Here is a great video clip taken from CrossTV's series "A Workman Approved By God". I am sure nearly everyone has heard the phrase from someone, "God told me!" or the "Holy Spirit said" followed by some subjective experience they are convinced came from God, yet cannot be verified from Scripture. In fact, it often contradicts the Bible.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Thursday, June 21, 2007
The Ill Effects of Decades of Shallow Teaching
The dearth of solid expositional preaching and teaching have given way to multitudes a congregants who are now vulnerable to the various forms of false teaching prevalent in evangelicalism today. Phil Johnson in his recent post put it well:
Scripture illustrates the devastating consequences of not growing in our knowledge and understanding of God's Truth. The Corinthians fell into this trap and it made them vulnerable to deception. (2 Corinthians 11:2-4) In fact, their lack of growth in the knowledge and application of Scripture resulted in a sin infested congregation. (1 Corinthians 3:1-3;1 Corinthians 5) It is of vital importance that believers continually study and understand the text of Scripture in order to build wisdom and understanding to keep them from falling victim to various false doctrines and to keep their hearts pure before God. In fact, it is the primary function and duty of the local church to actively pursue the task of equipping the congregation to thoroughly understand Bible doctrine, so that they are not tossed about "by every wind" of false doctrine, regardless of how subtle the nuance may be (Ephesians 4:11-16). It is tragic that the shallowness of contemporary evangelicalism has left multitudes vulnerable to every false teaching that blows their way, especially those errors that are ever so subtle.
"But the accrued apathy of at least four-plus decades of neo-evangelical influence has left evangelicals virtually defenseless against doctrinal error—especially the subtle varieties. The Emerging movement has aggressively exploited that weakness, challenging (on one front or another) practically every historic evangelical doctrinal distinctive. The Emerging Church has therefore become practically the mirror opposite of what fundamentalism was supposed to be."
Scripture illustrates the devastating consequences of not growing in our knowledge and understanding of God's Truth. The Corinthians fell into this trap and it made them vulnerable to deception. (2 Corinthians 11:2-4) In fact, their lack of growth in the knowledge and application of Scripture resulted in a sin infested congregation. (1 Corinthians 3:1-3;1 Corinthians 5) It is of vital importance that believers continually study and understand the text of Scripture in order to build wisdom and understanding to keep them from falling victim to various false doctrines and to keep their hearts pure before God. In fact, it is the primary function and duty of the local church to actively pursue the task of equipping the congregation to thoroughly understand Bible doctrine, so that they are not tossed about "by every wind" of false doctrine, regardless of how subtle the nuance may be (Ephesians 4:11-16). It is tragic that the shallowness of contemporary evangelicalism has left multitudes vulnerable to every false teaching that blows their way, especially those errors that are ever so subtle.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Important Reasons to Preach the Word
Excerpt from “Five Reasons to Preach the Word” by John MacArthur
2 Timothy 3:1-4:4
"Lastly, this whole matter of preaching the Word not only because of the danger of the seasons, the devotion of the saints, the dynamic of the Scripture, the demand of the sovereign, but lastly, this is really important, because of the deceptiveness of the sensual...because of the deceptiveness of the sensual. The great enemy of the Word of God is anything outside the Word of God...the word of Satan, the word of demons, the word of man. And we are living in very dangerous seasons concocted by seducing spirits and hypocritical liars propagated by false teachers. And here's what makes them successful...look at verses 3 and 4. "The time will come, and it does, it cycles through all of church history, when they will not endure sound doctrine." People don't want to hear sound doctrine. "Sound" means healthy, whole, wholesome. They don't want wholesome teaching. They don't want the sound, solid Word. They just want to have their ears tickled. That's all they want. They're driven by the sensual, not the cognitive. They're not interested in truth. They're not interested in theology. All they want is ear-tickling sensations. That's what they want. They refuse to hear the great truth that saves and the great truth that sanctifies. And according to chapter 2 verse 16, they would rather hear worldly empty chatter that produces ungodliness and spreads like gangrene.
We're in such a season now. They tell us that being doctrinal, being clear about the Word of God is divisive, unloving, prideful. The prevailing word...the prevailing mood, I should say, in the world of post-modern western culture is that everybody determines truth for himself and everyone's opinion is as valid as everybody else's opinion, and there's no room for absolute authoritative doctrine. And, folks, that's one other "ism" you can add to the list of dangerous seasons, relativism."
This article originally appeared here at the Bible Bulletin Board.
“Five Reasons to Preach the Word”
By John MacArthur
Copyright 1998
All Rights Reserved
2 Timothy 3:1-4:4
"Lastly, this whole matter of preaching the Word not only because of the danger of the seasons, the devotion of the saints, the dynamic of the Scripture, the demand of the sovereign, but lastly, this is really important, because of the deceptiveness of the sensual...because of the deceptiveness of the sensual. The great enemy of the Word of God is anything outside the Word of God...the word of Satan, the word of demons, the word of man. And we are living in very dangerous seasons concocted by seducing spirits and hypocritical liars propagated by false teachers. And here's what makes them successful...look at verses 3 and 4. "The time will come, and it does, it cycles through all of church history, when they will not endure sound doctrine." People don't want to hear sound doctrine. "Sound" means healthy, whole, wholesome. They don't want wholesome teaching. They don't want the sound, solid Word. They just want to have their ears tickled. That's all they want. They're driven by the sensual, not the cognitive. They're not interested in truth. They're not interested in theology. All they want is ear-tickling sensations. That's what they want. They refuse to hear the great truth that saves and the great truth that sanctifies. And according to chapter 2 verse 16, they would rather hear worldly empty chatter that produces ungodliness and spreads like gangrene.
We're in such a season now. They tell us that being doctrinal, being clear about the Word of God is divisive, unloving, prideful. The prevailing word...the prevailing mood, I should say, in the world of post-modern western culture is that everybody determines truth for himself and everyone's opinion is as valid as everybody else's opinion, and there's no room for absolute authoritative doctrine. And, folks, that's one other "ism" you can add to the list of dangerous seasons, relativism."
This article originally appeared here at the Bible Bulletin Board.
“Five Reasons to Preach the Word”
By John MacArthur
Copyright 1998
All Rights Reserved
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Are You Really Listening?
30"But as for you, son of man, your fellow citizens who talk about you by the walls and in the doorways of the houses, speak to one another, each to his brother, saying, 'Come now and hear what the message is which comes forth from the LORD.'
31"They come to you as people come, and sit before you as My people and hear your words, but they do not do them, for they do the lustful desires expressed by their mouth, and their heart goes after their gain.
32"Behold, you are to them like a sensual song by one who has a beautiful voice and plays well on an instrument; for they hear your words but they do not practice them.
33"So when it comes to pass--as surely it will--then they will know that a prophet has been in their midst." (Ezekiel 33:30-33, NASB)
Ezekiel was careful to accurately proclaim the message that God had for the people of Israel. He proclaimed it with passion and clarity, and expressed himself eloquently. It is clearly evident in this passage that the people enjoyed listening to what Ezekiel had to say. In fact, they made a point of encouraging others to come and listen to the prophet. The people came and sat under the teaching of the prophet, yet they walked away without their hearts being changed!
In much the same way today, there are multitudes of people who flock to hear eloquent preachers, but walk away unchanged and continue on in their lifestyle just as they did before. They even give lip service to the message and comment how they liked what was said. But unfortunately, many never apply the truth that was expounded to them.
Just like in Ezekiel’s day, there are many who appear to be merely entertained by solid preaching. But the solid exposition of God’s truth is not meant to be a form of Christian entertainment. It is meant to be taken to heart and applied to effect a change on an individual’s life.
We are reminded in the New Testament in the book of James of this very thing.
22But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.
23For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror;
24for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.
25But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does. (James 1:22-25, NASB)
We are to be doers and not merely hearers of the Word. James tells us that those who merely hear but do not put into practice what they hear, “delude” (Gr. paralogizomai) or deceive themselves.
It is imperative that we earnestly seek to apply what we hear. Once the messenger delivers the message based on God’s Truth, it is our responsibility to take heed. God holds us accountable for our response. Ezekiel knew the sobering responsibility God charged him with and if he failed to follow through, God would hold him responsible for the fate of those he failed to warn. However, once Ezekiel delivered the message God commanded him to give, the responsibility rested on the people who heard the message. (Ezekiel 3:17-21; 33:1-9)
God holds us accountable for applying His truth that has been made available to us. May we always be eager to apply what we hear to our own lives!
31"They come to you as people come, and sit before you as My people and hear your words, but they do not do them, for they do the lustful desires expressed by their mouth, and their heart goes after their gain.
32"Behold, you are to them like a sensual song by one who has a beautiful voice and plays well on an instrument; for they hear your words but they do not practice them.
33"So when it comes to pass--as surely it will--then they will know that a prophet has been in their midst." (Ezekiel 33:30-33, NASB)
Ezekiel was careful to accurately proclaim the message that God had for the people of Israel. He proclaimed it with passion and clarity, and expressed himself eloquently. It is clearly evident in this passage that the people enjoyed listening to what Ezekiel had to say. In fact, they made a point of encouraging others to come and listen to the prophet. The people came and sat under the teaching of the prophet, yet they walked away without their hearts being changed!
In much the same way today, there are multitudes of people who flock to hear eloquent preachers, but walk away unchanged and continue on in their lifestyle just as they did before. They even give lip service to the message and comment how they liked what was said. But unfortunately, many never apply the truth that was expounded to them.
Just like in Ezekiel’s day, there are many who appear to be merely entertained by solid preaching. But the solid exposition of God’s truth is not meant to be a form of Christian entertainment. It is meant to be taken to heart and applied to effect a change on an individual’s life.
We are reminded in the New Testament in the book of James of this very thing.
22But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.
23For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror;
24for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.
25But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does. (James 1:22-25, NASB)
We are to be doers and not merely hearers of the Word. James tells us that those who merely hear but do not put into practice what they hear, “delude” (Gr. paralogizomai) or deceive themselves.
It is imperative that we earnestly seek to apply what we hear. Once the messenger delivers the message based on God’s Truth, it is our responsibility to take heed. God holds us accountable for our response. Ezekiel knew the sobering responsibility God charged him with and if he failed to follow through, God would hold him responsible for the fate of those he failed to warn. However, once Ezekiel delivered the message God commanded him to give, the responsibility rested on the people who heard the message. (Ezekiel 3:17-21; 33:1-9)
God holds us accountable for applying His truth that has been made available to us. May we always be eager to apply what we hear to our own lives!
Monday, May 28, 2007
Biblical Church Leadership – Pt 8
Biblical Qualifications of Elders
Now that we have covered the biblical structure of church leadership, which consists of a qualified team of elders that are called to lead the church, we will look at the biblical qualifications of an elder or “pastor”.
The qualifications of the men selected for eldership is extremely important and cannot be emphasized enough. To appoint the wrong man to this type of position will ultimately spell disaster for the church. As Strauch points out:
“The most common mistake made by churches that are eager to implement eldership is to appoint biblically unqualified men. Because there is always a need for more shepherds, it is tempting to allow unqualified, unprepared men to assume leadership in the church. This is, however, a time-proven formula for failure. A biblical eldership requires biblically qualified elders.” [1]
We need to keep the following crucial points in mind:
- Eldership is not to be treated as an honorary position in the church, open to those who are merely faithful in church attendance, or who are advanced in years.
- Elders are not to be chosen based on good friendships, wealthy people who give generously, or those who exhibit a great deal of charisma.
- Elder positions can be filled by anyone exhibiting the biblical requirements; NOT just seminary graduates. [1]
Paul gave Timothy a specific list of qualifications that all elders must meet in 1 Timothy 3. This not merely a wish list, but a must have.
“1It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5(but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” (1 Timothy 3:1-7, NASB)
Notice in this list of qualifications, many of the personal character qualities are listed before “able to teach”. It is not that teaching ability is any less important of course. In fact, if a man is unable to teach, he is automatically disqualified for pastoral leadership. But equally important is the personal integrity of the man being selected to serve in the capacity of leadership. To falter in any one of these areas automatically disqualifies a man from pastoral leadership.
So why are these character qualities important? Because he is to be an example to the congregation, and the possession of these character qualities makes the doctrine that is taught attractive to those who hear. Titus chapter 2 provides the reason that a Christian’s conduct is important, since it will “adorn the doctrine of God”.
“9Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, 10not pilfering, but showing all good faith so that they will adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect.”
(Titus 2:9-10, NASB)
This of course is for all Christians, but it is vitally important that the leadership possess sound character, because they are doing far more than just teaching rote doctrine; they are providing an example to the congregation. (1 Peter 5:3) The term “adorn” means to make attractive, and our conduct should attract people to the Gospel.
Our actions speak volumes. Titus 2:7-8 tells us that our good conduct will leave our opponents with nothing that they can say against us. Our behavior is ultimately important, because if our actions do not line up with our words, it really renders meaningless whatever doctrine we supposedly believe.
It is interesting that when Paul introduces doctrine in his writing, he always backed it up with the “why”. In other words, he introduced the doctrine, then he explained that in light of that doctrine, this is the way we should conduct our lives. Look at the book of Romans. The first half outlines doctrine, and the remainder is the practical outworking of our faith, how it should effect how we live.
The lifestyle and personal character is foundationally important to the leadership of the church, since the pastoral leadership is to lead by example. And the congregation is to follow the example. These are not merely qualifications that only eldership team should possess, but the congregation should strive to achieve these character qualities as well.
I will expand on these qualifications in a future post.
1. Alexander Strauch, "Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership", p. 68.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Slow Blogging
My posting may continue to be quite slow for awhile in fact, I may decide to take a complete break for awhile at some point here. There are just too many things going on right now. I am currently taking a class on church history and unfortunately, it looks like my wife and I are going to be faced with the daunting task of looking for a new church home. It is unfortunate, but it does not seem likely that the type of reform that needs to take place in our church in terms of implementing a more biblical approach to ministry are ever going to take place. Back in December, I wrote that our church was going to be in the process for filling the vacancy for senior pastor that was left as a result of the dismissal of our senior pastor. There seemed to be the realization that we did not have a biblical model for church leadership. There also seemed to be the keen awareness that the church had adopted some very spiritually unhealthy practices in carrying out the ministry of the church.
But unfortunately, other than coming to the realization that there needs to be leadership comprised of a team of elders, it does not seem that the remaining pastoral staff is willing to allow the remaining necessary changes to take place. These would be changes that would lead to a spiritually healthy church. Things such as more in-depth teaching just do not seem to be part of the agenda. And there seems to be a continuing influx of postmodernism, despite warnings given to the leadership concerning the dangers of the emerging church.
It is not so much that there is rank heresy currently being taught, although it is inevitably going to creep in. In fact, I am wary of many of the beliefs of some of the people. I believe that it is only a matter of time before heresy begins to pervade the church. But it is currently more of the error of omission; things that should be taught, but simply are not. And it is continuing to have a very adverse effect on the maturity of the congregation, contributing to the unhealthy spiritual condition.
I was hoping that there were going to be some major changes that would turn things around, but it appears that the remaining leadership is not open to these changes. Unfortunately, I think that it is time to go, and that saddens me. This is not what I had hoped for, but I am trusting that the Lord will lead us to something better.
But unfortunately, other than coming to the realization that there needs to be leadership comprised of a team of elders, it does not seem that the remaining pastoral staff is willing to allow the remaining necessary changes to take place. These would be changes that would lead to a spiritually healthy church. Things such as more in-depth teaching just do not seem to be part of the agenda. And there seems to be a continuing influx of postmodernism, despite warnings given to the leadership concerning the dangers of the emerging church.
It is not so much that there is rank heresy currently being taught, although it is inevitably going to creep in. In fact, I am wary of many of the beliefs of some of the people. I believe that it is only a matter of time before heresy begins to pervade the church. But it is currently more of the error of omission; things that should be taught, but simply are not. And it is continuing to have a very adverse effect on the maturity of the congregation, contributing to the unhealthy spiritual condition.
I was hoping that there were going to be some major changes that would turn things around, but it appears that the remaining leadership is not open to these changes. Unfortunately, I think that it is time to go, and that saddens me. This is not what I had hoped for, but I am trusting that the Lord will lead us to something better.
Monday, May 14, 2007
9Marks Interview – Feminism in the Church
Here is a great interview with Randy Stinson, Russell Moore and C.J. Mahaney concerning the biblical role of men and women in the church and family at 9Marks. This is no trivial matter, but it is an important subject that needs to be addressed more often in our churches. Even in churches that are essentially complementarian, lack of frequent teaching on this subject will eventually allow for a feminist viewpoint to subtly creep into the church. Especially since there is an attempt to obliterate gender role distinctions not only by society in general, but even by those who identify themselves as evangelicals.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Some Good Q & A on Male Leadership
Jim Hamilton has some good questions and answers on male leadership in the church posted on his blog. He deals with some major objections to the notion of a male only leadership in the church.
This issue, to me, is a little different than differing views on eschatology. I even have an easier time with those who hold differing views on spiritual gifts. As long as someone recognizes the error of the hyper-charismatic movement and the outright abuses of the “sign” gifts, and in particular, the error of the Word-Faith movement, I really don’t have a problem with the view of the possibility of the miraculous sign gifts being active in the church today. Even though I believe that they are not normative for the church today.
But the biblical evidence to support male leadership within the church is overwhelming. It is abundantly clear, and the only way someone can deny the evidence is by warping the text of Scripture to mean something that it simply does not mean.
If we just dismiss this issue as no big deal, then what else can we let slide? The same line of reasoning is utilized by the homosexual groups in their argumentation to justify the toleration of the homosexual life style. If we allow the convoluted teaching of the pro feminists to pervade the church unchallenged, what will we allow the door to swing open to accommodate? Will this allow pro homosexual groups an opportunity to use the same logic and reasoning to gain a foot hold?
The post on Hamilton’s blog mentions this in question # 10. He rightly points out that "what is at stake is the authority of Scripture to determine what Christians believe and do." This may ultimately determine our views such as whether we say that homosexuality is sinful since "many of the same arguments used for the view that women can teach men are used by those who want to legitimate 'alternate lifestyles'".
Strauch also points this out in "Biblical Eldership".
I believe there is more at stake here than many may think.
This issue, to me, is a little different than differing views on eschatology. I even have an easier time with those who hold differing views on spiritual gifts. As long as someone recognizes the error of the hyper-charismatic movement and the outright abuses of the “sign” gifts, and in particular, the error of the Word-Faith movement, I really don’t have a problem with the view of the possibility of the miraculous sign gifts being active in the church today. Even though I believe that they are not normative for the church today.
But the biblical evidence to support male leadership within the church is overwhelming. It is abundantly clear, and the only way someone can deny the evidence is by warping the text of Scripture to mean something that it simply does not mean.
If we just dismiss this issue as no big deal, then what else can we let slide? The same line of reasoning is utilized by the homosexual groups in their argumentation to justify the toleration of the homosexual life style. If we allow the convoluted teaching of the pro feminists to pervade the church unchallenged, what will we allow the door to swing open to accommodate? Will this allow pro homosexual groups an opportunity to use the same logic and reasoning to gain a foot hold?
The post on Hamilton’s blog mentions this in question # 10. He rightly points out that "what is at stake is the authority of Scripture to determine what Christians believe and do." This may ultimately determine our views such as whether we say that homosexuality is sinful since "many of the same arguments used for the view that women can teach men are used by those who want to legitimate 'alternate lifestyles'".
Strauch also points this out in "Biblical Eldership".
"Biblical feminists misuse the Galatians 3:28 passage by pressing the text far beyond its intended meaning and declaring the plain, literal interpretation of the headship-submission passages to be simplistic. Following the same methodology of interpretation as the biblical feminists, so-called Christian homosexuals claim the right to same-sex relationships. Because the Bible says "neither male nor female," they claim that all the specific biblical passages prohibiting homosexuality must be understood culturally and in the light of Galatians 3:28. But does Galatians 3:28 truly abolish all sexual distinctions? Can men now marry men, or women marry women? The conclusions that those who hold an egalitarian viewpoint draw from Galatians 3:28 are plainly at odds with numerous portions of Scripture."
("Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call To Restore Biblical Church Leadership", p. 65)
I believe there is more at stake here than many may think.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
The Dangers of Following Jesus - Piper
The Dangers of Following Jesus
By John Piper
Matthew 10:24-25
As I have prayed and meditated over the last several weeks on what I should say tonight I have come to distill it into one sentence.
Jesus had love to suffer for me that I might have faith to suffer with him.
I have been reading the sufferings of Jesus in the light of the Salmon Rushdie affair. Rushdie published a novel entitled Satanic Verses. In it he put the Muslim prophet Mohammed and the Muslim god Allah in a bad light. He was accused of blasphemy and the Ayatollah Kohmeni ordered him executed and offered bounty for his death.
I have put myself in Rushdie's place and felt how utterly vulnerable he is. I do not look on this as a distant and strange thing. To me it is very close. I felt this so strongly two weeks ago that I wrote to the former Bethlehem interns who are now scattered around the country as pastors and teachers. Here is what I said:
What will you do when your preaching is so clear and pointed in its missionary implications concerning the blasphemy of Muslim teachings about Jesus that your name appears on the hit list along with Rushdie's?
There is a hair's breadth between me and the condemnation of the Ayatollah. One slight turn of social and historical affairs and the militancy of the Muslim defense of the honor of Mohammed and Allah could make us the target of a thousand guns. Are you ready? Read of the wild-eyed, irrational spit and fists in Matthew 26:67 and then read Matthew 10:24-25.
I want you to see the connection that I saw in these verses.
Matthew 26:67 simply says this: "Then they spat in his face, and struck him; and some slapped him."
Matthew 10:24-25 says, "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master . . . If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household."
Now Salmon Rushdie is no follower of Jesus as far as I can tell. That's not the point. The point is that we Christians by definition believe that Allah is not the true God as Muslims know him and Mohammed is not a true prophet. Jesus really is the Son of God and really did die on the cross and rose again and reigns at God's right hand until he puts all his enemies under his feet, including Mohammed and his followers. And saying that is enough to get me killed—and you.
The days will soon be gone, if they aren't already, when you can assume that it is safe to follow Jesus—to stand for his majesty and his commandments. So I have been thinking much about whether I am willing to pay the price. And if I say yes, where will I get the courage and the freedom to suffer with Jesus?
It isn't just Islam with its endorsement of holy violence that makes following Jesus dangerous today. Consistent Biblical Christians, who don't absorb the spirit and trends of the age, are increasingly at odds with major forces in our society. And what makes the situation so volatile is that those forces are increasingly strident and increasingly invested with legal sanction.
The above excerpt was taken from the article, "The Dangers of Following Jesus" by John Piper, at Desiring God. You can view the remainder of the article at desiringGod.org.
By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: www.desiringGod.org. Email: mail@desiringGod.org. Toll Free: 1.888.346.4700.
By John Piper
Matthew 10:24-25
"A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master; it is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household."
As I have prayed and meditated over the last several weeks on what I should say tonight I have come to distill it into one sentence.
Jesus had love to suffer for me that I might have faith to suffer with him.
I have been reading the sufferings of Jesus in the light of the Salmon Rushdie affair. Rushdie published a novel entitled Satanic Verses. In it he put the Muslim prophet Mohammed and the Muslim god Allah in a bad light. He was accused of blasphemy and the Ayatollah Kohmeni ordered him executed and offered bounty for his death.
I have put myself in Rushdie's place and felt how utterly vulnerable he is. I do not look on this as a distant and strange thing. To me it is very close. I felt this so strongly two weeks ago that I wrote to the former Bethlehem interns who are now scattered around the country as pastors and teachers. Here is what I said:
What will you do when your preaching is so clear and pointed in its missionary implications concerning the blasphemy of Muslim teachings about Jesus that your name appears on the hit list along with Rushdie's?
There is a hair's breadth between me and the condemnation of the Ayatollah. One slight turn of social and historical affairs and the militancy of the Muslim defense of the honor of Mohammed and Allah could make us the target of a thousand guns. Are you ready? Read of the wild-eyed, irrational spit and fists in Matthew 26:67 and then read Matthew 10:24-25.
I want you to see the connection that I saw in these verses.
Matthew 26:67 simply says this: "Then they spat in his face, and struck him; and some slapped him."
Matthew 10:24-25 says, "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master . . . If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household."
Now Salmon Rushdie is no follower of Jesus as far as I can tell. That's not the point. The point is that we Christians by definition believe that Allah is not the true God as Muslims know him and Mohammed is not a true prophet. Jesus really is the Son of God and really did die on the cross and rose again and reigns at God's right hand until he puts all his enemies under his feet, including Mohammed and his followers. And saying that is enough to get me killed—and you.
The days will soon be gone, if they aren't already, when you can assume that it is safe to follow Jesus—to stand for his majesty and his commandments. So I have been thinking much about whether I am willing to pay the price. And if I say yes, where will I get the courage and the freedom to suffer with Jesus?
It isn't just Islam with its endorsement of holy violence that makes following Jesus dangerous today. Consistent Biblical Christians, who don't absorb the spirit and trends of the age, are increasingly at odds with major forces in our society. And what makes the situation so volatile is that those forces are increasingly strident and increasingly invested with legal sanction.
The above excerpt was taken from the article, "The Dangers of Following Jesus" by John Piper, at Desiring God. You can view the remainder of the article at desiringGod.org.
By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: www.desiringGod.org. Email: mail@desiringGod.org. Toll Free: 1.888.346.4700.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Biblical Church Leadership – Pt.7
Male Leadership in the New Testament Churches
The practice of male leadership continuing in the New Testament is clearly evident in Scripture. It is interesting to note that approximately 70 percent of the New Testament was penned by the apostle Paul (or a close associate), who is the dominant figure – other than Jesus – in the New Testament. Furthermore, all the Old and New Testament writers were male, as well as the predominant characters were also male. Much to the chagrin of the feminists, the Bible appears to be overwhelmingly patriarchal.
It is simply mind-boggling that there are Bible-believing Christians who can claim that the New Testament teaches an egalitarian approach to gender roles. This approach to gender roles is referred to as Biblical Feminism or Egalitarianism. It is simply the teaching that the New Testament does not teach gender role distinctions between men and women in terms of headship and submission. But it is impossible to support this viewpoint biblically without engaging in what could be termed “hermeneutical ventriloquism”; making the Bible say what you want it to say. [Strauch, pg. 55-56]
But Scripture is very clear on the role of men being in leadership throughout the New Testament, including the marriage relationship. Paul made this point very clear in Scripture, emphasizing the divine order in the husband-wife relationship. Consider the following passages of Scripture:
It is clear that Paul admonished the Christian wives to be submissive to their husbands. The solid biblical basis for this is found in Ephesians 5:23. To further clarify the meaning of “the head of the wife”, Paul uses the analogy of the headship of Christ over the church. The term “head” is used in a figurative sense meaning, “authority over” and “leadership”. It does not mean “source” or “origin” as feminists would claim. [Strauch, pg.57] Colossians 3:18 is another passage that teaches the same principle in Ephesians 5. It should be clearly apparent that each Scripture that deals with the relationship of the wife to the husband, that submission to their husband is clearly taught (Ephesians 5:22; Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1).
The predominant teaching is that submission is to be “as to the Lord” and “as is fitting to the Lord” (Col. 3). Submission is therefore to be in the same manner as she would submit to the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul consistently taught that the marriage relationship is to serve as a living picture of Christ’s relationship to the Church (Ephesians 5:23). There should be no question that the marriage relationship between the husband and wife is to mirror the relationship of Christ to the Church. It should also be clearly evident from Scripture that the headship-submission is not culturally induced, but is an integral part of the marriage relationship by divine mandate.
The headship and submission roles also carry over to the local church. In fact, Paul used the household analogy when defining the order of the local New Testament church (1 Timothy 3:15). Male headship is to be the biblical norm for the local church (1 Timothy 2:8-3:7). With the family being the basic social unit with the establishment of male leadership, it should therefore not be shocking that men are to be elders or fathers of the larger local church family.
Just as there are certain codes of conduct set forth to govern the family, there are also principles pertaining to the governing of the church family as well. Paul wrote Timothy specific instructions on how the church is to be governed in his letter of First Timothy. Paul wrote certain instructions so that Timothy would “know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God”.
Of particular importance in the church’s social structure is the behavior of women within the church. Due to the influx of false teaching, it appears that traditional gender roles were being challenged, resulting in the women behaving in a manner unacceptable for Christian behavior. In 1Timothy 2:9-10, Paul addresses the issue of modest dress. 1 Timothy 2:11-14, Paul deals with the issue of submission in the church.
“11A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” (1 Timothy 2:11-14, NASB)
That passage should alone provide the answer to the question of women being elders. The prohibition clearly prohibits women from teaching and exercising authority over men. Women were encouraged to learn, but to do so under submission to the leadership authority of the teaching male elders. Women were also specifically forbidden to teach and lead men in the church. It is not that women are not allowed to teach at all. Women are encouraged to teach in other situations, such as instruction to the younger women in the church (Titus 2:3-5). It is just that they were not to be publicly teaching men in the church.
Discussion on this topic inevitably stirs up heated debate. But the restriction on women elders is not the result of personal opinion or cultural norm. Paul supports his restriction on women teaching and leading men based on the original order of creation.
“For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” (1 Timothy 2:13-14, NASB)
The statement of the fact that Adam was created first, underscores that fact that God created man as “first among equals”. [Strauch, pg.60] God uniquely created man, equipping him with the physical, emotional and spiritual capacity to head the marital relationship. And it is also God’s design for the woman to complement Adam’s headship. It is no insignificant matter that God did not create Adam and Eve at the same time. God made the woman after the man, from the man and for the man. God brought her to the man and the man named her (Genesis 2:20-23; 1 Corinthians 11:8-9).
It is important to note that the Fall illustrates the necessity for preserving the distinctive creation differences between men and women. 1 Timothy 2:14 clearly explains that it was Eve and not Adam who fell into deception. Satan cleverly perceived that Eve was the weaker one who was vulnerable to being deceived (2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Peter 3:7; 2 Timothy 3:6). It should be profoundly apparent that men are more suited for leadership by God’s design. Men are better suited for battling against subtle deceptive false teaching and doctrine twisting. It is also noteworthy that immediately following the prohibition against women leading men in 1 Timothy 2, he immediately launches into a discussion concerning the qualifications of those responsible for leadership in the church (1 Timothy 3:1-7). The phrase “the husband of one wife” (verse 2) and “one who manages his own house well” (verse 4) are clearly directed at men and not women.
1. Alexander Strauch, "Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership", p. 55-61.
The practice of male leadership continuing in the New Testament is clearly evident in Scripture. It is interesting to note that approximately 70 percent of the New Testament was penned by the apostle Paul (or a close associate), who is the dominant figure – other than Jesus – in the New Testament. Furthermore, all the Old and New Testament writers were male, as well as the predominant characters were also male. Much to the chagrin of the feminists, the Bible appears to be overwhelmingly patriarchal.
It is simply mind-boggling that there are Bible-believing Christians who can claim that the New Testament teaches an egalitarian approach to gender roles. This approach to gender roles is referred to as Biblical Feminism or Egalitarianism. It is simply the teaching that the New Testament does not teach gender role distinctions between men and women in terms of headship and submission. But it is impossible to support this viewpoint biblically without engaging in what could be termed “hermeneutical ventriloquism”; making the Bible say what you want it to say. [Strauch, pg. 55-56]
But Scripture is very clear on the role of men being in leadership throughout the New Testament, including the marriage relationship. Paul made this point very clear in Scripture, emphasizing the divine order in the husband-wife relationship. Consider the following passages of Scripture:
Ephesians 5:22 – “Wives be subject to your own husbands as to the Lord”
Ephesians 5:24 – “But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their own husbands in everything”
Ephesians 5:23 – “For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church”
Colossians 3:18 – “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord”
Titus 2:1,3-5 –
“1But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine.” “3Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 4so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.”
It is clear that Paul admonished the Christian wives to be submissive to their husbands. The solid biblical basis for this is found in Ephesians 5:23. To further clarify the meaning of “the head of the wife”, Paul uses the analogy of the headship of Christ over the church. The term “head” is used in a figurative sense meaning, “authority over” and “leadership”. It does not mean “source” or “origin” as feminists would claim. [Strauch, pg.57] Colossians 3:18 is another passage that teaches the same principle in Ephesians 5. It should be clearly apparent that each Scripture that deals with the relationship of the wife to the husband, that submission to their husband is clearly taught (Ephesians 5:22; Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1).
The predominant teaching is that submission is to be “as to the Lord” and “as is fitting to the Lord” (Col. 3). Submission is therefore to be in the same manner as she would submit to the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul consistently taught that the marriage relationship is to serve as a living picture of Christ’s relationship to the Church (Ephesians 5:23). There should be no question that the marriage relationship between the husband and wife is to mirror the relationship of Christ to the Church. It should also be clearly evident from Scripture that the headship-submission is not culturally induced, but is an integral part of the marriage relationship by divine mandate.
The headship and submission roles also carry over to the local church. In fact, Paul used the household analogy when defining the order of the local New Testament church (1 Timothy 3:15). Male headship is to be the biblical norm for the local church (1 Timothy 2:8-3:7). With the family being the basic social unit with the establishment of male leadership, it should therefore not be shocking that men are to be elders or fathers of the larger local church family.
Just as there are certain codes of conduct set forth to govern the family, there are also principles pertaining to the governing of the church family as well. Paul wrote Timothy specific instructions on how the church is to be governed in his letter of First Timothy. Paul wrote certain instructions so that Timothy would “know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God”.
Of particular importance in the church’s social structure is the behavior of women within the church. Due to the influx of false teaching, it appears that traditional gender roles were being challenged, resulting in the women behaving in a manner unacceptable for Christian behavior. In 1Timothy 2:9-10, Paul addresses the issue of modest dress. 1 Timothy 2:11-14, Paul deals with the issue of submission in the church.
“11A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” (1 Timothy 2:11-14, NASB)
That passage should alone provide the answer to the question of women being elders. The prohibition clearly prohibits women from teaching and exercising authority over men. Women were encouraged to learn, but to do so under submission to the leadership authority of the teaching male elders. Women were also specifically forbidden to teach and lead men in the church. It is not that women are not allowed to teach at all. Women are encouraged to teach in other situations, such as instruction to the younger women in the church (Titus 2:3-5). It is just that they were not to be publicly teaching men in the church.
Discussion on this topic inevitably stirs up heated debate. But the restriction on women elders is not the result of personal opinion or cultural norm. Paul supports his restriction on women teaching and leading men based on the original order of creation.
“For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” (1 Timothy 2:13-14, NASB)
The statement of the fact that Adam was created first, underscores that fact that God created man as “first among equals”. [Strauch, pg.60] God uniquely created man, equipping him with the physical, emotional and spiritual capacity to head the marital relationship. And it is also God’s design for the woman to complement Adam’s headship. It is no insignificant matter that God did not create Adam and Eve at the same time. God made the woman after the man, from the man and for the man. God brought her to the man and the man named her (Genesis 2:20-23; 1 Corinthians 11:8-9).
It is important to note that the Fall illustrates the necessity for preserving the distinctive creation differences between men and women. 1 Timothy 2:14 clearly explains that it was Eve and not Adam who fell into deception. Satan cleverly perceived that Eve was the weaker one who was vulnerable to being deceived (2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Peter 3:7; 2 Timothy 3:6). It should be profoundly apparent that men are more suited for leadership by God’s design. Men are better suited for battling against subtle deceptive false teaching and doctrine twisting. It is also noteworthy that immediately following the prohibition against women leading men in 1 Timothy 2, he immediately launches into a discussion concerning the qualifications of those responsible for leadership in the church (1 Timothy 3:1-7). The phrase “the husband of one wife” (verse 2) and “one who manages his own house well” (verse 4) are clearly directed at men and not women.
1. Alexander Strauch, "Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership", p. 55-61.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
The Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus - Spurgeon
From:
The Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus
April 9th, 1882
by C. H. SPURGEON(1834-1892)
This Jesus Christ was really and truly man; for Paul says he was “of the seed of David.” True he was divine, and his birth was not after the ordinary manner of men, but still he was in all respects partaker of our human nature, and came of the stock of David. This also we do believe. We are not among those who spiritualize the incarnation, and suppose that God was here as a phantom, or that the whole story is but an instructive legend. Nay, in very flesh and blood did the Son of God abide among men: bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh was he in the days of his sojourn here below. We know and believe that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. We love the incarnate God, and in him we fix our trust.
It is implied, too, in the text that Jesus died; for he could not be raised from the dead if he had not first gone down among the dead, and been one of them. Yes, Jesus died: the crucifixion was no delusion, the piercing of his side with a spear was most clear and evident proof that he was dead: his heart was pierced, and the blood and water flowed from there. As a dead man he was taken down from the cross and carried by gentle hands, and laid in Joseph’s virgin tomb. I think I see that pale corpse, white as a lily. Mark how it is distained with the blood of his five wounds, which make him red as the rose. See how the holy women tenderly wrap him in fine linen with sweet spices, and leave him to spend his Sabbath all alone in the rock hewn sepulcher. No man in this world was ever more surely dead than he. “He made his grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death.” As dead they laid him in the place of the dead, with napkin and grave clothes, and habiliments fit for a grave then they rolled the great stone at the grave’s mouth and left him, knowing that he was dead.
Then comes the grand truth, that as soon as ever the third sun commenced his shining circuit Jesus rose again. His body had not decayed, for it was not possible for that holy thing to see corruption; but still it had been dead; and by the power of God by his own power, by the Father’s power, by the power of the Spirit for it is attributed to each of these in turn, before the sun had risen his dead body was quickened. The silent heart began again to beat, and through the stagnant canals of the veins the lifeblood began to circulate. The soul of the Redeemer again took possession of the body, and it lived once more. There he was within the sepulcher, as truly living as to all parts of him as he had ever been. He literally and truly, in a material body, came forth from the tomb to live among men till the hour of his ascension into heaven. This is the truth which is still to be taught, refine it who may, spiritualize it who dare. This is the historical fact which the apostles witnessed; this is the truth for which the confessors bled and died. This is the doctrine which is the keystone of the arch of Christianity, and they that hold it not have cast aside the essential truth of God. How can they hope for salvation for their souls if they do not believe that “the Lord is risen indeed”?
The Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus
April 9th, 1882
by C. H. SPURGEON(1834-1892)
This Jesus Christ was really and truly man; for Paul says he was “of the seed of David.” True he was divine, and his birth was not after the ordinary manner of men, but still he was in all respects partaker of our human nature, and came of the stock of David. This also we do believe. We are not among those who spiritualize the incarnation, and suppose that God was here as a phantom, or that the whole story is but an instructive legend. Nay, in very flesh and blood did the Son of God abide among men: bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh was he in the days of his sojourn here below. We know and believe that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. We love the incarnate God, and in him we fix our trust.
It is implied, too, in the text that Jesus died; for he could not be raised from the dead if he had not first gone down among the dead, and been one of them. Yes, Jesus died: the crucifixion was no delusion, the piercing of his side with a spear was most clear and evident proof that he was dead: his heart was pierced, and the blood and water flowed from there. As a dead man he was taken down from the cross and carried by gentle hands, and laid in Joseph’s virgin tomb. I think I see that pale corpse, white as a lily. Mark how it is distained with the blood of his five wounds, which make him red as the rose. See how the holy women tenderly wrap him in fine linen with sweet spices, and leave him to spend his Sabbath all alone in the rock hewn sepulcher. No man in this world was ever more surely dead than he. “He made his grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death.” As dead they laid him in the place of the dead, with napkin and grave clothes, and habiliments fit for a grave then they rolled the great stone at the grave’s mouth and left him, knowing that he was dead.
Then comes the grand truth, that as soon as ever the third sun commenced his shining circuit Jesus rose again. His body had not decayed, for it was not possible for that holy thing to see corruption; but still it had been dead; and by the power of God by his own power, by the Father’s power, by the power of the Spirit for it is attributed to each of these in turn, before the sun had risen his dead body was quickened. The silent heart began again to beat, and through the stagnant canals of the veins the lifeblood began to circulate. The soul of the Redeemer again took possession of the body, and it lived once more. There he was within the sepulcher, as truly living as to all parts of him as he had ever been. He literally and truly, in a material body, came forth from the tomb to live among men till the hour of his ascension into heaven. This is the truth which is still to be taught, refine it who may, spiritualize it who dare. This is the historical fact which the apostles witnessed; this is the truth for which the confessors bled and died. This is the doctrine which is the keystone of the arch of Christianity, and they that hold it not have cast aside the essential truth of God. How can they hope for salvation for their souls if they do not believe that “the Lord is risen indeed”?
This excerpt taken from the article "The Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus" from the Spurgeon Collection at the Bible Bulletin Board.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
The Crucifixion
35And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. 36And sitting down they watched him there; 37And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. 38Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left. 39And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, 40And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. 41Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, 42He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. 43He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. 44The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth. 45Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. 46And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? 47Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. 48And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. 49The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him. 50Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 51And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; 52And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. 54Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.
(Matthew 27:35-54, KJV)
Friday, April 06, 2007
Christ's Agony - Edwards
Excerpt from:
Christ's Agony
by Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)
by Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)
"And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." [Luke 22:44]
Our Lord Jesus Christ, in his original nature, was infinitely above all suffering, for he was "God over all, blessed for evermore;" but, when he became man, he was not only capable of suffering, but partook of that nature that is remarkably feeble and exposed to suffering. The human nature, on account of its weakness, is in Scripture compared to the grass of the field, which easily withers and decays. So it is compared to a leaf; and to the dry stubble; and to a blast of wind: and the nature of feeble man is said to be but dust and ashes, to have its foundation in the dust, and to be crushed before the moth. It was this nature, with all its weakness and exposedness to sufferings, which Christ, who is the Lord God omnipotent, took upon him. He did not take the human nature on him in its first, most perfect and vigorous state, but in that feeble forlorn state which it is in since the fall; and therefore Christ is called "a tender plant," and "a root out of a dry ground." Isa. 53:2. "For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him." Thus, as Christ's principal errand into the world was suffering, so, agreeably to that errand, he came with such a nature and in such circumstances, as most made way for his suffering; so his whole life was filled up with suffering, he began to suffer in his infancy, but his suffering increased the more he drew near to the close of his life. His suffering after his public ministry began, was probably much greater than before; and the latter part of the time of his public ministry seems to have been distinguished by suffering. The longer Christ lived in the world, the more men saw and heard of him, the more they hated him. His enemies were more and more enraged by the continuance of the opposition that he made to their lusts; and the devil having been often baffled by him, grew more and more enraged, and strengthened the battle more and more against him: so that the cloud over Christ's head grew darker and darker, as long as he lived in the world, till it was in its greatest blackness when he hung upon the cross and cried out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me! Before this, it was exceedingly dark, in the time of his agony in the garden; of which we have an account in the words now read; and which I propose to make the subject of my present discourse. The word agony properly signifies an earnest strife, such as is witnessed in wrestling, running, or fighting. And therefore in Luke 13:24. "Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able;" the word in the original, translated strive, is agwnizesqe. "Agonize, to enter in at the strait gate." The word is especially used for that sort of strife, which in those days was exhibited in the Olympic games, in which men strove for the mastery in running, wrestling, and other such kinds of exercises; and a prize was set up that was bestowed on the conqueror. Those, who thus contended, were, in the language then in use, said to agonize. Thus the apostle in his epistle to the Christians of Corinth, a city of Greece, where such games were annually exhibited, says in allusion to the strivings of the combatants, "And every man that striveth for the mastery," in the original, every one that agonizeth, "is temperate in all things." The place where those games were held was called Agwn, or the place of agony; and the word is particularly used in Scripture for that striving in earnest prayer wherein persons wrestle with God:they are said to agonize, or to be in agony, in prayer. So the word is used Rom. 15:30. "Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me:" in the original sunagwnizesqai moi, that ye agonize together with me. So Col. 4:12. "Always labouring fervently for you in prayer, that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God:" in the original agwnizwn agonizing for you. So that when it is said in the text that Christ was in an agony, the meaning is, that his soul was in a great and earnest strife and conflict. It was so in two respects:
1. As his soul was in a great and sore conflict with those terrible and amazing views and apprehensions which he then had.
2. As he was at the same time in great labour and earnest strife with God in prayer.
This article can be viewed in its entirety at the Jonathan Edwards Collection at the Bible Bulletin Board.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Biblical Church Leadership - Pt. 6
Male Leadership
Contrary to what many in contemporary society think, excluding women from the role of church leadership is not a ploy to discriminate and dominate unfairly over women. To discriminate against women is a sin that grieves the heart of God. While it is true that there have been times when men have abused their authority and acted cruelly toward women, that behavior is inexcusable and anyone who truly seeks to adhere to Scripture would recognize that error and avoid making the same error. It is unfortunate that there have been times where male have unjustly and cruelly discriminated against women.
But unfortunately, the feminist approach in its attempt to carry out justice for the wrongful acts of discrimination, have gone too far and denied the complementary functions of men and women. These role distinctions were designed by God so that the sexes complement each other in order to perform different functions in society. The Bible teaches that both men and women are indeed equal in personhood and value, but have distinctly different gender roles designed by God. It is tragic that there is so much confusion concerning these distinctive roles. Women are in effect, being exploited by a false view of female identity.
I have seen so many attempts to contort Scripture on this subject, in an attempt to discredit the notion that the Bible emphatically teaches that men are to be in charge of the spiritual leadership in the church. Yet if we take Scripture as it is plainly written, it teaches nothing but the fact that only men are to serve in the role of Spiritual leadership. The way I see it, attempts at undermining male leadership is just another sign of how the church is being unduly influenced by the culture.
Contrary to what many in contemporary society think, excluding women from the role of church leadership is not a ploy to discriminate and dominate unfairly over women. To discriminate against women is a sin that grieves the heart of God. While it is true that there have been times when men have abused their authority and acted cruelly toward women, that behavior is inexcusable and anyone who truly seeks to adhere to Scripture would recognize that error and avoid making the same error. It is unfortunate that there have been times where male have unjustly and cruelly discriminated against women.
But unfortunately, the feminist approach in its attempt to carry out justice for the wrongful acts of discrimination, have gone too far and denied the complementary functions of men and women. These role distinctions were designed by God so that the sexes complement each other in order to perform different functions in society. The Bible teaches that both men and women are indeed equal in personhood and value, but have distinctly different gender roles designed by God. It is tragic that there is so much confusion concerning these distinctive roles. Women are in effect, being exploited by a false view of female identity.
I have seen so many attempts to contort Scripture on this subject, in an attempt to discredit the notion that the Bible emphatically teaches that men are to be in charge of the spiritual leadership in the church. Yet if we take Scripture as it is plainly written, it teaches nothing but the fact that only men are to serve in the role of Spiritual leadership. The way I see it, attempts at undermining male leadership is just another sign of how the church is being unduly influenced by the culture.
But it is impossible to get around the emphasis on male leadership in Scripture. The most obvious example of male leadership is the person of Jesus Christ. He was the Son of God, not the daughter of God. This was theologically necessary to His person and work.
- He was to be a first-born male (Luke 2:23)
- He was the “last Adam”, making Him the antitype of Adam, not
Eve, which mandated that He be a male. (1 Corinthians 15:45, 47; Romans 5:14)
- He needed to be the first-born son of David and Abraham; He was the King, not Queen of Israel.
- In the created order, the male partner alone is charged with the authority and headship role. Therefore Jesus could not have been a woman, and He is the Head of the Church and the model for male leadership.
- Jesus appointed and trained twelve male apostles (Luke 6:12-16). His choice was after spending an entire night praying to His Father, indicating He was acting in obedience to His Father’s will.
It is interesting that in spite of these facts, there are those who claim that Jesus was just accommodating the culture. But since when did Jesus at any time in His life display an accommodating attitude toward the culture. It is clearly illustrated in Scripture that He stood in stark contrast to the culture, including the false rabbinical traditions. Scripture clearly tells us that Jesus showed no partiality to anyone (Matthew 22:16).
Another common argument is that the work of redemption by Christ did away with all male-female distinctions. But if this is the case, then why did Jesus not indicate this by appointing women to be apostles. It would stand to reason that He would have appointed at least one woman to be an apostle. Rather, Jesus continued with the Old Testament order of creation with male headship. And this practice was continued by both Paul and Peter.
The fact that Jesus maintained an all male apostolate does not take away from the fact that he sought to honor women, ministered to them and encouraged them in their service and devotion to God. This was distinctly different from the religious leaders of that time. However, Jesus still established an all male apostolate as the foundational office of His Church (Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14).
We can also look at the example of the apostles when they appointed servants to care for the church’s widows. Seven men were appointed to the task, not women (Acts 6:1-6). It is also apparent when Peter addressed the churches in Asia Minor, instructing the Christian women to submit to their husbands, using the example of the women in the Old Testament. He also admonished the men to take care of their wives and consider them as “fellow heir of the grace of life” (1 Peter 3:1-7). In doing so, Peter was upholding both gender role distinctions and male-female equality. Those who want to find justification to allow women elders are at a loss to find valid examples used in Scripture.
1. Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, p. 51-54.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Some Thoughts on the Eschatological Controversy
Since the controversy that has ensued due to John MacArthur’s opening message at the Shepherd’s Conference, my interest in eschatology has been piqued once again. I am amazed at all the controversy that has been stirred up as a result of MacArthur’s message. But I am interested in exploring the differing views on eschatology once again. There are good men, sound men of the faith, who hold to differing view on this matter. And we need to be careful concerning the charges of heresy leveled at those embracing the differing views. This included those in the “Reformed” camp who refer to those of us who embrace the pre-millenial view, and refer to it as “cultic” and heretical. I find it interesting that for so long I have heard those charges made from those in the amillenial and postmillennial camp against premillenialists , and now that the tables have been turned, they cry foul.
One thing that has gotten really irritating is the range of definitions that you hear on what it means to be “Reformed”. I have read many comments in this recent controversy that include things like “MacArthur really isn’t reformed” and even the notion expressed in a comment thread on another blog, that John Piper is really not “Reformed” either. If being “Reformed” in their strict definition means that one MUST embrace the amillenial position, then I really do not fit their definition either. The sad thing is that I do embrace most of Reformed theology and I am in substantial agreement with Reformed theology, but apparently for many that will not suffice.
Rather, I am compelled to abide by the teaching of Scripture and to teach accordingly by my convictions as I see revealed in the text of Scripture. One simply cannot blindly embrace a theological view independent of Scripture, but weigh everything in light of the inspired text of the Bible. We must always be ready to change our theology if we find it is out of step with the Bible, not bend the Bible to fit our theology.
But we also need to beware of another error. That is the error of ignoring what others have gleaned from Scripture, especially those who have gone before us. God has ordained that there be teachers in the church, teachers who are dedicated to studying the text of Scripture and have a desire to help others understand what God has given us in the divinely inspired text of Scripture. This, of course, is not some secret knowledge only revealed to the one teaching, but the same truth that is accessible to every believer. It is foolish, in fact potentially downright dangerous, to ignore what others have gleaned from Scripture. I believe that it ultimately leads to spiritual arrogance. While additional insights are often gleaned over time, we need to be careful of some “new” truth that no one else has ever seen. It could be something that has been previously overlooked. But it also could be that we are looking at something the wrong way. That can lead to theological error. We need to be careful about new “truth”. As Charles Haddon Spurgeon wisely said, "I cannot agree with those who say that they have 'new truth' to teach. The two words seem to me to contradict each other; that which is new is not true. It is the old that is true, for truth is as old as God himself".
Rather than clinging to the solid theological foundation that we have as a result of the efforts of the reformers and building upon it, the church has developed the propensity to set aside solid theology in favor of new found fads and methods. This has left the church wide open and vulnerable to error.
I believe that it is extremely beneficial to consider the teaching of those who have gone before us and understand how they drew the conclusions they have. This is not a case that just because many men down through history have held a particular viewpoint that it makes them automatically correct, nor does that make them the final authority. But we still need to understand their conclusions. We must also discern what is a primary or a secondary doctrine. On matters of primary doctrine that strike at the very core of the Christian faith, we had better cling tightly to the truths that have been established; on matters of secondary doctrine, we need to exercise grace, especially when it comes to more obscure subject matter, such as the finer points of eschatology. This is not to say that eschatology is unimportant, but there are valid reasons for men drawing different conclusions on those matters.
We need to take the time to carefully consider what Scripture teaches and be willing to adjust our theology in light of what we discover. We also need to consider the differing views and be careful to avoid misrepresenting those who hold to opposing views. This is one reason that in light of the current controversy, my interest has been piqued concerning the subject of eschatology, particularly amillenialism. One book that I am reading from the amillenial perspective is Kim Riddlebarger’s book, “A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times”. This book has been recommended by many. I doubt that I am going to be persuaded into the amill camp, but I am enjoying reading the book so far and gaining a better understanding of the amillenial position rather than hearsay from secondary sources. I want to gain a more thorough understanding, rather than abide by someone’s overly simplistic definition.
I just hope that in matters of more secondary importance, believers can be more inclined to exercise more grace toward one another. This does not mean that we cannot have strong opinions concerning our convictions. It is certainly acceptable to teach according to our convictions and I believe that we should. But we also should exercise restraint before leveling charges of heresy against each other.
One thing that has gotten really irritating is the range of definitions that you hear on what it means to be “Reformed”. I have read many comments in this recent controversy that include things like “MacArthur really isn’t reformed” and even the notion expressed in a comment thread on another blog, that John Piper is really not “Reformed” either. If being “Reformed” in their strict definition means that one MUST embrace the amillenial position, then I really do not fit their definition either. The sad thing is that I do embrace most of Reformed theology and I am in substantial agreement with Reformed theology, but apparently for many that will not suffice.
Rather, I am compelled to abide by the teaching of Scripture and to teach accordingly by my convictions as I see revealed in the text of Scripture. One simply cannot blindly embrace a theological view independent of Scripture, but weigh everything in light of the inspired text of the Bible. We must always be ready to change our theology if we find it is out of step with the Bible, not bend the Bible to fit our theology.
But we also need to beware of another error. That is the error of ignoring what others have gleaned from Scripture, especially those who have gone before us. God has ordained that there be teachers in the church, teachers who are dedicated to studying the text of Scripture and have a desire to help others understand what God has given us in the divinely inspired text of Scripture. This, of course, is not some secret knowledge only revealed to the one teaching, but the same truth that is accessible to every believer. It is foolish, in fact potentially downright dangerous, to ignore what others have gleaned from Scripture. I believe that it ultimately leads to spiritual arrogance. While additional insights are often gleaned over time, we need to be careful of some “new” truth that no one else has ever seen. It could be something that has been previously overlooked. But it also could be that we are looking at something the wrong way. That can lead to theological error. We need to be careful about new “truth”. As Charles Haddon Spurgeon wisely said, "I cannot agree with those who say that they have 'new truth' to teach. The two words seem to me to contradict each other; that which is new is not true. It is the old that is true, for truth is as old as God himself".
Rather than clinging to the solid theological foundation that we have as a result of the efforts of the reformers and building upon it, the church has developed the propensity to set aside solid theology in favor of new found fads and methods. This has left the church wide open and vulnerable to error.
I believe that it is extremely beneficial to consider the teaching of those who have gone before us and understand how they drew the conclusions they have. This is not a case that just because many men down through history have held a particular viewpoint that it makes them automatically correct, nor does that make them the final authority. But we still need to understand their conclusions. We must also discern what is a primary or a secondary doctrine. On matters of primary doctrine that strike at the very core of the Christian faith, we had better cling tightly to the truths that have been established; on matters of secondary doctrine, we need to exercise grace, especially when it comes to more obscure subject matter, such as the finer points of eschatology. This is not to say that eschatology is unimportant, but there are valid reasons for men drawing different conclusions on those matters.
We need to take the time to carefully consider what Scripture teaches and be willing to adjust our theology in light of what we discover. We also need to consider the differing views and be careful to avoid misrepresenting those who hold to opposing views. This is one reason that in light of the current controversy, my interest has been piqued concerning the subject of eschatology, particularly amillenialism. One book that I am reading from the amillenial perspective is Kim Riddlebarger’s book, “A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times”. This book has been recommended by many. I doubt that I am going to be persuaded into the amill camp, but I am enjoying reading the book so far and gaining a better understanding of the amillenial position rather than hearsay from secondary sources. I want to gain a more thorough understanding, rather than abide by someone’s overly simplistic definition.
I just hope that in matters of more secondary importance, believers can be more inclined to exercise more grace toward one another. This does not mean that we cannot have strong opinions concerning our convictions. It is certainly acceptable to teach according to our convictions and I believe that we should. But we also should exercise restraint before leveling charges of heresy against each other.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Amillenialists in an Uproar
Well it seems that the amillenial folks are all stirred up as a result of the opening session of the Shepherd’s Conference, where John MacArthur delivered the message on "Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Pre-Millennialist." Now, I was not there to hear what MacArthur said, but if everything I have heard is true, I think that I would have taken a little different approach to the topic, even though I am in substantial agreement with MacArthur. But I am not sure if it is more of a case that the amill crowd had taken things a bit too personal.
While I disagree with the amillenial view, I do not see it as rank heresy. It is certainly within the realm of biblical orthodoxy, though I disagree with the arguments in favor of the view. I still find merit from Scripture for the premillenial view.
But there have been plenty of charges railed against those of us who hold to a premillenial view from the amillenial camp. And the disagreements have not always been expressed in very gracious terms. Last year, Jason Robertson over at Fide-O went the amillenial route. I am certainly appreciative of the fact that Jason has taken the time to express his eschatological views on his blog. It has certainly been helpful in gaining an understanding of the amillenial position, even though I do not agree with his view. But I think that it is important to explore and discuss this subject and understand the differing views. I have been in several Independent Fundamental Baptist churches, where the only view that was taught was the dispensational premillenial view, and it seemed that anyone who even hinted at another view such as amillenialism, was almost considered a rank heretic.
I still hold to a dispensational premillenial view of eschatology because I see support for it from Scripture. I will share my thoughts in some upcoming articles.
For discussions on the subject of MacArthur’s message, you may want to check out these articles.
Tim Challies
Founder’s Ministries
Fred Butler
While I disagree with the amillenial view, I do not see it as rank heresy. It is certainly within the realm of biblical orthodoxy, though I disagree with the arguments in favor of the view. I still find merit from Scripture for the premillenial view.
But there have been plenty of charges railed against those of us who hold to a premillenial view from the amillenial camp. And the disagreements have not always been expressed in very gracious terms. Last year, Jason Robertson over at Fide-O went the amillenial route. I am certainly appreciative of the fact that Jason has taken the time to express his eschatological views on his blog. It has certainly been helpful in gaining an understanding of the amillenial position, even though I do not agree with his view. But I think that it is important to explore and discuss this subject and understand the differing views. I have been in several Independent Fundamental Baptist churches, where the only view that was taught was the dispensational premillenial view, and it seemed that anyone who even hinted at another view such as amillenialism, was almost considered a rank heretic.
I still hold to a dispensational premillenial view of eschatology because I see support for it from Scripture. I will share my thoughts in some upcoming articles.
For discussions on the subject of MacArthur’s message, you may want to check out these articles.
Tim Challies
Founder’s Ministries
Fred Butler
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Biblical Church Leadership – Pt. 5
While there is a team leadership approach indicated in Scripture, there is also the concept of what is called a “first among equals” as well. Not all of the elders are gifted equally in the areas such as biblical knowledge, leadership and experience. There are some who seem to naturally stand out among the elders with their gifts of teaching or leadership. This is what was often referred to by the Romans as primus inter pares or the “first among equals” or primi inter pares meaning “first ones among equals”.
As with the twelve disciples, there was an inner circle of three, Peter, James and John, that stood out among the group. Out of those three, Peter stood out as the prominent leader of the group. This in no way implies that these leaders dominate or have sole authority, but that they seem to be gifted in their leadership ability.
On occasion, Jesus chose only Peter, James and John to join Him to witness His power, glory and agony.
-Luke 8:51; 9:28
-Mark 14:33
It is seems to be evident in Scripture that Peter stands out as a “first among equals”. Peter’s name is listed first in the list of the names of the apostles:
-Matthew 10:2-4
-Mark 3:16-19
-Luke 6:14-16
-Acts 1:13
In fact, Matthew even refers to Peter as “the first”. This does not support the Roman Catholic Church’s erroneous elevation of Peter, but merely underscores Peter’s outstanding leadership within the twelve. You should also notice that if you pay close attention to how often Peter is mentioned in the Gospels that Peter stands out as a prominent figure among the Twelve. It was also Peter who was charged with the command by Jesus to “strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:32).
The book of Acts clearly demonstrates Peter’s leadership abilities.
Acts 2:14,42; 4:33,35; 5:12,18,25,29,42; 6:2-6; 8:14; 9:27; 15:2-29
You should note that it is Peter who stands out as the natural leader in the first twelve chapters of the book of Acts. It is interesting that if you do a word search on the name “Peter”, how often his name appears in contrast to the other Twelve. His prominence as the natural leader and key spokesman should be clearly evident.
Acts 1:15; 2:14; 3:1; 4:8; 5:3; 5:15, 29; 8:14-24; 9:32-11:18 (Partial list)
It is also interesting that you can split up the book of Acts between two central figures; Peter (Acts 1-12) and Paul (Acts 13-28).
When Paul wrote to the Galatians, he spoke of Peter, James and John as being the “pillars” of the church in Jerusalem, yet another example of the concept of the “first among equals”. (Galatians 2:7-9)
Peter’s giftedness was necessary to help energize, encourage and strengthen the group of Twelve. His ability as the natural leader and chief speaker proved to be the impetus that encouraged the group to take action. But what is important to note is the fact that Peter was surrounded by the other eleven apostles as his equals, keeping him well balanced, strengthening him and helped protect him from his weaknesses. What is important to recognize is that Peter’s prominence was not given as an official rank or title, but was more functional in nature.
We can also observe the principle of the “first among equals” in the relationship between Paul and Barnabas during their first missionary journey. Both were apostles, but Paul stands out as the chief speaker and leader. (Acts 13:1-13; 14:12)
The concept of the “first among equals” can be discerned by the way a congregation is to honor their elders. 1 Timothy 5:17 says “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.” It is imperative in Scripture that all elders must be able to teach. But not all elders desire to work primarily at preaching and teaching. There are those who are particularly gifted in this area and have a strong desire to do so. These men should be recognized by the congregation and should receive double honor for their work.
The elders who are the “first among equals” do not rule by making all the decisions and controlling the rest of the group. To treat this individual as the “pastor” and the others as “elders” or “lay elders” has no biblical warrant, and will not result in establishing biblical eldership.
The key advantage of the “first among equals” structure is that it allows for drawing on the diversity of gifts within the eldership team, without creating a superior official ruling over subordinates. The leading elders receive no special title, and the difference is more functional rather than a formal position.
In many cases, it is necessary that the congregation provide the necessary financial support to allow the highly gifted elder(s) to focus their attention on their service to that local church body. Attempting to juggle full-time employment outside of the church may take too much time away from the needed focus and attention to the tasks of eldership. This in no way means that part-time elders are ineffective. There are many who are self-supporting or what would be referred to as “tentmaking elders” who are very effective leaders and teachers. But the time and effort that they can devote to the task of eldership is limited. This probably can also be affected by the size of the church; the larger the congregation, the more time is needed to devote to the task. As a congregation grows, the more beneficial it is to support some of the elders at least part-time.
1 Timothy 5:17 puts emphasis on the support of those whose primary work is to labor in the Word of God. It is essential that the flock be nourished through the preaching and teaching of God’s Word. This is so the flock can grow, be strengthened, and protected from false doctrine. This can only occur though the diligent study and handling of the text, with precision and accuracy, which God demands from those who are elders. It is vitally important that the congregation honor those men with their support.
Stressing the part “among equals” is important. Elders who are particularly gifted need to be encouraged to use their giftedness. But they also need the accountability of their fellow peers as a checks and balance to curb negative tendencies such as ego and greed. If a gifted elder seems resistance to that accountability, that should be a warning that he is headed down a self-destructive path.
But there is a danger with the concept of the “first among equals”, as there is with any form of governing structure run by humans. Elders can have a tendency to relinquish much of their responsibility to a couple of particularly gifted men. This arises due to the tendency in human nature for people to become lazy and allow others to do their work. But once this happens, biblical eldership disappears.
There is also the danger that a domineering, power hungry elder will abuse the concept of the “first among equals”, attempting to take over the key ministries and forcing his own agenda. These types could care less about having fellow colleagues. Instead they only want men who are loyal to them, the typical “yes men”.
To help combat these tendencies, leadership and the congregation must take the biblical requirements for eldership seriously. Self-willed, domineering men are unqualified for church leadership and should be removed from their position. (1 Peter 5:3; Titus 1:7) Those elders who do not carry out their God-given responsibilities need to be removed from their office. Elders should be ready and eager to carry out their task (1 Peter 5:2)
Elders also need to work closely together as a united team, building camaraderie of trust and encouraging one another to grow. It is important that the elders focus on ministering to one another as well as taking care of business. This needs to include spending considerable time in prayer. It is also important to include times of relaxed fellowship to build friendships and teamwork.
It is also important for elders to be active in building up one another. Younger elders need to be mentored by the more experienced elders. They need to challenge one another to continue to educate themselves. And they need to exercise discernment to recognize when their colleagues are growing weary and recommend that they take a time of rest. These things are vital to the spiritual health of the eldership.
1. Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, p. 45-50.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
How To Spot a Wolf
Excerpt from "Watch Out for the Wolves Within"
By John Piper
Acts 20:28-31
Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which He obtained with the blood of His own Son. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears.
3. The third incentive Paul gives to the elders is that great danger always awaits the church. Verse 29-30, "I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them."
The incentive for vigilance here is the danger that inside the church men will aspire to the eldership who are wolves in sheep's clothing (Matt. 7:15). They will slowly begin to speak twisted and distorted things about Scripture. And unless the elders are spiritually alert and thoroughly Biblical in their vigilance, the wolves may decimate the flock.
Let me just mention one feature to watch out for in the recognition of wolves. As I have watched the movement from Biblical faithfulness to liberalism in persons and institutions that I have known over the years this feature stands out: An emotional disenchantment with faithfulness to what is old and fixed, and an emotional preoccupation with what is new or fashionable or relevant in the eyes of the world.
Lets try to say it another way: when this feature is prevalent, you don't get the impression that a person really longs to bring his mind and heart into conformity to fixed Biblical truth. Instead you see the desire to picture Biblical truth as unfixed, fluid, undefinable, distant, inaccessible and so open to the trends of the day.
So what marks a possible wolf-in-the-making is not simply that he rejects or accepts any particular Biblical truth, but that he isn't deeply oriented on the Bible. He is more oriented on experience. He isn't captured by the great old faith once for all delivered to the saints. Instead he's enamored by what is new and innovative.
A good elder can be creative. But the indispensable mark when it comes to doctrinal fitness is faithfulness to what is fixed in Scripture—disciplined, humble submission to the particular affirmations of the Bible—carefully and reverently studied and explained and cherished. When that spirit begins to go there's a wolf-in-the-making.
So the third incentive for elders is the ever-present danger of wolves in sheep's clothing who twist the truth and lead the people away to destruction.
By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: http://www.desiringgod.org/. Email: mail@desiringGod.org. Toll Free: 1.888.346.4700.
By John Piper
Acts 20:28-31
Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which He obtained with the blood of His own Son. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears.
3. The third incentive Paul gives to the elders is that great danger always awaits the church. Verse 29-30, "I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them."
The incentive for vigilance here is the danger that inside the church men will aspire to the eldership who are wolves in sheep's clothing (Matt. 7:15). They will slowly begin to speak twisted and distorted things about Scripture. And unless the elders are spiritually alert and thoroughly Biblical in their vigilance, the wolves may decimate the flock.
Let me just mention one feature to watch out for in the recognition of wolves. As I have watched the movement from Biblical faithfulness to liberalism in persons and institutions that I have known over the years this feature stands out: An emotional disenchantment with faithfulness to what is old and fixed, and an emotional preoccupation with what is new or fashionable or relevant in the eyes of the world.
Lets try to say it another way: when this feature is prevalent, you don't get the impression that a person really longs to bring his mind and heart into conformity to fixed Biblical truth. Instead you see the desire to picture Biblical truth as unfixed, fluid, undefinable, distant, inaccessible and so open to the trends of the day.
So what marks a possible wolf-in-the-making is not simply that he rejects or accepts any particular Biblical truth, but that he isn't deeply oriented on the Bible. He is more oriented on experience. He isn't captured by the great old faith once for all delivered to the saints. Instead he's enamored by what is new and innovative.
A good elder can be creative. But the indispensable mark when it comes to doctrinal fitness is faithfulness to what is fixed in Scripture—disciplined, humble submission to the particular affirmations of the Bible—carefully and reverently studied and explained and cherished. When that spirit begins to go there's a wolf-in-the-making.
So the third incentive for elders is the ever-present danger of wolves in sheep's clothing who twist the truth and lead the people away to destruction.
By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: http://www.desiringgod.org/. Email: mail@desiringGod.org. Toll Free: 1.888.346.4700.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
The Controversy That Just Won’t Die
The controversy over Lordship Salvation just seems to keep popping up from time to time. I left comments over at TeamPyro the other day in response to a post entitled “Sectarianism and Separation”. The article dealt with division within the body of Christ and some of the valid reasons for separation for the sake of doctrinal purity, and was a kick-off for a series that Phil is going to be posting on concerning what Jesus meant by unity. A guy by the name of Lou Martuneac left comments in response to the comments that I had left in response to Phil’s post. While I appreciate Lou’s complementary comments in response to mine, I am afraid that he and I are on the opposite side of the proverbial fence concerning the lordship debate. Not to mention that it appears that we also do not see eye to eye on the subject of Calvinism; he is opposed to Reformed theology. I believe that Scripture teaches nothing less than Christ’s lordship over our lives if we are truly His followers. This does not in any way imply perfection, since no one will ever achieve perfection in this life. And the charge by many Free Grace people that those who embrace Lordship Salvation are implying perfection is simply bogus.
And by the way, the subject of Lordship Salvation has been discussed before over at TeamPyro in a post entitled “Why the Lordship Debate Died”.
Before I comment further on this matter, I want to make it clear that I am not intending to slam Lou. It seems that Lou is a very gracious individual. Nathan Busenitz mentioned this about his own interaction with Lou in his series of articles at Pulpit Live, “Lou and Lordship”. What is ironic is that after Nathan finished reading Lou’s book “In Defense of the Gospel”, he is convinced that Lou is really a proponent of Lordship Salvation. It seems that while Lou is attempting to maintain a middle ground (which simply cannot be achieved), his reasoning appears to be more in line with the Lordship view. I have not had the opportunity yet to read this book, but when I get a chance I likely will as I am curious to read first hand what Lou’s views are. You may want to read Nathan’s series over at Pulpit Live. It is an interesting response to Lou’s book.
But I have to admit that I am vehemently opposed to the way many of the Free Grace people present salvation. While these folks believe repentance is important after conversion, they deny that it is an integral part of saving faith.
I remember when John MacArthur came out with his book, “The Gospel According to Jesus” and the controversy that was stirred over that book. The pastor of the church that I attended back at that time read the book and was very touched and influenced by it. It really prompted our church to clarify and proclaim with clarity what it meant to be saved and become a follower of Christ.
I really do not understand why this debate continues, especially since Scripture is clear that Christ is indeed Lord of our life if we have a saving relationship with Him.
Scripture is clear that those who love Jesus are those who keep His commandments.
John 14:15, 21, 23
John 8:31
If we have embraced saving faith in Jesus Christ, we have been set free from slavery to sin.
Romans 6
Ephesians 2:1-3
Titus 2:14
If we are enslaved by sin, and our lifestyle is characterized by a pattern of sin, then that is an indication that we have not entered into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ.
1 John 1:5-6
James 2:19
Scripture also teaches that we are to “make our calling and election sure”, to examine ourselves to be sure that we give evidence of saving faith.
2 Peter 1:10
2 Corinthians 13:5
What got me was that my comments over at Pyro had absolutely nothing to do with the debate. No mention of the Lordship Salvation debate was included in what I wrote, yet somehow, the discussion got launched at least momentarily in the direction of that never-ending controversy that seems to rear its ugly head from time to time.
I guess the reason I feel strongly about the subject is that as I observe the Christian landscape today, I can see the outcome of years of preaching a truncated Gospel that downplays repentance and the Lordship of Christ. Churches are filled with people who have jumped on board to get their felt needs met, but have no interest in being devoted followers of Christ. Churches have fallen for the lie that they need to follow this seeker-sensitive approach if they are going to win people to Christ. Scripture is clear that we don’t win anyone to Christ, but it is a sovereign work of God working in the hearts of men to receive the truth, the truth that can only come by simply and boldly proclaiming the message of saving faith. We desperately need to get back to preaching the pure Gospel which includes repentance and the recognition of Christ’s Lordship.
And by the way, the subject of Lordship Salvation has been discussed before over at TeamPyro in a post entitled “Why the Lordship Debate Died”.
Before I comment further on this matter, I want to make it clear that I am not intending to slam Lou. It seems that Lou is a very gracious individual. Nathan Busenitz mentioned this about his own interaction with Lou in his series of articles at Pulpit Live, “Lou and Lordship”. What is ironic is that after Nathan finished reading Lou’s book “In Defense of the Gospel”, he is convinced that Lou is really a proponent of Lordship Salvation. It seems that while Lou is attempting to maintain a middle ground (which simply cannot be achieved), his reasoning appears to be more in line with the Lordship view. I have not had the opportunity yet to read this book, but when I get a chance I likely will as I am curious to read first hand what Lou’s views are. You may want to read Nathan’s series over at Pulpit Live. It is an interesting response to Lou’s book.
But I have to admit that I am vehemently opposed to the way many of the Free Grace people present salvation. While these folks believe repentance is important after conversion, they deny that it is an integral part of saving faith.
I remember when John MacArthur came out with his book, “The Gospel According to Jesus” and the controversy that was stirred over that book. The pastor of the church that I attended back at that time read the book and was very touched and influenced by it. It really prompted our church to clarify and proclaim with clarity what it meant to be saved and become a follower of Christ.
I really do not understand why this debate continues, especially since Scripture is clear that Christ is indeed Lord of our life if we have a saving relationship with Him.
Scripture is clear that those who love Jesus are those who keep His commandments.
John 14:15, 21, 23
John 8:31
If we have embraced saving faith in Jesus Christ, we have been set free from slavery to sin.
Romans 6
Ephesians 2:1-3
Titus 2:14
If we are enslaved by sin, and our lifestyle is characterized by a pattern of sin, then that is an indication that we have not entered into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ.
1 John 1:5-6
James 2:19
Scripture also teaches that we are to “make our calling and election sure”, to examine ourselves to be sure that we give evidence of saving faith.
2 Peter 1:10
2 Corinthians 13:5
What got me was that my comments over at Pyro had absolutely nothing to do with the debate. No mention of the Lordship Salvation debate was included in what I wrote, yet somehow, the discussion got launched at least momentarily in the direction of that never-ending controversy that seems to rear its ugly head from time to time.
I guess the reason I feel strongly about the subject is that as I observe the Christian landscape today, I can see the outcome of years of preaching a truncated Gospel that downplays repentance and the Lordship of Christ. Churches are filled with people who have jumped on board to get their felt needs met, but have no interest in being devoted followers of Christ. Churches have fallen for the lie that they need to follow this seeker-sensitive approach if they are going to win people to Christ. Scripture is clear that we don’t win anyone to Christ, but it is a sovereign work of God working in the hearts of men to receive the truth, the truth that can only come by simply and boldly proclaiming the message of saving faith. We desperately need to get back to preaching the pure Gospel which includes repentance and the recognition of Christ’s Lordship.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Biblical Church Leadership – Pt. 4
What Is Shared Leadership?
Contrary to what many may think, eldership is not a highly esteemed board position open to anyone who wants to join. But rather, it is team of qualified men who must meet certain qualifications that include spiritual and moral considerations before they may be chosen to serve (1Timothy 3:1-7). This process should also include public examination of their qualifications (1 Timothy 3:10) and they must also be installed publicly (1 Timothy 5:22; Acts 14:23). Their motivation and empowerment must come from the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28). They must be acknowledged and loved by the congregation. Those who are particularly gifted at preaching and teaching need to be honored by the congregation through financial support, enabling them to serve full or part time. (1 Timothy 5:17, 18) This structure produces a team of qualified elders lead by the Holy Spirit to benefit the church family.
A council of elders was a form of government common in society in the ancient Near East. The evidence of this governmental structure is evident throughout the Old Testament and was as fundamental as the family. (Exodus 3:16; Ezra 10:8) And Paul utilized this basic pattern in the New Testament when he appointed elders for each church. (Acts 14:23) This is a collective form of leadership where each elder shares the authority and responsibility inherent with the position. Using more contemporary terms, this type of structure may be commonly referred to as a shared leadership or team leadership.
There are many benefits to this plurality of leadership. One of the most important benefits is the balancing out of personal weaknesses and flaws. All of us have weaknesses and flaws that we are blind to. These flaws have a way of distorting judgment, even to the point of destroying those in leadership. This is particularly dangerous in those who are particularly talented and exhibit a great deal of charisma. Without peers to call attention to danger signs, these leaders end up on a path of self destruction. Unfortunately, these types become so self-deceived that they really do not want anyone to confront them. Mutual submission to a team of leaders is crucial to curb egos and improper ambitions that particularly gifted leaders are prone to.
In a team leadership structure, the strengths that each individual brings to the table helps balance out each others weaknesses. Furthermore, the vast majority of men are not multitalented and can never possess the broad range of strengths that only a plurality of leadership can bring.
A shared leadership approach also provides a means of spreading out and lightening the workload of the ministry. True Biblical ministry does entail a heavy workload and a great deal of responsibility. Coupled with all the responsibilities that are inherent with the position, those in leadership also carry the burden of dealing with sin in the congregation, and endless complaints and conflicts between members. Moses was faced with this situation back in the book of Numbers in chapter 11 and it nearly overwhelmed him. Notice God’s remedy for the situation. The Lord instructed Moses to appoint seventy men from the elders in Israel, who would share the burden with him.
“16The LORD therefore said to Moses, "Gather for Me seventy men from the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people and their officers and bring them to the tent of meeting, and let them take their stand there with you.
17"Then I will come down and speak with you there, and I will take of the Spirit who is upon you, and will put Him upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, so that you will not bear it all alone.”
(Numbers 11:16-17, NASB)
The so-called single pastor model of leadership is in reality a very cruel burden to place on any one man. This is probably the easiest way to burn out and discourage a pastor by placing all the responsibility of shepherding squarely on his shoulders alone. If nothing else, it certainly wearies an individual to the point that they can no longer be very effective, despite the fact that they “hang in there”. In sharp contrast, in a plurality of leadership, each elder helps share the burden, enabling each one to minister according to their personal giftedness, rather than being forced to attempt to be an expert at everything. Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 eloquently describes the benefit of the mutual encouragement of the team leadership approach.
“ 9Two are better than one because they have a good return for their labor.
10For if either of them falls, the one will lift up his companion. But woe to the one who falls when there is not another to lift him up.
11Furthermore, if two lie down together they keep warm, but how can one be warm alone?
12And if one can overpower him who is alone, two can resist him. A cord of three strands is not quickly torn apart.”
(Ecclesiastes 4:9-12, NASB)
But more than just sharing the work load, a team ministry provides a balance of power and accountability. Placing an individual in a position of sole power and authority opens them up to succumbing to the temptations that lead to corruption. All men are subject to the passions and desires of the flesh, even Christians. And even Christian leaders can succumb to the evils of human pride and greed. The only way to help guard against this danger is through the mutual submission and accountability that only a shared leadership structure can help provide.
The shared leadership structure also provides for the mutual encouragement and accountability to carry out their responsibilities. Like anyone else, church leaders can become lazy and sloppy in the obligations of their work. Having fellow colleagues in the ministry to whom they are accountable for their work is a huge benefit. This concept can be clearly illustrated using the example of athletes engaged in various sports. To quote Strauch:
“Coaches know that athletes who train together push one another to greater achievement. When someone else is running alongside, a runner will push a little harder and go faster. The same is true in the Lord’s work. That is one reason the Lord sent His disciples out in twos.” (Strauch, p. 44)
This does not mean that there are not problems that can be encountered with the team structure. The process of working as a team can have a tendency to be slow and frustrating. And the plurality of leadership approach requires among other things, patience, prayer, love, trust and an appreciation for each others giftedness and viewpoints. This structure can also have the tendency to be prone to inaction. But to overcome this, it requires that there be clear organizational structure employed to prevent it from degenerating into disorganization and ineffectiveness. Clear expectations of responsibilities, communication and good management principles are imperative.
1. Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, p. 38-44.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
