."
There is always a connection between ideas and practice, because practice is always rooted in ideas. I take my wife on vacation, for example, because I believe that it is important for a family to enjoy quality time with each other.
But the connection between philosophy and practicalities is not always so immediate as "today" and "tomorrow." The resurgence of conservatism as a political force in the U.S., for one, is the result of several generations of development. First came the philosophers of the movement--Russell Kirk, F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, Richard Weaver, Whittaker Chambers, etc., then came the popularizers, who bring thoughts into the mainstream--William F. Buckley, Irving Kristol, R. Emmett Terrell, etc, and finally the politicians, who bring the popularized thoughts into practice in public policy--Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, The Heritage Foundation, etc.
With this in mind, the most savvy cultural movers and shakers will think in terms of the long game. They will spend as much time seeking to influence institutions and publications as they do the political process. It is much easier to enact ideas if you have the media and popular opinion behind you. By the same token, if you try to push legislation through without winning over popular and media support, you're likely creating a political disaster that will overturn your gains.
These lessons in the history of ideas are important for the Church in America (of which you're a part), which largely embraced an experience-is-everything anti-intellectualism over the past century: "Doctrine divides!" "I don't want to hear people talking to me about the Bible, I want to hear their stories." "That pastor is never practical enough for me!"
The reality is, we all need to be philosophical and practical. We all need to take our thoughts captive for Christ in order for our hearts and those of others to change. This is especially important for the pastor, who must humbly and prayerfully seek to discern the mind of God as it is revealed in Scripture and apply such knowledge with conviction and comfort in Christ to the hearts of God's people.
But the call, as Machen noted above, is not just for pastors, but for all believers. Some will primarily be lovers of ideas and others lovers of people, but in some measure, we all must be lovers of both. The Church is at its strongest, in the sovereign grace of God, when she treasures the Truth of God and the people of God, as well as those "who might believe and have eternal life" (1 Tim. 1:16).
18.2.14
Why I Love the Church, Part 2
Yesterday, I examined one reason why I love the Church. It is vital to the Christian faith.
Another reason I love the Church is that it serves as a visible reminder and outworking of Jesus' prayer that His people would be one (John 17:20-23). The unity of the Church, rooted in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, bears witness to the world of the glory of God.
A perceived lack of unity in the Church is often used by believer and unbeliever alike to heap scorn and ridicule upon the Church. I imagine you have all been asked something along the lines of "How can you claim that he Bible is true when there are so many different interpretations of what it says?"
To that, we can respond in confidence that there is a common consensus on matters of basic orthodoxy, even amongst Protestants and Roman Catholics. We all subscribe to the theology of the ancient creeds, for example, and their affirmations of fundamental truths regarding the Trinity and the person and work of Christ. We can also respond in conviction, acknowledging that this essential unity is not often made manifest before the watching world.
But it is not only the unbeliever that heaps scorn and ridicule upon the Church for its perceived lack of unity, for this exactly what many a believer does when he/she decries the prevalence of doctrinal debates and the multitude of denominations. In response to these brothers and sisters, it must be said that since the beginnings of the New Testament Church, doctrinal debates have used to crystallize truth--the truth that Christ prays will be at the heart of Christian unity.
Likewise, instead of decrying the divisive effects of denominations on Church unity when compared the complete unity of all tribes and tongues in Heaven, we should compare the current state of affairs with what the Church would look like if every person was a Church unto himself/herself. This is what many of these same Christians are doing when they ridicule denominations--they are self-consciously avoiding denominations, thus becoming denominations unto themselves. In contrast to this modern multitude of lay-Popes, we have denominations, which draw very diverse people together upon common understandings of God's Word.
Yet, the visible unity of the Church extends beyond the beauty of individual denominations. Many like-minded denominations gather together into larger networks For example, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Presbyterian Church in America, and United Reformed Churches, along with several other denominations, are all part of NAPARC--North American Presbyterian and Reformed Churches, which fosters greater unity between them. Likewise, The Gospel Coalition gathers those with broadly-Reformed convictions from across dozens of denominations into greater fellowship.
Even going a step further into the practical relevance of unity in the Church, consider what it is like to be in a relatively un-churched area, like the Pacific Northwest or the Pioneer Valley of New England. My wife and I are currently on vacation in New England, and consider ourselves blessed to find any form of evangelical (Bible-believing) church. On Nantucket, we found the sole evangelical church, which, while not totally in line with our theological preferences, provided us with a place to hear God's Word proclaimed and brothers and sisters with whom to delight in that Word. Consequently, one member of the church volunteered to watch our boy so we could enjoy a date night, and another member took us in for the night when our ferry back to the mainland was cancelled.
Likewise, we found a PCA church in Providence that readily welcomed us in this past Sunday. We were probably greeted by half the people in attendance. In this way, in a world populated by billions of people, and in a Western culture often indifferent to the plight of the stranger, our wold was made a little smaller and we were welcomed as family, though we were strangers.
So this is another reason why I love the Church. Not only do I get to hear from God on a weekly basis, but I get to be a part of a Christ-based family that makes my world larger and makes the broader world smaller, so that I am never alone on this pilgrim journey.
Another reason I love the Church is that it serves as a visible reminder and outworking of Jesus' prayer that His people would be one (John 17:20-23). The unity of the Church, rooted in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, bears witness to the world of the glory of God.
A perceived lack of unity in the Church is often used by believer and unbeliever alike to heap scorn and ridicule upon the Church. I imagine you have all been asked something along the lines of "How can you claim that he Bible is true when there are so many different interpretations of what it says?"
To that, we can respond in confidence that there is a common consensus on matters of basic orthodoxy, even amongst Protestants and Roman Catholics. We all subscribe to the theology of the ancient creeds, for example, and their affirmations of fundamental truths regarding the Trinity and the person and work of Christ. We can also respond in conviction, acknowledging that this essential unity is not often made manifest before the watching world.
But it is not only the unbeliever that heaps scorn and ridicule upon the Church for its perceived lack of unity, for this exactly what many a believer does when he/she decries the prevalence of doctrinal debates and the multitude of denominations. In response to these brothers and sisters, it must be said that since the beginnings of the New Testament Church, doctrinal debates have used to crystallize truth--the truth that Christ prays will be at the heart of Christian unity.
Likewise, instead of decrying the divisive effects of denominations on Church unity when compared the complete unity of all tribes and tongues in Heaven, we should compare the current state of affairs with what the Church would look like if every person was a Church unto himself/herself. This is what many of these same Christians are doing when they ridicule denominations--they are self-consciously avoiding denominations, thus becoming denominations unto themselves. In contrast to this modern multitude of lay-Popes, we have denominations, which draw very diverse people together upon common understandings of God's Word.
Yet, the visible unity of the Church extends beyond the beauty of individual denominations. Many like-minded denominations gather together into larger networks For example, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Presbyterian Church in America, and United Reformed Churches, along with several other denominations, are all part of NAPARC--North American Presbyterian and Reformed Churches, which fosters greater unity between them. Likewise, The Gospel Coalition gathers those with broadly-Reformed convictions from across dozens of denominations into greater fellowship.
Even going a step further into the practical relevance of unity in the Church, consider what it is like to be in a relatively un-churched area, like the Pacific Northwest or the Pioneer Valley of New England. My wife and I are currently on vacation in New England, and consider ourselves blessed to find any form of evangelical (Bible-believing) church. On Nantucket, we found the sole evangelical church, which, while not totally in line with our theological preferences, provided us with a place to hear God's Word proclaimed and brothers and sisters with whom to delight in that Word. Consequently, one member of the church volunteered to watch our boy so we could enjoy a date night, and another member took us in for the night when our ferry back to the mainland was cancelled.
Likewise, we found a PCA church in Providence that readily welcomed us in this past Sunday. We were probably greeted by half the people in attendance. In this way, in a world populated by billions of people, and in a Western culture often indifferent to the plight of the stranger, our wold was made a little smaller and we were welcomed as family, though we were strangers.
So this is another reason why I love the Church. Not only do I get to hear from God on a weekly basis, but I get to be a part of a Christ-based family that makes my world larger and makes the broader world smaller, so that I am never alone on this pilgrim journey.
17.2.14
Why I Love the Church
So popular postmodern Christian author, Donald Miller, stirred up controversy recently by declaring that he has reached the point where he no longer needs Christ's Church (my paraphrase).
You can see his comments here: http://storylineblog.com/2014/02/03/i-dont-worship-god-by-singing-i-connect-with-him-elsewhere/.
His comments need not be taken seriously for their substance, but for the statistics behind them. By that, I mean that though his comments can be readily refuted and corrected by God's Word, that does not change the fact that there are literally millions of other Christians who have reached the same conclusion as Miller.
I have read a gentle and charitable response to Miller from Geoff Surratt here: http://geoffsurratt.com/unlike-donald-miller-will-never-leave-church/. This response is effective because it speaks in the same postmodern language as Miller, emphasizing personal experience, practicalities, and relationships. I find myself moved by this response, because I am reminded that Christ's Church is indeed a family. Broken people from very different walks of life gather together under the banner of God's grace in Christ Jesus for sinners (1 Tim. 1:15-16).
But while Surratt's response is both moving and helpful, it misses the larger problem with Miller's sentiment: the Church is Christ's appointed means to bring the Gospel to the nations and drive it deeper into the hearts of His people.
Miller notes that he has "studied psychology and education reform long enough to know a traditional lecture isn’t for everybody."
Later, "I learn by doing the very thing I don’t learn by hearing!"
I agree...to a point. There are different learning styles. Some learn best through hearing, others through seeing, some through writing, speaking, or doing. I can sympathize with Miller on this point. I do not learn best through hearing. I often repeat peoples' words back to them. Some may think that I am mocking them; others, that I am trying to control the conversation. The reality is that I learn best by speaking, so I listen and learn in conversations when I put what you say to me in my own words.
But discussing modes of learning again misses the point. The problem with me is not that I do not learn best through hearing--it's that I am very bad at hearing God speak to me. It's not a learning problem. It's a sin problem.
We walk by faith, not by sight (2 Cor. 5:7). And we can't do ourselves into believing anything. How then can man possibly walk by faith in this broken world with his own broken heart? Our only hope for salvation and growth in grace in this world comes in God addressing us in His Word and in our hearing His Word with hearts made fertile by His Spirit.
Paul tells us in Romans 10 that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. How do we call on the name of the Lord? He explains:
14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Faith comes through hearing! We are so blind and deaf and dumb that we need God to both address us and open up our hearts to His address. When Miller calls a sermon a "traditional lecture," he is showing a grave misunderstanding of what is occurring in the worship service. God has gathered His people around His throne, and through His appointed ambassador is both addressing them and opening their hearts to His address.
That is the primary reason why we gather with God's people on the Lord's Day (aside from His command to do exactly that)--not to gather with our dysfunctional family (though that is our glorious privilege), but together, to hear from God. And when we attend worship services with this purpose in mind, it belies a deeper theological clarity about who we are (sinners in need of God's divine address), who God is (holy and powerful, yet working through ordinary means in His grace), and all about the Savior who is at the heart of Scripture and should increasingly enthroned in our hearts as well.
That is what is so grievous about Miller's sentiment (and that of millions of Christians across the country). If you don't feel like you need to go to Church, then you lack the conviction that you are the worst of sinners and are unwilling to receive the comfort that Christ Jesus came into the world for exactly that reason (1 Tim. 1:15-16).
Praise God that He speaks to us, even when we don't want to hear Him.
You can see his comments here: http://storylineblog.com/2014/02/03/i-dont-worship-god-by-singing-i-connect-with-him-elsewhere/.
His comments need not be taken seriously for their substance, but for the statistics behind them. By that, I mean that though his comments can be readily refuted and corrected by God's Word, that does not change the fact that there are literally millions of other Christians who have reached the same conclusion as Miller.
I have read a gentle and charitable response to Miller from Geoff Surratt here: http://geoffsurratt.com/unlike-donald-miller-will-never-leave-church/. This response is effective because it speaks in the same postmodern language as Miller, emphasizing personal experience, practicalities, and relationships. I find myself moved by this response, because I am reminded that Christ's Church is indeed a family. Broken people from very different walks of life gather together under the banner of God's grace in Christ Jesus for sinners (1 Tim. 1:15-16).
But while Surratt's response is both moving and helpful, it misses the larger problem with Miller's sentiment: the Church is Christ's appointed means to bring the Gospel to the nations and drive it deeper into the hearts of His people.
Miller notes that he has "studied psychology and education reform long enough to know a traditional lecture isn’t for everybody."
Later, "I learn by doing the very thing I don’t learn by hearing!"
I agree...to a point. There are different learning styles. Some learn best through hearing, others through seeing, some through writing, speaking, or doing. I can sympathize with Miller on this point. I do not learn best through hearing. I often repeat peoples' words back to them. Some may think that I am mocking them; others, that I am trying to control the conversation. The reality is that I learn best by speaking, so I listen and learn in conversations when I put what you say to me in my own words.
But discussing modes of learning again misses the point. The problem with me is not that I do not learn best through hearing--it's that I am very bad at hearing God speak to me. It's not a learning problem. It's a sin problem.
We walk by faith, not by sight (2 Cor. 5:7). And we can't do ourselves into believing anything. How then can man possibly walk by faith in this broken world with his own broken heart? Our only hope for salvation and growth in grace in this world comes in God addressing us in His Word and in our hearing His Word with hearts made fertile by His Spirit.
Paul tells us in Romans 10 that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. How do we call on the name of the Lord? He explains:
14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Faith comes through hearing! We are so blind and deaf and dumb that we need God to both address us and open up our hearts to His address. When Miller calls a sermon a "traditional lecture," he is showing a grave misunderstanding of what is occurring in the worship service. God has gathered His people around His throne, and through His appointed ambassador is both addressing them and opening their hearts to His address.
That is the primary reason why we gather with God's people on the Lord's Day (aside from His command to do exactly that)--not to gather with our dysfunctional family (though that is our glorious privilege), but together, to hear from God. And when we attend worship services with this purpose in mind, it belies a deeper theological clarity about who we are (sinners in need of God's divine address), who God is (holy and powerful, yet working through ordinary means in His grace), and all about the Savior who is at the heart of Scripture and should increasingly enthroned in our hearts as well.
That is what is so grievous about Miller's sentiment (and that of millions of Christians across the country). If you don't feel like you need to go to Church, then you lack the conviction that you are the worst of sinners and are unwilling to receive the comfort that Christ Jesus came into the world for exactly that reason (1 Tim. 1:15-16).
Praise God that He speaks to us, even when we don't want to hear Him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)