Category Archives: Miscellaneous

I have found these following words of A.W. Pink to very true the more I walk with God. I think his last paragraph is particularly true. Read on…

Some of God’s dear people may suppose that it would be presumptuous to set themselves up as judges of what they hear or read—but that is a serious mistake, being both a false humility, and a shirking of duty. The Apostle rebuked the Hebrews because their senses (spiritual faculties) were not developed so as to discern between good and evil (Hebrews 5:13).

It is often a long time before God’s children are able to account for this. They blame themselves; they are exceedingly loath to say, “This message is not of God.” They are afraid to act in the spiritual, as they do in the natural, and condemn and discard that which is worthless.

“Take heed what you hear” and read! More than forty years ago the saintly Adolph Saphir wrote, “I think the fewer books we read—the better. It is like times of cholera, when we should only drink filtered water.” What would he say if he were on earth today and glanced over the deadly poison sent forth by the heterodox, and the lifeless rubbish put out by the orthodox? Christian reader, if you value the health of your soul, cease hearing and quit reading all that is lifeless, unctionless, powerless, no matter what prominent or popular name be attached thereto. Life is too short to waste valuable time on that which does not profit. Ninety-nine out of every hundred of the religious books, booklets, and magazines now being published, are not worth the paper on which they are printed!

To turn away from the lifeless preachers and publishers of the day—may involve a real cross. Your motives will be misconstrued, your words perverted, and your actions misinterpreted. The sharp arrows of false report will be directed against you. You will be called proud and self-righteous, because you refuse to fellowship empty professors. You will be termed censorious and bitter—if you condemn in plain speech—the subtle delusions of Satan. You will be dubbed narrow-minded and uncharitable, because you refuse to join in singing the praises of the “great” and “popular” men of the day. More and more, you will be made to painfully realize—that the path which leads unto eternal life is “narrow” and that FEW there are who find it. May the Lord be pleased to grant unto each of us—the hearing ear and obedient heart! “Take heed what you hear” and read!

Now, I do want to give one disclaimer and I hope it won’t invalidate the insight of Pink’s words. Pink eventually got to the point where he gave up on finding a church that he could be a member. It can be quite easy to use “discernment” as an excuse to divide yourself from Christian fellowship. We can become like Elijah who thought he was the only prophet not compromised by worship of false gods.We all know God’s answer to the inward-focussed prophet.  So, take heed to the Pinks’s words given here but remember there is no such thing as a completely pure church.  Be both discerning and gracious.  For more on Pink, including a frank critque ofhis eventual inability to be part of a church fellowship, readers should get a hold of Iain Murray’s Biography of Pink.

If I was forced to give a quick overview of my philosophy of ministry, I would simply utter this great Martin Luther quote:

The truth of the Gospel is the principle article of all Christian doctrine. . . Most necessary is that we know this article well, teach it to others, and beat it into their heads continually.”

Everyone needs the gospel. Non-Christians need the gospel. Christians need the gospel. New and old saints alike need the gospel. No growth, no progress, and no victory of any sort comes apart from the gospel. Therefore, we must become a broken record that repeats gospel, gospel,GOSPEL! I have learned that if people don’t accuse you of being simplistic and ask for something other than gospel you have yet to make it the principle article of your message! They will tire of your gospel preaching because they desire a message that will give them a shot of some form of works-based righteousness. Don’t give in. Forsake originality and don’t yield to itching ears. They need the gospel! Keep it central in your philosophy of ministry and you will see fruit well-pleasing to God

I would like to share this quote regarding the proclamation of the gospel that I found to be quite stirring today:

“There is a tendency in some quarters today to promote a kind of evangelism without proclamation. Acts of service are done or people are invited to experience Christian worship. But without words of explanation these are like signposts pointing nowhere or, worse still, signposts pointing to our good works. The gospel is good news: a message to be proclaimed, a truth to be taught, a word to be spoken and a story to be told. The gospel is good news: a message to be proclaimed, a truth to be taught, a word to be spoken and a story to be told.”- Total Church

The gospel must be lived out in everyday life. Community building can’t be merely regulated to a mid-week small group meeting and a Sunday morning service. It must extend far beyond these events to fulfill all the great “one another passages” of the New Testament. Moreover, the work of evangelism (mission) can’t be accomplished through mere door knocking, tract passing, or making sermons more “relevant to the unchurched.” Our missionary methods must extend into the ordinary activities of our routines if we are to follow the New Testament model. We must intentionally evaluate and reform our everyday lives around the gospel. I created a simple exercise to help the folks at my former church to move away from a primarily program-based way of “doing” the Christian life towards a more natural way. Maybe you’ll find it helpful as well.

First, simply list out all the activities that make up your daily, weekly, and monthly routines. You should write down everything in these routines even if they seem mundane. Your daily list might include things like eating meals, go to the gym, driving to work, walk the dog, and play time with the kids. Your weekly list might include things like watch football, go to the park, grocery shopping, trip to the library, and play basketball. Your monthly list might include things like see a movie, take trash to the dump, get a haircut, camping, and budgeting. I would recommend opening up a Word doc and revising it as your routines shift over time.

Second, begin to assess all these ordinary activities through a tri-fold lens of community, mission, and gospel. You want to consider whether or not you can take these activities and add each of these three components. For example, let us consider the universal routine of grocery shopping. It is quite easy to add a communal and missional component to your weekly trip to the grocery. The first step would be to invite a Christian from your local church and a non-Christian friend to join you in this common routine. The second step is to bring the gospel into the activity. The gospel component can be added in a natural but intentional way as you converse throughout the activity. Shopping will bring up very important topics such as stewardship, family, and health. These topics can easily be used as a path to explicitly talking about the gospel. The third step and perhaps the hardest is to try your best to make this more than an one time event. You want this to become part of your weekly shopping routine. Just think how the kingdom would expand if you took as many of your routine activities as possible and disciplined yourself to include these three components! Moreover, you aren’t adding yet another event to you already crowded routine but rather sanctifying your everyday life!

In conclusion, I understand that this is exercise doesn’t answer everything. Some of your activities are meant to be solitary. This certainly is acceptable. However, it is probably a different issue altogether if the lists you have constructed don’t include about dozen activities that can be reformed to include all three components. I find people prefer programic evangelism and community life (if you can even call it that) because it doesn’t invade their personal space. That is irreconcilable with the life of Jesus and implications of the gospel. You must change.

Presently, there is an incredible drive towards simplicity in the church. It is all about K.I.S.S. (Keep it simple stupid). There are certain elements about this movement that I agree with. I definitely think our churches have made things more complicated and clunky than the have to be. However, there is a point when a quest for simplicity dives off the deep end into ecclesiological reductionism. A recent web-surfing session provided me with some more evidence of the truth of this assertion. I stumbled upon this website that exist as, “a new Social Networking site for those exploring simple expressions of church.” The discussion forum on the site contained a thread that I think is representative of this movement’s ultimate destination.

The thread begins with what I interpret as a man that is sincerely in search of a healthy gospel community (aka the local church). He desperately writes, “I’m dying here, well my family and I are dying here for lack of true spiritual connection.” The churches which he has been part of have heavily focused on their Sunday service as the primary community and discipleship event. He rhetorically ask, “How do you build relationships with others like Christ commands us to by sitting for ninety minutes singing a few songs and hearing a twenty minute sermon and that is it?” He yearns to experience Christian community. He wants to know and be known. It is in this vein he poses he main question, “Can anyone give me pointers on how to start a house church?”

I can identify with this man. His experience isn’t all that unique. Sadly, his do-it-yourself reaction isn’t that unique either. Nonetheless, my particular concern finds its source in the replies his posting received. For example, one woman said:

“We’re in much the same situation and have discovered that a family makes a fine church. When God is ready, He’ll add others to us, but in the mean time, we bear one another’s burdens within our small family. We’ve gotten much closer–I believe this is the best “church” I’ve ever attended.”

Family makes a fine church? Actually, no it doesn’t. A church isn’t merely Christians-in-relationships. That is a reduction of scripture’s teaching on the local church. For example, a local church is supposed to have a local leadership that is comprised of a plurality of elders. A single family by definition can’t possess a plurality of elders and, thereby, can’t be a church in a biblical sense.

Another person replies:

“You see, simple church happens all the time. Did you ever run into someone in Walmart and have them share a concern? Did you share a word of encouragement or even a quick prayer? That is simple church….Remember, though, where two or three are gathered in His Name, He is there.”

Again, this is a reduction of biblical ecclesiology. A chance meeting of Christians at a local retailer that results in spiritual activity isn’t a church. A local church is a family of people that have made a deep commitment to “one-another” each other. This example in no way stresses that need for the regular and intentional involvement that the biblical authors emphasize as part of the dynamic of the local church. Moreover, the use of Matthew 18:20 to define church as where two or three are gathered is incorrect. The truth is quite the opposite. Matthew 18:20 is set in a larger context of “church discipline” that emphasizes the church is more than just two or three (see vs. 17).

In conclusion, the sin of our age is reductionism. I’m all for minimalism and simplicity when it comes to the church but not when it is at the expense of biblical doctrine.

We live in an age of increasing ecclesiological befuddlement. There is a wide spread confusion over the Christian doctrine of the church that transcends both geographic regions and denominational lines. The market demonstrates this in that there have been scores of new books recently seeking to bring clarity to the matter. Vintage Church, Total Church, Organic Church, and Simple Church are a few of these books—all of which were just published in the last four years. I have also seen a quite a few sermon series of late that attempt to tackle the subject. Moreover, I personally find this question constantly coming up in random conversations I have with a huge range of people. One of the sayings that people frequently cite in these discourses is that Christians should not “go to church but be the church.” I use to be fond of this saying but it seems like it has quickly degenerated into nothing more than a platitude. I had promised that I would attempt to explain why I think this phrase does not help disoriented Christians set their compasses to North in the debate over the church.

First, let us consider what this phrase gets right. When it says do not “go” to church it is trying to slyly point out that church is a family and not a place. It is definitely right in confronting the doctrinal reduction that sees church as merely a program, building, event, or just some mixture of all three which a Christian goes to/attends. I cannot think of one fellowship that would openly define church this way. However, I think it is fair to say that many pastors and members would, by their practice, define church as attendance to large corporate worship gatherings. This understanding of church ignores the Bible’s emphasis of the “one-anothering” and intimate pastoral care that is suppose to be a daily practice in the local church. I cannot blame anyone for wanting to correct a view of church that neglects those precious gifts of grace.

Second, let us consider what this phrase gets wrong or does not do well. I find that most people who employ this saying often do very little in answering exactly what it means to be the church. I think it is easy for us to figure out what we are supposed to take away from “don’t go to church” as noted in the previous paragraph. However, what is meant by “be the church” remains incredibly foggy. The phrase gets its power not from what it builds up but from what it tears down. It seems to me the thrust of this phrase tends to be mostly deconstruction. Those who put it to use most spend the greater part of their energy attacking the legitimacy of Sunday services, worship bands/choirs, church buildings, pastoral salaries, and a host of other issues. They bring little clarity to the key issues of polity, church discipline, and the sacraments that lie at the heart of the confusion. Clearly, there is a need to tear down bad theology. The church has benefited greatly from the “tearing down” of faulty theology at the hands of men such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, and J. Gresham Machen. However, these men did not just wield a jackhammer but also a trowel. The problem with this phrase is that it just digs a hole but lays no cement.

In summary, this little phrase rightly criticizes one faulty definition of the church but does nothing in providing a correct understanding of what it means to be the church. We should replace these trite cliches more with a more disciplined conservation that does more than deconstruct. There is kingdom building to be done.

I have really begun to notice how Christians vernacular is exceedingly unbiblical when we talk about sins of individuals or a group. For example:

• They did not commit adultery. They had an affair.
• They are not drunkards. They are alcoholics.
• They are not slanderers. They are just chatty.

Why does this even matter? Well, there is a huge difference in worldview that lies behind these terms. These words consistently minimalize sin by placing its source somewhere other than a depraved heart in desperate need of the gospel. They make the sinner not a rebel who loves their sin instead of God but merely (and note the word merely) a victim of a nasty childhood experience or faulty genes.

Now, lets not be silly. I am not pulling for Christians to completely readjust their vocabulary to a set of approved words. No, my hope is that we will simply begin to infuse words that are more faithful to a Biblical worldview in our everyday conversation little by little. For example, just every once in a while call homosexuality sodomy or “sleeping with your girlfriend” fornication. I think you will immediately notice a huge difference in the reaction you get from people. Expect to see some fangs. People do not like to be called bad. They want to believe they are basically good. This is true of both non-Christians and Christians.

Biblical language confronts this humanistic delusion and forces one to cry out to the Lord. The goal of adjusting your language is not to just get all your theological ducks in a row in yet another area. Rather, it is to speak in such a way that more people would see their need for our wonderful Savior who died—that drunkards, sodomites, fornicators, liars, slanderers, and all sinners might be made right with their Creator.

Christians are reactionaries. All too often it seems that we grab a ride on a pendulum out of one ditch only to swing ourselves right into the opposing one. This is definitely true when it comes to our method of hermeneutics. We must beware that there are two equally dangerous ditches on both sides of our approach on how to interpret the Scripture. The great American pastor and theologian, Jonathan Edwards wisely wrote:

“The best way to guard a true interpretation of Scripture, the Reformers insisted, was neither to naively embraced the infallibility of tradition, or the infallibility of the individual, but to recognize the communal interpretation of Scripture. The best way to ensure faithfulness to the text is to read it together, not only with the churches of our own time and place, but with the wider “communion of saints” down through the age.”

Many of us are well aware of the dangers of embracing “the infallibility of tradition” since it has been so aptly demonstrated by the Roman Catholic Church. However, it seems that in Evangelical and non-denominational Christianity our sin tends towards the embracing of the “infallibility of the individual.” A few experiences lately have help confirmed my postulate.  For example, I once confided in a friend how I was having an argument with a church member over the particulars of the Lord’s Supper. Our debate centered on whether elders had to physically administer the sacraments themselves or if the task could be regulated to just another godly church member under the elders’ oversight.  I explained to my friend that as I struggled through the subject I had been reading John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon, Sam Storms, and a couple of lesser known Puritans to gain some clarity. My confidant stopped me and informed me that he thought I was making things way too complicated. I agreed that it had become a pretty complex debate but I soon realized he thought my whole approach to forming a position on the Lord’s Supper was somehow flawed. Consequently, I asked him how he had come to his position regarding communion. He replied, “Honestly, I just read the Bible.”

Oh, I knew I forgot something…

My friend, like myself not too long ago, had succumbed to the infallibility of the individual that often masquerades as just being a humble student of Scripture. This usually is nothing more than a carefully veiled arrogance. You see, I had read and reread all the relevant passages in Scripture in regards to the Lord’s Supper in my study just like him. I had also discussed these passages with the church member and found that we were still at odds. It was then we both had turned to the wider church community, both dead and living, in our attempt to arrive at a true interpretation of Scripture. We did this not because we had a low view of Scripture and a high view of tradition. It was just that we wanted the input of wiser and godlier men that God has given to the church throughout history. God has given us pastors, teachers, brothers, and sisters for a reason. They are here to sharpen us and keep us in check. As previously stated, I understand the dangers of tradition but we must not overreact. It is not enough to just read the Bible alone. That will undoubtedly lead to naïve conclusions. We should listen to Pastor Edwards and work hard to keep ourselves out of ditches through a communal interpretation of Scripture.

I can imagine the king of Israel sitting there on his throne, brow furrowed, sporting a consistent head nod. It was impossible for this youngest son of Jesse to not be drawn into the story that Nathan was verbally painting. A wealthy man had orchestrated and executed a sinister plot that resulted in the robbery of a poor and oppressed man. By the conclusion of the prophet’s tragic tome the anger of the king burned nuclear. His head nod had subsided into a frozen glaring grimace as he thought of this great injustice happening on his watch, in his kingdom. David had been moved to apply Nathan’s sermon. The poet-warrior declared, “As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die…because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.” It is at this moment that the brave messenger of God delivers news that is chalked full of irony that outweighs any Hitchcockian tale….

“You are the man.”

My friends we are David. When we listen to our shepherds bring forth the Word of God we think others. We are ready to apply our lessons into the life of our brethren. We never think for a moment that Scripture is talking about us when it speaks harshly of the…

• The jealous and murderous son of Adam
• The correction-hating fool of Proverbs
• The camel-swallowing Pharisees
• The politically-astute Sadducees
• The mob-pleasing Pilate and Herod
• The glory-seeking Ananias and Sapphira

No, all the villains in the Bible are our villains. They are Catholics, emergents, the liberals, and the God-hating atheistic scientists. Right? They have nothing to say to us? Right?

Wrong. You are the man. Take the counsel of Kierkegaard who advises, “When you read God’s Word, you must constantly be saying to yourself, ”It is talking to me, and about me.” Learn from David. Nathan is talking to you.