In celebration of this exciting development, I would like to extend a special offer solely for my Theological Musings readers. I am offering an opportunity for you to purchase all three of my CDs (normally $15 each for a total of $45) for just $30 plus shipping and handling (a 33% discount).

Here are descriptions of the three CDs that you will receive:

Ivory Worship – Originally released under the title “To Worship You”, this CD features intimate arrangements of contemporary worship songs such as “Breathe”, “Draw Me Close”, “Shout to the Lord” and “Agnus Dei”.

‘Tis So Sweet – Whereas “Ivory Worship” featured more contemporary songs, on this CD I returned to my childhood roots with classic hymns. Intimately played in a continuous flow, the music on this CD comprises one hour-long medley of well-known hymns such as “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross”, “Just As I Am”, “Great Is Thy Faithfulness”, “It Is Well with My Soul” and others (19 in all).

Christmas Solitude – Focusing on Christmas songs that are centered around the story of Jesus, the same intimate style employed on the other two projects is applied to worshipful Christmas songs such as “O Holy Night!”, “Silent Night”, “O Come, O Come Emmanuel”, and many others. The lone vocal song on this CD features my lovely wife Christy singing a beautiful song she wrote from the perspective of Mary called “I Will Never Be the Same”.

All three of these CDs are available individually on my website (Worship Keys), but to take advantage of this special pricing for Theological Musings readers on that website, you must click this link. When that page loads, you should see a message near the top that says, “Welcome, Theological Musings reader!” That will give you a special link for the pricing offered here.

Our breakfast times together (Raborn and I have been meeting weekly for over 14 months, and Tom just recently started joining us) are often quite interesting times of discussing what the Lord is teaching us, or exploring questions we have about simple church, etc. Normally, we have another “regular” place that we meet, but decided to meet at Hardee’s this particular day.

As we waited in line to order, we commented about the “before church rush”. It was pretty apparent from the clothes being worn by most of the people ahead of us that they were grabbing a bite to eat before heading to their respective church services. Sure enough, by about an hour into our conversation, the place was pretty empty, and we were enjoying lively conversation back in the corner.

I hadn’t even noticed a man who came and sat down a couple of booths over from us. Nor did I even think of how our conversation could easily be heard. We were too busy discussing things to think about it.

This week, our conversation turned to the subject of helping the poor and the homeless who we come across. We were discussing the common objections like, “They’ll just spend the money on alcohol and cigarettes” — I’m sure you know the mindset I’m talking about.

In the course of this conversation, I shared about experiences I had while living in Austin, TX….

One day, I was sitting in church listening to a sermon about reaching people. The thrust of the preacher’s sermon was all about inviting people to that church. In fact, he was telling the church about how there were piles of “tracts” available at the front for us to hand out. These tracts contained nothing except a map to the church and a list of service times.

My mind began to wander away from the marketing speech that was being given, and I began to seek the Lord’s direction. I prayed, “Lord, I do long to reach people. How can I do that? What can I do to make a difference in the lives of others?”

You know, it’s funny how sometimes the Lord really does speak quite clearly to us. I say “funny” because a lot of people don’t think that the Lord still speaks. But in this instance, I knew that I was hearing from the Lord.

He said, “You could help the people on the corners of the intersections.” At this time in my life, I had a rather well-paying job, and had surplus to give to others. But I was puzzled by this idea.

I immediately began to think through all the justifications I had held onto as to why I should not give money to “those people”. I had seen a news special one time (when I was living in Philadelphia) about how some of “those people” were making really good money on the streets. I saw them all as scam artists. Or drug users. Or alcoholics. Surely, God didn’t want me to enable that kind of behavior, right?

And that’s when the Lord put something in my heart that I had never considered before. He said, “What they do with your gift is between me and them. But if I want you to give, you should obey me.”

I left that conversation with a far different perspective. And for the rest of my time in Austin, whenever I would pull up to a traffic light and see someone on the corner, I would ask the Lord if I should give to them. The direction often varied. Sometimes it was, “Empty your wallet”. I might have $20 or $40 or more in my wallet, and I would just take it all out and give it to them. Other times it was, “Pull into the next convenience store, buy them a sandwich and something to drink and take it back to them.” And I would do that, circling back around to roll down my window and hand them a meal. Sometimes, the direction was to not give anything at all.

He turned around, walked straight to our booth, and said, “Gentlemen, you give me hope!” And then he went on to say, “I’m not a Christian” but shared how the conversation he had been overhearing gave him hope.

I don’t remember all the precise words he said, but the two statements that I remember word-for-word are, “Gentlemen, you give me hope” and “I’m not a Christian”.

The conversation didn’t last long, and he shook our hands and left. But we remained, praising God that we had been able to sow some seed of hope into his life. The opportunity wasn’t there in the conversation to take it any further, but I believe we did exactly what God wanted us to do. Who knows how that seed will be watered by someone else?

Think about it: We normally don’t meet on Sundays. We normally don’t go to Hardee’s. The “regular church crowd” had already gone. But God used us in that place, at that time, to give someone hope. Praise the Lord!

Until next time,

steve

21st Century Reformation is one I have had on my list for a while. Brad Hightower writes some really good observations about church in America. I’ll let his description of his blog suffice here:

21st Century Reformation is dedicated to the task of making disciples and building morally beautiful community. I aim to help people learn to “do church” and live the Christian life in a winsome and authentic way that witnesses to the Kingdom in our lives. I speak from a historically reformed perspective but with an emphasis on very practical issues of discipleship and kingdom living.

A Company of Friends is my latest addition (just added it yesterday, I believe) to my blogroll. Tomas Perez is fellow pilgrim on the path toward simpler church. My wife introduced me to his blog, and I have found his posts refreshing and enlightening. As I commented on his blog today, I sometimes feel like he is reading my mind, and yet at the same time, he speaks words that convict me.

Adrian Warnock is one of the “biggies” in the Christian blogosphere. I really appreciate Adrian’s tone and spirit. He’s located in England, but seems to have a style that very easily crosses the Atlantic. Adrian is a self-described “Reformed Charismatic”, and although we would probably differ on some of the aspects of the “reformed” part, I find his balance with regard to the “charismatic” part very encouraging. More than anything, Adrian has influenced me from afar in his attitude toward blogging, disagreements, etc. Some of you comment on my graciousness here, and I have to honestly say that Adrian is one that I have seen that in and have tried to emulate.

The Assembling of the Church — many of you may have seen comments here from time to time by Alan Knox. Alan recently completed his masters degree at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and is exploring some of the same concepts in “church” that I am exploring. Alan’s another gentle voice in the blogosphere, and I benefit greatly from reading his posts. Frequently, Alan will blog about word studies, etc. related to church life, and he manages dialogue well on his blog.

Cerulean Sanctum is hands-down one of the most unique blog names I’ve ever encountered. If you’ve seen a commenter named “DLE” on here (not to be confused with “ded” who is a very frequent commenter here, but doesn’t have a blog of his own), that is Dan Edelen. Dan is a free-lance novelist who likes to discuss issues related to American Christianity. Even though there have been some issues that have left me scratching my head and wondering where Dan is coming from, I can honestly say that most of the time, I find Dan’s posts very thought-provoking and profound. He’s definitely worth reading.

Emerging Grace is also a fairly recent addition to my list. “Grace” (not her real name) touches on some of the more personal aspects of what happens when church becomes unhealthy. Even though Grace only recently started appearing on my blog links, I have been reading her for quite a few months, and find her blog very touching. Not even knowing her real name, I still feel like Grace is a wonderful sister in Christ, and I am blessed to know her in this context.

Grace for Life is the blog of another dear online friend, Terry Rayburn. I first “met” Terry on another blog where I was embroiled in a bit of a struggle with the author of that blog. Terry sent me some personal emails encouraging me, and his comments were definitely a Godsend. One of these days, I hope to get to Nashville to meet Terry and his wife. They are gracious people. And I love the tagline on Terry’s blog: “Slaying the dragon of legalism. Because grace didn’t end with salvation.”

Heavenly Heartburn – Of all the friends I’ve made in the blogosphere, I think Gordon Cloud has become the dearest. Gordon and I have had some really wonderful discussions, even though there are quite a few things we disagree on. Gordon is a dispensationalist, while I am right in my eschatology. Gordon is a cessationist, while I have the correct biblical view of spiritual gifts. Just kidding!! But seriously, Gordon writes some very insightful posts on his blog. And then, on occasion, he’ll host debates about such deep subjects as whether the glass is half-full or half-empty. Great guy, wonderful heart, make him a regular stop in your blog reading.

Observations and Opinions – Although I haven’t seen my friend Ray around here in a while, I still consider him a very good friend. Ray and I met when we were trying to have a discussion in the comment thread of a very busy blog, and I offered to continue the discussion over here. And quite a few wonderful discussions followed. Ray has a heart for ministry and a passion to see God’s kingdom expand. I love that! Ray also has brought some very interesting Jewish perspective to the table, including a great series where he blogged through the parts of the Tabernacle.

Ray’s X-Change is a blog I recently highlighted here. Raborn Johnson is a very dear friend offline as well as online. I first met Raborn because he works at a local bookstore which carries my piano CDs. We hit it off and began to talk more and more when I would stop by the store. Over time, our conversations got deeper and deeper, and we started meeting regularly for lunch. Soon, I introduced Raborn to the blogosphere, and he’s been blogging some great topics, too. Raborn (as well as commenter “ded”) and I (along with our families) fellowship together quite often, and that is where we try to live out a lot of these discussions about simple church and organic fellowship.

Subversive Influence is another pseudonymous blogger. In fact, I got introduced to “Brother Maynard” (Monty Python fans, anyone?) through the other pseudonym I already introduced (“Grace”). While I’m not sure I understand the significance of the blog title (it sounds like I’m being brainwashed or something when I read it!!), I really appreciate this Canadian brother’s spirit in writing about many different topics.

The Broken Messenger, the blog of Brad Huston, frequently challenges me. Brad and I come from very different theological perspectives (like others I have mentioned here), yet both understand the importance of sane, calm dialogue. Brad puts up with my dissenting comments with patience and kindness, even when we talk past each other. And that’s always something that I can appreciate in a good blog. You won’t be sorry if you check out this blog.

The Internet Monk is a name I wish I had thought of for a blog! Of course, Michael Spencer was using this moniker long before I knew what a blog was. Michael is a very unique individual in the blogosphere. Loved by some, hated by some (well, ok, so that’s not really that unique among bloggers), sometimes not the easiest to figure out, but when it all boils down, as I mentioned on this blog very recently, Michael is a brother whom I appreciate. And when the figurative grenades are being lobbed across the bow of my blog, I want Michael on my side!

The JollyBlogger is in the same category, in my opinion, as Adrian Warnock. David Wayne, who created his blog’s title from a C. S. Lewis quote that he adapted for the situation, is kind, gentle, not easily angered…in short, a demonstration of the fruit of the Spirit in blogging. Both he and Adrian are guys I look up to in the blogosphere because I want Christ to show through in my blogging like He does in theirs. And if you happen to like the TV show “Lost” (which I don’t because I’ve never even seen it, and don’t ever plan to!), David’s your man! Who else would try to liveblog a TV show?!

We Need…a Blog Hero! And what better way to round out this list than something completely different, completely off-the-wall, completely fun? Carl Schaad, who happens to also be a great designer (he recently did a fantastic redesign of my Worship Keys music website) works at AccuWeather up in State College, PA. His blog defies all explanations and categorical description because it’s just wacky and fun! And that’s why I love it.

Before I sign off, I would definitely like to also point you to my lovely wife’s blog. I like the fact that my wife is involved in the blogosphere, too. We read many of the same blogs, and she definitely helps me shape my thoughts and posts, too. While her blog is hosted on HomeschoolBlogger, she often writes about other subjects, too. I think you’ll find her posts encouraging and challenging. (And Christy, I love you so very, very much, darling!)

So, if you’ve got some time this weekend, check out some of these blogs. You may make some new friends, find some interesting reading, or have a good laugh.

Until next time,

steve

Please understand that I have every intention of keeping the conversation as civil as it has been. One of my unwritten goals for this blog is still keeping this blog a “safe” place to discuss theological issues without mudslinging, namecalling, etc. And I owe a lot to you, my readers, for helping keep that tone in the comments section. I am blessed to have you here on my little blog. So, with that being said, let me now share what’s on my heart in this area.

The first issue that came up, raised by Earl, is the example of Mormons. Earl feels that my short list would be (at least verbally) “ok” with Mormons, and therefore, my list is insufficient. After all, if it lets the Mormons in, it must be bad, because we all know that Mormons are in a cult, and can’t possibly be saved. (Yes, that’s slightly tongue-in-cheek!) And so, we come to this question, raised by Earl: Do you consider Mormons, who follow their doctrine, to be orthodox Christians?

Now, this question actually represents a subtle switching of the topic by Earl, albeit I’m sure quite unintentionally. Earl began by saying that my list would include Mormons as Christians, but then asked if I consider Mormons to be orthodox Christians. That is actually a whole different subject that would be something of a rabbit trail right now, so I don’t want to get too distracted with it. I’ll make a note to come back to it at some point, though, and that is the topic of “orthodoxy”. Specifically, it would be interesting to discuss what that term means, where it comes from, who holds the gavel in determining what is (and is not) orthodox. But if you don’t mind, Earl, I’m going to scrap the word “orthodox” from your question and answer the more basic question of whether or not I would consider Mormons to be Christians.

Well, actually, you’re probably going to think that I’m copping out on the answer, rather than answering it directly, but it really does have a lot to do with the main point I was trying to make in the recent posts. That point is this: I am not trying to create a statement of faith (or confession) which is based on anything other than Scripture. Additionally, I am not coming at this from an angle of making sure that certain people are excluded.

To look at a statement of faith (even if it’s informal) and say, “But that would allow for [insert name of group you are convinced is headed straight to Hell] to claim they are Christians” is to come at it from the wrong angle. My response to this type of statement is, “Who says they aren’t?” It seems that we are starting with a presupposition that we know who’s in and who’s out. That’s a dangerous place to begin.

Listen, I don’t mean to be patronizing about this, but it’s completely up to God whether or not to let a member of the Mormons into Heaven. For that matter, it’s completely up to Him whether or not to let any of us in! And Scripture reveals to us that the way to the Father is through faith in Jesus Christ. So if someone is putting their faith in Jesus as the way to the Father, then there’s not much we can say about it.

The reality is, we are all wrong in some area of our beliefs. Now, I am no expert on Mormon doctrine, and frankly I don’t need to be for this conversation because this conversation doesn’t need to be about whether or not Mormons could subscribe to my short list and call themselves Christians. The point is how far are we going to go in adding to the list of what people need to believe in order to be welcomed as a Christian? And why is it ok for us to be wrong in some areas, but it’s not ok for someone else to be wrong?

I have heard similar comments made (in various discussions) about Roman Catholics, about Oneness Pentecostals, about charismatics in general, about Methodists, about Anglicans…you get the picture? Every group thinks they have the “inside scoop” on what is necessary, and they can’t handle the thought that others might be “in” as well.

I have to be honest here and say that, in some senses, Earl and Isabel have proven the point I was making that the lines we draw end up being more divisive than anything. And I continue to contend that those lines go beyond Scripture. For example, what did Paul respond when asked what one should do to be saved (Acts 16:30-31)? He said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, the only Son of God, conceived of a virgin by the Holy Spirit….” No. He said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.” And later, in writing to the church at Corinth, he said that the essence of what he preached was that Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures, was buried, and raised again on the third day according to the Scriptures. That’s a far cry from where the creeds and confessions of the last 2,000 years have taken us!

Isabel raised the point about thinking it necessary to include that Jesus was the “only Son of God”, and even expressed some disappointment that I hadn’t even included the phrase “Son of God” at all. Raborn has already stolen some of my thunder in responding to this, but I want to reiterate the point he made. If you read the New Testament, you will find that Jesus is not referred to as the “only Son of God”. We are told that we, too, are given the power (the right) to become “sons of God”. And as Raborn pointed out, there are other passages that refer to Jesus as the “first born”.

(As a side note, I think the NIV really botched John 3:16 when they translated huion ton monogene as “one and only Son”. While it is true that Luke uses the same Greek word in referring to a single offspring, using this translation for John’s usage of the word contradicts other Scriptures, as I am demonstrating here. It is better seen as a uniqueness of how Christ was “begotten” in a way different to how we become sons [i.e., through adoption].)

You see, folks, this is exactly the problem I’m trying to highlight here. In our enthusiasm for “orthodoxy” and making sure that all our t’s are crossed and our i’s are dotted, we have gone beyond the teaching of Scripture and made a doctrine “essential” that is not even accurately stated. Now, do I have all the answers for what it means that we become “sons of God”? No, I don’t claim to. But I do know that it means that I can’t honestly say that Jesus is the only “son of God” without ignoring some Scriptures entirely, and twisting others.

With regard to the virgin birth, if that is such an essential doctrine, why do we not see it being preached in the New Testament? Why did Paul never refer to it? Why is it never contained in summaries of the Gospel as recorded by Paul? Note that I’m not saying I don’t believe in the virgin birth! Please don’t misunderstand my point here. What I’m saying is that if it is so essential that we must include it in our confessions, then why was it not central in the New Testament record of sermons preached?

In further illustrating my point for me, Earl and Isabel mentioned that the problems they see with my “short list” are exactly why we have confessions. To use Earl’s words:

But this gives you a flavor of what can happen with short confessions. This is why various historical creeds were developed, such as the Nicene Creed and the Definition of Chalcedon were developed, to address these kind of issues.

And with that comment, we have come full circle to my point about sola scriptura. What I see in Earl’s comment here is that the creeds were developed in order to make sure that people knew what they were supposed to believe. Scripture, apparently, was not enough to use as a guide. Things had to be boiled down to propositions that (to continue beating this horse) went further than Scripture itself, and then these became (and still are considered to be) the measuring rod.

Let’s look at Chalcedon, for example, which concludes with the following words: as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us. This equates “the Creed of the holy Fathers” with the teaching of the prophets and of Jesus Himself. So here, we have a creed (or definition, if you want to use that term, instead) giving equal weight to another creed.

Or, let’s take a look at my favorite to pick on, the Athanasian Creed (attributed to Athanasius, but doubted by scholars as being from him). The language used in the Athanasian Creed drives many evangelical definitions of the Trinity. And this Creed makes it abundantly clear that one must embrace this definition in order to be saved. Allow me to quote portions here:

Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith.

Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally.

Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being….

Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits.

And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other;

but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.

Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity….

This is the catholic faith.

One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully.

Does anyone else see what I see? Here are statements that are not clearly spelled out in Scripture, yet this statement says that one “cannot be saved” without subscribing to it! This is exactly what I’m talking about! We cannot add to Scripture in this way by creating statements and telling people they must embrace them in order to be saved. What arrogance! What foolishness!

And so, I once again open myself up for criticism here, but I feel that I cannot state this any more clearly. Beliefs such as the virgin birth, Jesus being the Son of God, etc. might be all well and good. But where do we draw the line? “Orthodoxy” for many centuries has forced many other doctrines on us as being “essential”, and I take my stand here against that. Not against the beliefs themselves, but the implication (or outright assertion) that one must subscribe to every one of them in order to be considered “in”.

Earl and Isabel, I appreciate your dialogue here, and I hope it continues. But I would strongly encourage both of you to think about the implications of what you are saying. First of all, the implication that we have to somehow make sure that certain people are excluded. And second, the implication that the creeds and confessions that have gone before are consistent with Scripture. Please, let’s start with what Scripture actually says, and work from there! But let’s not go beyond that, or add to it, or force something back onto it that’s not there, and then make that a divisive issue.

Until next time,

steve

These are the things I believe are absolutely essential for one to call themselves a Christian, and for me to recognize them as my brother or sister in the Lord:

1. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh
2. Jesus Christ died for the sins of all mankind, was buried, and literally rose from the dead to live forever.
3. Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father, and there is salvation in no other person, doctrine, or belief.
4. Each individual’s eternal destiny will be determined by their relationship (or lack, thereof) to Jesus Christ.

Earl pointed out that this is, in itself, a confession and compared it to the WCF in the following way:

The difference with your confession versus the WCF is that it is shorter, it is informal (not put into a standard form), you wrote it – and of course you think your confession is Biblical where in your opinion the WCF isn’t Biblical.

Earl has a fairly decent point about this being my “confession”, but I think in some ways, the differences are more essential than seems implied by the above comment. Allow me to elaborate on each of the points that Earl has made. I’m going to take them out of order because I want to spend the bulk of my time on one in particular.

My list is informal. This is partly due to the nature of blogging, but also actually comes from my belief that each person should be able to informally articulate their beliefs without just pointing to a confession written by someone else. Consider the fact that Jesus commissioned us to make disciples, not clones! Which leads to the next point…

I wrote it. Some time ago, I wrote on my frustrating experience at being shot down in my ordination council for attempting to write my own statement of faith. I was “encouraged” to simply use the words that others have written in the past. This illustrates the common perception that Christians should not really think too much for themselves, but should simply lean on what has already been done and said. While I don’t eschew the past, or those who have gone before me, this mindset does damage to the priesthood of believers by actually encouraging a lack of thinking.

I think my confession is biblical. Well, I should hope so! But seriously, there seems to be a major point to be made here. Each of my statements are informal representations of things that are specifically stated either by Jesus (statements 3 and 4) or about Jesus (statements 1 and 2) in Scripture itself. These are not statements that are “deduced” from putting various unrelated verses together, redefining a few key words within those verses, and then creating a propositional statement and stating that as truth. And this is one area where I feel the difference between what I wrote related to myself and what the WCF authors wrote is quite large.

My list is shorter (than the WCF). As a matter of fact, my list is shorter than most statements of faith I have come across in my lifetime. And this is the point that I want to focus most specifically on. Why is my list so short? And what are the implications for that list being short?

Earl has drawn some conclusions about the involvement of each of us in the other’s fellowship. In Earl’s opinion, neither one of us would be suitable for leadership in the other’s church. He has acknowledged that I would not be permitted to be a leader in his Presbyterian church. In his own words, “It is true that if you wanted to become an elder in our church, at this stage of your stated beliefs, that wouldn’t happen.” (I would like to know the biblical basis for this conclusion, but I’ll leave that up to Earl to offer at his discretion. It is not necessary at this point.)

However, he then goes on to explain why he thinks he would also be unsuitable for leadership in a simple church here in Boone.

I think it is very unscriptural to not have local bodies so unaccountable to the larger body of Christ. I would strongly encourage your church to move in that direction. I would see that your church is missing out on the wonderful doctrines of grace (as I see how it is taught in the Bible), I would teach those. Just as you would be a square wheel in being a leader at my church, so I would be a triangle wheel at your church. I would cause division and strife. You and I would tear at the peace of our respective churches while trying to put into practice pure doctrine.

This is why I think a short list is so valuable. And this is why I think it is completely necessary to understand the implications of adding to that list. The Westminster Confession of Faith itself acknowledges that some matters of church government do not even come from Scripture. And yet, I believe this is part of what is included in the things Earl says he would “strongly encourage” the church here in Boone to move toward.

Earl also believes that we are “missing out” on something by not subscribing to Calvinism. (Lest anyone here not understand how I got this, you need to understand that “doctrines of grace” is used as a synonym for the five points of Calvinism.) And so, he would feel compelled to teach these. Earl believes that in doing so, he (by his own words) would cause division and strife.

This is a very important point to understand. And I’m grateful that Earl has made the point for me without me having to assume anything here. The major reason I believe that we need to keep our list short is because this is a good step towards preserving the unity of the Body of Christ. By adding to the list things that are legitimately up to interpretation (such as Calvinism, cessationism, eschatology), and by imposing systems on to our practice that are not based on Scripture alone, we end up causing division and strife in the Body.

Take a look at the numerous denominations and divisions in the Body of Christ over the centuries, and tell me that this is what Jesus pictured in John 17 when He prayed that we would be one with each other and with Him. Yet what is the source of most of the denominations that have come into existence? Divisions over non-essential things!

It’s not enough for people in one denomination to say, “We believe baptism should be done in this way.” Instead, they feel like they have to say, “We believe baptism should be done in this way, and any other way is not acceptable to us.” So we divide over sprinkling vs. immersion. Or infant baptism vs. believer baptism. But by not putting that on my list, even though I personally am of the opinion that believer baptism is what is best, I have no problem being in a fellowship with someone who believes in infant baptism. I wouldn’t even have a problem with that person being an elder in our fellowship. Unless they started teaching that infant baptism is the only correct interpretation.

And see, the words I highlighted in bold in the previous paragraph are very important. It is my opinion that a particular interpretation is correct, but I must, must, must be humble enough to recognize that it is still an opinion. I don’t mean this directly at Earl, but a very good and pertinent example is Calvinism vs. Non-Calvinism. The Calvinist must be able to recognize that their systematic theology is still based on interpretation and should be subject to re-evaluation and difference of opinion. I grow very weary (again, this is not directed specifically at Earl) of Calvinists referring to their theology as “biblical theology”, stating that elements of that theology are “clearly” taught in Scripture, even when it is pointed out that words are being redefined, verses are being taken out of context, etc.

But Calvinism isn’t the only system that does this. When I spent some time in a Oneness Pentecostal church, I witnessed quite a few verbal assaults on Trinitarian beliefs without any humility or caution. Likewise, I have gotten into discussions on blogs where (and this happens a lot), people will claim that Trinitarianism is absolutely essential for salvation and therefore for fellowship. Trinitarianism, while I believe it probably comes closest to how I interpret Scripture, is in and of itself an interpretation that should not be held so highly as to slander other interpretations as being “heretical”.

Regardless of whether one holds to “sola scriptura” as a literal statement of “Scripture alone, and only Scripture”, or whether they hold to “sola scriptura” in the sense of “Scripture is the only inspired communication from God, and therefore trumps everything else, but I still can use other documents for evidence”, let’s at least start with what Scripture actually says and draw our boundaries there! If you’ve got to derive some understanding from various passages being cut and pasted together in a very loose fashion, redefine some words, throw in some logical progressions, and then spit out a statement that you believe best represents God’s view on something, be willing to acknowledge the process that got you there, and recognize that some misunderstanding along the chain of progression might have skewed your final result.

Having said all that, you are most welcome in our fellowship, Earl. And if God put you in a place in our fellowship where you were recognized as an elder, I would not be drawing a line and saying that you couldn’t be an elder because of your beliefs in these areas. Expect those beliefs to be challenged, and expect to be asked to defend them biblically (not from the WCF), but also expect hearts to be open to what you had to say. I can only pretty much speak for myself, but in doing so, I would say that the only division and strife that would result would have to be by your own volition, and not from mine.

Until next time,

steve

To start with the typical disclaimer (i.e., this is not what I’m talking about in the upcoming paragraphs!), I recognize that application sometimes means deriving principles from Scripture and applying them to other situations. This can be completely valid, and when done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, allows us to read Scripture as much more than just a collection of stories, sayings, and sentiments. However, it is vitally important that we recognize the danger in application. That danger is the ease of crossing the line into turning a principle into a law, or turning a story into a propositional command.

For example, if I were to share the story of Nehemiah with you, and talk about how vitally important it is for a leader to continually re-cast a vision every twenty-six days, would you find that absurd? Yet, this is one of the foundational principles in Rick Warren’s Purpose-Driven Church. He calls it the “Nehemiah Principle”. Half-way through the 52-day task of rebuilding the walls, Nehemiah had to remind the people of what they were trying to accomplish. And so, Warren turns this into a “principle” that leaders need to remind people of the vision every twenty-six days. This is taking things too far.

A valid observation from Nehemiah might be that leaders need to be aware of when their group is losing focus and remind them of the vision. Or, a valid application might be that leaders should never assume that the people with whom they work continue to follow the same vision. But to turn it into a principle based on the number of days smacks of “proof-texting”. Perhaps some groups can retain their focus better than thousands of people who had been in captivity for most of their lives!

Another example was a recent comment on my post about Tim LaHaye’s public comments. The comment simply said, “Dont [sic] forget the godless told Noah to sit down and shut up as well. Your words are unwise.” I’ve already replied to that comment, but I think it bears repeating here. As far as I can tell from Scripture, we have absolutely no record of what interaction (if any) Noah had with “the godless” prior to the flood. It’s a common telling of the story that includes people mocking Noah, ridiculing him for building a big boat so far away from water, etc. But it’s not biblical. We can add dramatic elements to the story all we want, but we have no right to then draw application from the very things we added to the text. The extent of the revelation about Noah’s time is that people were just going on with their daily lives right up until the flood came. And we know that God did not find any righteous among those who lost their lives in the flood. That’s it! We must approach Scripture with the humility to say that God has not chosen to reveal anything else about that.

Yet another example is when we just pull things out of thin air (or from non-biblical analogies altogether) and then turn them into principles and teach them. For example, my wife is currently reviewing a book that is generally meant to be an instruction manual on how to be a Proverbs 31 woman. I won’t give too many specifics here because she has yet to write and submit her review, and I don’t want to appear to be trumping that. But there was one particular part she read to me that illustrates my point very well.

The author referenced another author’s use of the metaphor of an embassy for the Christian’s home. The basic idea was that when an ambassador lives in a foreign country, the embassy where that ambassador works is located in the foreign country, but is filled with sights and sounds and customs of the home country. The author went on to use this analogy to say that we should view our homes as “embassies” reflecting our true home with God. And the application of that? Everything should be kept neat, clean, orderly, and beautiful. The author went on to stipulate that this is also part of being a “good steward” of the homes God has given us.

My response to this was not a positive one at all. Why? Because the analogy itself does not even work biblically. First of all, we, not our homes, are the temple of the Holy Spirit. In fact, God does not dwell in man-made buildings (Acts 7:48) at all. So while I’m sure we can come up with other reasons why it would be helpful and beneficial to keep our homes clean, it is very inappropriate to imply that this is a requirement of properly representing God! I would like to speak even more strongly against this sly legalism, but I will refrain.

(As an ironic side note, I once saw an ad in a Christian magazine for a firm that builds church buildings. They used as part of their ad the single phrase from Acts 7:49, “What kind of house will you build for me?” If you look at that statement in context (and Isaiah 66:1 to which Stephen refers in his statements in Acts 7), you will see that God is making it clear that it is impossible for us to build any kind of dwelling for Him since He created everything. Appropriately applying this passage would more than likely put that company out of business, not be an effective marketing slogan for them!)

Let me share one final illustration of something that popped up recently in the blogosphere that turned my stomach in this regard. I don’t regularly read Purgatorio, although it is frequently a humorous and fun diversion from heavy blog reading. However, recently, I was directed there by a link somewhere else to see an entry about a “Cowboy Church” here in North Carolina. Now, to be fair, I will point out that Marc, the host of Purgatorio, was not commenting one way or the other. So it is not Marc, with whom I take the biggest issue (although when pressed in the comment thread, it doesn’t appear that Marc really wanted to discredit some of the vicious comments). It is some of the comments that were made with which I take issue. Here is a sampling:

WHY, WHY, WHY do we feel the need to custom-tailor everything in churches to some kind of “lifestyle”? Churches are like Barbie dolls… there’s Cowboy/Girl, Biker, Rocker… why do we care about personal affinities that matter nothing to a holy God? God never commanded us to make our services into experiences that people can “relate to”. There is only one thing needful, and that is the preaching of the unvarnished Gospel. NO ONE is able to “relate to” that without the sovereign work of God in their hearts. These kinds of things make me sick. “Wow… cool… as long as they remember to put in a Bible message, then they can play cowboy dress-up all they want.”

While we’re at it, let’s have “The Church of Christ for MENSA members”, or how about, “The Holy Church of Christ for Computer Geeks”, and “The Gardener’s Fellowship of the Lord”. Was the apostle Paul not concerned about factions and sects arising within the body of Christ? What if some God fearing computer geeks showed up at the cowboy church wanting to worship God? Would this cause division or unity? Should the common denominator be “cowboys”, or “Christ”? Isn’t this the difference between God-centered and man-centered worship?

The Lord’s Day is not an option as far as I see it in the scriptures! I work as a Care Aide and am forced to work some Sundays to take care of the mentally challenged, but my heart pines to be with the people of God in church. I would council a new convert who was not employed in a work of mercy (police man, fireman, nurse etc) to seek to stop working on Sundays and be in church. It is sin to engage in work that will draw others away from church on Sundays (ie: Rodeos). I thought cowboys took a stand on principle…even if it cost them money.

I would be more comfortable if they would call it cowboy “chapel” or cowboy something else rather than cowboy “church.” Church seems to imply that it is its own separate entity off to the side of the local church.

Ehh, just another way for a church to draw people to them while they can sit on their hands and wait to preach the gospel to them when they come in the door. I thank the Lord that He saves souls that way! But if men were truly devoted, they would be going to the cowboys’ farm on every other day of the week and presenting the Gospel to them, and wouldn’t have to worry about making a church to suit their needs.

You get the idea. And the basic theme from all of the negative commenters is that this can’t possibly be pleasing to God because it’s so…so…not what we do! And since what we do must be what pleases God, well then these cowboys just need to come do our thing. And for many of them, that’s the biblical position. As one commenter noted above, because this Cowboy Church meets on Tuesday nights, it’s unbiblical right off the bat because it’s not “The Lord’s Day”. And some are speaking about division. Ummm, how many of those people are part of a denominational church?!

So basically, the bottom line I’m trying to convey here is that it is quite necessary for us to search the Scriptures and find what God has revealed. And it is quite necessary for us to walk in the Spirit and be led by the Spirit. But let’s not take that to a point where we begin to pile legalism on others based on something that’s not even there.

Until next time,

steve

This is a sad day for me. It’s sad because it marks an end of a particular aspect of this blog that I have really enjoyed. As I mentioned in a recent post about comments, I have always enjoyed having a free, open comments section. However, a recent anonymous comment has finally convinced me that anonymous comments are not worth the freedom.

As the old saying goes, it only takes a few anonymous commenters to ruin a good discussion on a blog. Well, ok, so I just made that up, but it should be an old saying by now!

So, with my apologies to ded (one of my dearest friends and frequent commenter here) and any of my other wonderful commenters who don’t have Blogger accounts, everyone who wishes to comment from now on (this has been put into effect immediately) must have a Blogger account to comment. Now, this does not cost a thing (except a few minutes of your time) and does not require you to set up your own blog. However, for those who currently don’t have a Blogger account, please go to http://www.blogger.com and set up an account for yourself. You don’t even have to use your real name, but you will have to create some kind of “nickname” to use.

Again, I’m very sorry to have to make this change. I guess by nature, I’m a pretty optimistic person, and I had hoped that this blog could always remain a totally free and open exchange. But I don’t want to have to avoid mentioning certain topics (such as eschatology) just to fly below the radar of rabid hounds and their Google searches for key terms in those debates.

To all of my sincere commenters who haven’t hid behind the cloak of anonymity, please know how grateful I am to each of you. And I realize this won’t stop all the bizarre comments (some of the more bizarre ones lately have actually had Blogger accounts), but I’ve just had enough of some of the most slanderous comments coming from people who can’t even be bothered to change the word “Anonymous” to something more useful.

Now that this change has been put in place, let’s all return to edifying dialogue, shall we? And Lord willing, with my next post, we will!

Until next time,

Anonymous steve

I guess the reasoning goes like this: When Jesus was tempted to sin, He responded with Scripture. “It is written….” Since it’s highly unlikely that Jesus had a set of Old Testament scrolls and a Strongs Exhaustive Concordance in the desert with Him, we can safely assume that He had these verses memorized. And it was this memorized Scripture that He turned to in order to refute the temptation. Therefore, the thinking continues, Psalm 119:11 can best be applied to our lives by memorizing Scripture that can be used in times of temptation.

And you know what? That’s not a bad idea in the least! I highly recommend it. But lately, I have begun to realize that having something in our heart is light years beyond mere memorization. Allow me to use a metaphor.

As many of you know, I’m a professional musician. I am classically trained as a pianist, but my music experience varies greatly from country to jazz to rock to classical to praise and worship. With the exception of heavy metal, I have probably done something in just about every genre, either live or in the studio. Specifically in the area of classical music, however, I often refer to knowing a piece of music “by heart”. Usually, that’s shorthand that many of us use (not just in music) for “I’ve got it memorized.” But there’s more to it, I think.

It might be more appropriate (although it sure would sound funny!) if we referred to memorization as “I know it by head!” Head knowledge is way different from heart knowledge. If I have something memorized, it may not have anything to do with my heart (and of course, I’m using “heart” as the common term for the emotional and spiritual center of our being).

When I know a piece of music truly “by heart”, it is more than just notes that I’m playing with my fingers. The music begins to take on a life of its own. It begins to communicate with the listener. In truth, it even begins to communicate with me. Part of me becomes part of the music, and part of the music becomes part of me, if you know what I mean.

See, I had an understanding of something just this past year that I had never really thought about in over 30 years of playing the piano. Musical notation is not at all perfect. Think about it. A composer may write four quarter notes in a line of music. Every quarter note in the printed notation looks exactly alike. The value of each note, as notated, is precisely the same as the others. And yet, if I play them the way they are written (each one identical to the others), it sounds very dull and uninteresting.

When I play “by heart” (or “from the heart”), however, something happens. One note may be a bit longer than the others. One note may be a different volume than the others. Each note gets some life added to it that is in no way indicated by the printed music. Yet it becomes what the composer intended. He never intended each of those notes to be precisely identical in length, volume, etc. Not until I play the music “by heart” does it begin to find its full life.

Now, let’s pull the analogy into where we started this post. What does it mean to hide the word “in my heart”? Well, if you will tolerate some more of my “out of the box” thinking on the written word, I would like to submit that, much as with written music, the words on the page don’t really begin to take on their truest expression until they become part of my heart. I can tell you from very personal experience (several years in an Awana program) that it is possible to memorize Scripture and have it be as dull and as lifeless as those precisely-played, completely-equal quarter notes I mentioned in my musical analogy.

And I believe that is exactly what Jesus did not do with the Scripture. Nor do I believe that is what the Psalmist had in mind in Psalm 119. No, there is definitely a deeper level where we begin to “own” the Scripture, and it begins to “own” us. Just like with music, it is not until I put myself into that Scripture, and put that Scripture into myself that the Scripture becomes what its “Composer” intended it to be. Not what I intend it to be. But what He intends it to be.

Any musician who is worth anything knows that the goal is not merely to put his own interpretation into the music. The goal is to capture what the composer intended. May that be true of our use of Scripture, as well.

Until next time,

steve

It was really interesting to see the wide range of comments on my recent posts. Several picked up on my brief comment about no longer being a dispensational, pre-tribulationalist and voiced their agreement (or disagreement, if you’re Gordon Cloud! hehe). Others refrained from commenting on the position itself (my post was not intended to be a defense of any eschatological position) and commented on the idea of “celebrity Christians.” Great comments on both of those.

And then…..

One commenter simply copied and pasted an entire post from their own blog as their comment. A simple link would have been sufficient, and would have given my readers the opportunity to visit the other blog if they so desired. But why post a link when you can just copy and paste the entire post?! Not to mention that the lack of any kind of formatting, even in the original post on their site, leads me to believe they might have copied and pasted it from some other blog onto their own.

And there was the self-proclaimed Messiah whose proofs I admittedly did not read in their entirety. All I know is that he was born in the year of the lamb, under the zodiac sign of the lion, making him very unique, as I’m sure there were no other births during that time period…

And there were a couple of anonymous comments which basically just bashed the pre-trib position in general and Tim LaHaye in specific. (A tangential question: Did anyone feel like my post about Tim LaHaye was slanderous or in any other way inappropriate?) And it is those comments which prompt me to ask my own readers for their input.

I have made it clear on a number of threads that I do not delete comments (unless, of course, they are outright spam). If a comment was incredibly offensive (containing profanity, for example), I might consider editing it slightly and reposting it, but that has never even come up. So, I have yet to delete a comment that was anything but a duplicate post or spam.

Obviously, increased readership brings increased comments, but I’ve noticed that some of these comments are coming from Google searches for the topics discussed. (In other words, it is not technically “increased readership”. These are more along the lines of what some bloggers refer to as “drive-by commenting”.) For example, I mentioned the pre-trib rapture in another post a while ago (I have no idea which one now), and got a similar anonymous comment about searching Google for certain phrases that are guaranteed to give interesting reading material about the pre-trib rapture position. And now, when I mention it again, the same type of comment shows up, again anonymous.

Should I just delete comments like that? Should I have some guidelines for commenters that give me a basis for deletion? Or is it enough to simply respond with a comment saying that those types of comments are not desired, yet still leave it for the record? Those of you who also have blogs, how do you handle this?

Let me explain my reasoning for not deleting comments, and open it up for discussion, correction, or other viewpoints. Any of you who have read my blog (or comments elsewhere) for any length of time know that part of my philosophy regarding the body of Christ is that people should not set themselves up as “filters” for information. In other words, if we believe that people are filled with the Spirit of God, then we should not feel like we need to “protect” them from information that might counter the Spirit. Rather, we should be helping them learn how to listen to the Spirit themselves so that they can discern.

I base this idea, in part, on the example of the Apostles themselves. For example, Paul wrote to the entire citywide church (i.e., Corinth) regarding heresies that were infiltrating their fellowship. He did not simply tell the leaders to make sure to cover up the heresies and keep it under wraps. He told the entire congregation to test prophecies, etc. Similarly, John wrote to the believers (1 John) telling them to test spirits, etc., and that they didn’t need anyone to teach them the things to which he referred. Likewise, the Bereans are spoken of positively in Acts for searching the Scriptures themselves to test what the Apostles were teaching.

In other words, while the elders and leaders certainly should be trying to persuade people of correct doctrine, it is not their job to actually filter the information for the people. I can find no precedent in Scripture for this (please correct me if someone knows of a passage I am missing in my thoughts here). So, if I delete a comment, just because I disagree with it, or because I think it is something that does not need to be propogated (such as self-proclaimed Messiahs or attacks on people), I feel like I would be overstepping my bounds and trying to do the the Spirit’s job for Him.

Now, many blogs have “rules of engagement”, either written or unwritten, to which commenters must adhere or risk being deleted. On blogs such as those, the anonymous comments about pre-tribbers would not be tolerated. But are those rules actually a hindrance to legitimate dialogue at times? For example, some blogs do not allow anonymous comments. People who comment without certain information revealed (such as name, email address, etc.) are deleted (well, their comments are deleted, not the actual people themselves, to my knowledge!) regardless of the content of the comment. The comment may include very pertinent and truthful information, or may ask legitimate questions, but the “rules” of the blog supercede the content, and so those comments are deleted. That seems to me to be antithetical to other principles that should be at play.

All that to say, I would like some feedback from my readers (even anonymously, if you choose!) with regard to all of this. Are there legitimate reasons (other than those I already mentioned) for deleting comments, thereby filtering some of the discussion? Is it a necessary step for a growing blog? Or is it possible to live differently, even in this world of blogging, and allow more true discussion to take place, even if that discussion is counter to my own thoughts and desires?

Whatever your thoughts, I do so appreciate you regular readers and commenters, and value this particular type of conversation. And for those who comment anonymously (or any of us for that matter), I would appeal to something other than a set of rules that I might come up with on my own. I would appeal to the Spirit of God’s own guidelines. May we all demonstrate fruit of His indwelling in our conversation here.

Until next time,

steve

Thanks to a recent post from the JollyBlogger, an MSNBC/Newsweek interview with Tim LaHaye was brought to my attention. And frankly, I have had enough. While I certainly don’t expect my little blog to bear any influence on Mr. LaHaye’s agenda, I’ll pretend it does and say, “Mr. LaHaye, please cease your public speaking about prophecy and the end times.”

Now, a few words of disclaimer. This has nothing to do with the fact that I am no longer a dispensationalist or pre-tribber, and Mr. LaHaye is. It’s the fact that what he says is not only grossly inaccurate, but takes a sharp sideswipe at large portions of the body of Christ.

For example, on page 2 of the online version of the MSNBC/Newsweek interview, the following exchange takes place between the interviewer (in bold print) and Mr. LaHaye:

[M]y understanding is that current biblical scholarship reads some of the apocalyptic scenes in the Bible as metaphorically addressing events that were taking place as the Bible was being written.
These are usually liberal theologians that don’t believe the Bible literally….Part of the opposition to our position is from the secular humanists, but part of it is from the liberal people of theology that reject the Bible. I don’t see a great deal of difference between them. Their basic conclusions are often the same.

These are very interesting (and loaded) statements. Now, granted, I’m reading between the lines just a tad, but it seems to me, from reading some of LaHaye’s books in the past, that when he says “liberal”, he means anyone who does not believe in the pre-trib rapture. For example, several years ago, I read his book Rapture Under Attack, and was amazed at the harsh attacks he leveled against people who differ from him eschatologically. And this current interview is no different.

The whole premise behind Mr. LaHaye’s teaching is that reading the Bible literally necessitates a pre-trib rapture belief, and if you reject the pre-trib rapture belief, you do not take the Bible literally. Consequently, he can summarily write off anyone who differs with him, as he did in this interview, as those who “reject the Bible”. Mr. LaHaye, nothing could be further from the truth!

In fact, it should be noted that even Mr. LaHaye’s interpretation of Revelation is not consistent in interpreting things literally. Just as one very small example, LaHaye believes that Revelation 4:1 is speaking of the rapture of the Church. Yet Rev. 4:1 only speaks of John being called up into heaven to view what was to happen. Reading that literally would necessitate a simple, clear interpretation that John was called up into heaven. Yet LaHaye departs from the literal meaning there and inserts his interpretation that it is a metaphor of the rapture of the Church.

Now, the point of this post is not to argue against pre-tribulationalism. Maybe we can talk about that in another post, if my readers care to. But the point I want to make here is that Mr. LaHaye has worn out his welcome as a spokesman for Christianity, and has elevated what should be considered, at best, a secondary issue (eschatology), to the position of primary doctrine. And consequently, he’s out there telling reporters that the current conflict in the Middle East is proof that his viewpoint is correct.

And those who disagree with him are slandered in statements such as the following (the conclusion of the abridged interview linked above):

I would say that [a particular critic is] just betraying his poverty of faith. If he had faith in the Bible, faith in the future and Jesus Christ, he’d recognize that our passion is just like the theme song in our books: we don’t want anybody to be left behind.

Now, I do have some questions as to the authenticity of Mr. LaHaye’s closing statement. He claims that his “passion” is that he doesn’t want anybody to be left behind. Now, I’m sure that to a certain extent, that is true. But if that was really what was driving him, why did he file a lawsuit against the makers of the “Left Behind” movie? Why does he feel that he has to spend time and energy attacking those who disagree with his eschatology, rather than just getting the word out to people? Quite honestly, if he really believes that this is the end, why not just give his books away so that more people can be reached, and nobody will be “left behind”? But instead, the money keeps rolling in, and predictably, LaHaye says, “I think it’s a God thing. God has just chosen to bless this series.” Apparently, God didn’t bless the lawsuit.

In my opinion, Tim LaHaye is in the same category as Pat Robertson, whose public statements do more to embarrass the body of Christ than to bear witness to the Kingdom. So when LaHaye comments on the current Middle East conflict by saying, “Biblically speaking, the very nations that are mentioned in prophecy—and have been mentioned for 2,500 years as occupying the focus of the tension of the last days—are the very nations that are involved in the conflict right now”, it smacks of sensationalism.

So, Mr. LaHaye, please take your seat and refrain from commenting on current events. Your 15 minutes of fame is long over.

Until next time,

steve