He's Back

Ok, so I've been extremely negligent in my blogging recently. I've been (allegedly) studying for the PE exam, coming up on April 16, and combining that with a new baby just doesn't leave much time for posting. Add in the depressing nature of events in the political and Liverpool Football Club worlds, and motivation has been low.

Of course, the events of the last few months have been building up what will be a rant of epic proportions on the nature and character of our "public servants" in Washington...whenever I have a few hours to formulate (and filter) all the disparate and oftentimes inappropriate thoughts bouncing around in my head, said rant will no doubt be allowed to escape onto the pages of this blog. It will be therapeutic, I'm sure. That is, after all, the main purpose of this blog (which is read mainly by sympathetic members of my family).

But for now, in light of Holy Week and a hope for maintaining my blood pressure at reasonable levels, I've decided to post a few links related to the Church.

First of all, Justin Taylor has a great series of posts all week following the historical events of Holy Week in Scripture. By the way, The Gospel Coalition blog has become one of my daily clicks.

A very interesting article turned up in the Christian Science Monitor about the recent surge of Calvinism in America. It's actually a great piece on the phenomenon I've written about before. I'm encouraged by the fact that more Christians are gravitating toward a faith that's based on solid doctrine, and into what I like to call "real" churches. The mega-church culture within American evangelicalism has produced far too many unserious churches, which in turn tend to produce self-centered believers, unprepared for anything other than Joel Osteen's promised prosperity, who couldn't begin to tell you what it is that they actually believe. Calvin believed in a church that took its role of proclaiming the Gospel and shepherding the flock seriously.

Today, his theology is making a surprising comeback, challenging the me-centered prosperity gospel of much of modern evangelicalism with a God-first immersion in Scripture. In an age of materialism and made-to-order religion, Calvinism's unmalleable doctrines and view of God as an all-powerful potentate who decides everything is winning over many Christians – especially the young.

Twenty-something followers in the Presbyterian, Anglican, and independent evangelical churches are rallying around Calvinist, or Reformed, teaching. In the Southern Baptist Convention, America's largest Protestant body, at least 10 percent of its pastors identify as Calvinist, while more than one-third of recent seminary graduates do.

I've been encouraged by the recent surge in college and grad types in our own church, and I can certainly identify with the desire for a serious church in increasingly troubling times. I continue to believe that early American Christianity's understandable and somewhat justified desire to get as far away as possible from Roman Catholicism lead to an overcompensation in certain areas of ecclesiology that was never intended by the Reformers.

But I also share Mike Pohlman's concern about the potential results of the "movement" becoming popular...

More on Coral Ridge

One of the issues surrounding the current schism within Coral Ridge PCA is the assertion by new pastor Tullian Tchividjian that politics should not be preached from the pulpit. This question of how involved church leaders, and pastors in particular, should be in local and national politics has interested me for some time. I'm a very opinionated and politically informed person. My initial tendency is always that the church should be actively involved in influencing the political realm at every level and in every way, but is that the Biblical view?

We had a discussion about this a few weeks ago in our officer training session, in which our pastor talked about what he called the traditional southern presbyterian view on the church and politics. It's traditionally been taught in churches like ours that the purpose of the Sunday morning worship service is, well, the worship of God; and that the pastor's priority is the exposition of the Word of God to the people. The southern presbyterian view is that it's the pastor's job to inform the people from the pulpit concerning the Biblical principles that govern every area of life - including public policy and political thought. It is then incumbent on the individual members of the church to go out and apply those principles to every aspect of their lives, and to the political and public policy debates. When church members get involved in the local school board, run for other public offices, and vote for candidates that align with Biblical principles as outlined from the pulpit on Sundays, the church is then indirectly, but effectively, influencing the political landscape.

I've always found it disturbing to hear pastors telling members which candidates to vote for in elections, and using their pulpits to endorse certain campaigns. It happens quite a lot in many of the black churches here in Macon, where a church service can resemble a political rally at times. (On a related note, the "reverend" Jeremiah Wright is coming to Macon this month to "preach" at St. Paul AME.) However, I also tend to think that we as Christians have a duty to be involved in our government and in the making of public policy.

So, is Tchividjian correct in steering Coral Ridge away from it's high profile association with the religious conservative movement under Dr. Kennedy? There is no question that Dr. Kennedy sought to directly shape the political landscape both through his preaching and related ministries. His sermons, which were aired on television and radio for years, would often take on legalized abortion, homosexuality, evolution, and the idea that America had strayed from its founding Christian principles. He was a member of the Moral Majority, and was constantly quoted as wanting to "reclaim America for Christ." Some have accused him of being a Dominionist - of wanting America to be ruled by Christians, according to Biblical Law - however, I don't see his teachings going to quite the extremes of Christian Reconstructionism.

Tchividjian, on the other hand, seems to fall more in line with the southern presbyterian model, and is certainly of the opinion that preaching should be expository in nature. While I have a tendency to enjoy hearing Dr. Kennedy calling America out, I also tend to think that preaching should be more focused on explaining the Scriptures. Don't get me wrong, the Bible has a lot to say about many of the hot button political issues of our day, and when a pastor is preaching from the whole of Scripture he should not be afraid to explain the truth on each of these issues. It's difficult to know where to draw the line.

I suppose my view is that the pulpit is the place for revealing God's will through his Word, and that pastors should stick to doing just that. If that means pointing out what the Bible says about a particular political issue, then so be it. But politics shouldn't be the dominant topic of discussion on Sunday mornings. On the other hand, we are called to change our culture, not withdraw from it, so it's up to us as members of the body of Christ to go out and apply the principles explained to us from the pulpit in our communities.

I'm seeing more and more of the younger generation of believers displaying an almost knee-jerk reaction against the evangelical church's association with the "Christian right." Unfortunately, I think it almost always seems to be an overreaction. So many of the leaders within the so-called "emergent" movement are so heavily focused on running away from the issues typically emphasized by traditional evangelicals like Dr. Kennedy, that they end up glossing over or totally leaving out the true Gospel, replacing it with just another warmed over version of the heresy of the social gospel. It's probably true that the younger crowd of believers these days would not respond well to Dr. Kennedy's brand of preaching. However, I hope that we don't go too far in our attempts to appeal to the surrounding culture.

I'm excited about Tchividjian and the possibilities he represents for moving our denomination into the future. I hope, and have every confidence, that he will remain true to the Word of God.

Coral Ridge Presbyterian

It's difficult to watch what's happening at Dr. Kennedy's Coral Ridge Presbyterian, however it is very indicative of some of the issues bubbling under the surface within our denomination right now. So many of our churches, like our own FPC Macon, are finding it very difficult to come to grips with what it means to be relevant while also remaining faithful.

I'm only just now learning about the situation at Coral Ridge, but the news today that 2 elders have resigned from the session of this very influential church is disturbing and sad. After reading some of the back-story, it sounds like it's the typical situation that more and more conservative, traditional evangelical churches are starting to have to face these days: the culture has changed, and the younger generation of pastors wants to change the ways we are reaching it.

A while back, after the death of D. James Kennedy - a man I admired greatly - the church voted by a wide margin to offer the post of senior pastor of Coral Ridge to Billy Graham's grandson, Tullian Tchividjian. Tchividjian had been the pastor of New City Church - a smaller congregation of mostly younger people, which he merged with the existing congregation of Coral Ridge. It sounds like he also brought in his own leadership team, replacing many long-time staff. Evidently, Tchividjian also decided that wearing a robe while preaching was not necessary (I know it seems silly, but this has been quite the controversy in our denomination. We had the same little outburst within our congregation when our head pastor started wearing a suit several years ago), and also has stopped what he calls "preaching politics from the pulpit." Dr. Kennedy was a founding member of the Moral Majority, and one of the leading voices in the religious conservative movement. More on that later. Other changes included moving toward a more contemporary worship service (the good ole worship wars - also a big issue within the PCA right now), and modifications to evangelism and other popular programs.

Evidently, a group of 6 influential church members, including Dr. Kennedy's daughter, took advantage of the unrest these changes were causing and began organizing resistance to Tchividjian. After writing letters to the congregation and circulating a petition suggesting he be fired, Tchividjian had the members banned from the premises. It seems a bit harsh, and it certainly offended my innate Baptist congregational sensibilities - at least initially. But if this was done in accordance with the requirements for church discipline, as laid out in our Book of Church Order, then the case could certainly be made that they were causing disunity within the congregation and refusing to submit to the authority of the session. About a month later, after nearly 400 members had petitioned for a vote on Tchividjian's removal, the church held a congregational vote which overwhelmingly confirmed support for the new pastor.

Now, we obviously don't know all the details, but my guess is that Coral Ridge had a significant portion of long-term, probably older members, who bristled at the changes that their new pastor started making. I can't speak to the specifics of what happened, but it's possible that TT (I can't keep typing that name over and over again) may have tried to institute these changes a little too quickly. I know that a similar fallout would probably occur if some of these same changes were made all at once in our church. I can sympathize with some of the long term members who have supported the church for years, both financially and with their time, only to see these "young whippersnappers" come in and take over, a-changing everything they worked so hard to establish. However, if these changes were made with the approval of the session, as long as they were acting within the guidelines of our constitution and the Scriptures, then I see little room for argument.

Perhaps the new leadership didn't handle everything as well as they could have, but it's also true, at least according to TT, that many of the dissidents didn't follow the Biblical model of confronting fellow believers. In this Christianity Today interview, TT suggests that his critics should've come first to him personally with their grievances, as is outlined in Matthew 18. Instead, and this is still according to TT, they immediately began undermining him and the church leadership among the congregation. If this is in fact true, then I have to say that he was probably justified in breaking off communion with these members.

This just illustrates that even those churches who have a strict set of guidelines for the government of the church will still have to deal with the fact that pastors, elders and members are always going to be sinful, fallen people. These kinds of problems will always exist within the church, as long as different people hold different views about what the Bible teaches. Unfortunately, this particular conflict is being played out in front of the entire nation, and is not exactly helping win people to Christ. Many former members of Coral Ridge have already splintered to form a new church, and it looks like there is little hope for reconciliation.

I have to say that my initial reaction to what I've learned is that Coral Ridge's new pastor and session have acted correctly in what is a very unfortunate conflict. I'm sure there are things they wish they'd done differently, but my guess is that Tchividjian has the best interests of this congregation at heart, and is implementing what he thinks is the best plan for reaching people for the Gospel. Changes of this nature will always create schism within such a traditional, conservative denomination; but perhaps they are necessary for reaching the current culture.

The Great Debate: Women in the Church

Following in the vein of yesterday's post about our church and it's structure, I'd like to comment briefly on a very hot topic within Christendom right now: what should be the role of women in the church? There's a nice little non-theological overview of this debate here. By way of summary, this is how the author, Allen Yeh, describes the two sides of this issue:

Complementarianism vs. Egalitarianism is often a hot-button issue amongst evangelical Christians. To define these briefly, Complementarianism is the theological position that men and women are created differently and correspondingly should have different roles—i.e. men and women are not inherently unequal, but their differences should lead to different roles which complement each other. Egalitarianism is the position that men and women are equal and thus can have interchangeable roles.

Our denomination recently addressed this issue at General Assembly, where a debate was held between two of our most respected pastors, Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian in Manhattan, and Ligon Duncan of First Presbyterian in Jackson, MS.

Now, it says a lot about our denomination that this debate was very limited in it's scope. The PCA is pretty uniform in its complimentarian view. The debate, and the subsequent vote of the General Assembly, was over whether PCA churches should be permitted to "appoint" deaconesses, or female deacons. Note that the word "ordain" is very carefully avoided. The issue of whether women should be in authoritative or teaching roles is not even in question. While I don't see this as an issue of terrible importance, I do tend to fall on the side of complimentarianism. I just don't think you can get past the unequivocal statement by Paul in I Timothy 2:12, even if, as Yeh suggests, you look at the whole canon of Scripture.

"I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man" is about as clear as it gets. And despite the protestations of many an egalitarian, no other verse in Scripture contradicts this view. The most common verses cited have to do with inferences that women are expected to prophesy (I Cor. 11:4-6), and examples of women serving (perhaps as deaconesses - see Acts 6) in the early church. However, prophesying (which I believe has ceased anyway with the death of the apostles, at least in terms of new special revelation) and serving as deaconesses is still a far cry from teaching or holding positions of authority. The office of deacon is one of service, not of rule.

I'm not even going to get into the defenses of the egalitarian view which are not based on Scripture. I had a Christianity professor in college whose defense of this view consisted of "Well, women in leadership roles would not have been accepted by the culture of that day, so that is why Paul prohibited it. Women are now accepted by our culture as equal to men, so this no longer applies." Such an argument is completely without merit. You could use the same logic for any number of Biblical commands. What happens when society accepts adultery as the norm, or any other practice prohibited in Scripture? Do we throw them out as well? Where do we draw the line?

Our pastor does an excellent job of explaining our view on this every time it comes up. This position does not come out of any view that holds women to be inferior in any way to men. In fact, it is often recognized that many women have better skills than men in any number of areas. It is simply a matter of being faithful to Scripture, and not basing any interpretation of God's Word on man's limited understanding and logic; and certainly not on the prevailing winds of current cultural norms.

In terms of the deaconess debate, I'm a little ambivalent. The complementarian view certainly does not prohibit women from being a vital part of the church ministry. In fact, Calvin himself encouraged churches to appoint women to help the diaconate in their ministry of service. Whether we call them a "Deaconess" or not really doesn't matter to me. I have tremendous respect for both Keller and Duncan, and appreciate their willingness to have an open discussion. I also appreciate our denomination's continued (and increasingly unpopular) stance on a difficult issue.

Praise for the PCA

Over the past 6 weeks I've been through an officer training course in our church, which is part of the path toward ordination as a deacon. The class has met each week, on Sunday afternoons, and has been a surprisingly thorough examination of everything from our specific denomination's system of government to our strongly held doctrine and theology. For a lot of evangelicals in this part of the world, the fact that we require officers to complete a fairly rigorous course of study, including both written and oral examinations, just to become a deacon or elder seems pretty extreme.

Growing up in the Southern Baptist tradition, all this stuff would've seemed downright "catholic" to me about 15 years ago. We actually have a constitution consisting of a book of church order and an exhaustive declaration of our system of beliefs in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. The church itself has a very specific form of government, which was just totally foreign to someone coming from a congregationally governed church background. Of course, I've come to believe that this is the Biblically correct model for a church - otherwise I wouldn't be here - but what caused such a severe change?

Well, I pretty much just read the Bible with an eye for what it teaches about the church, and came to the conclusion that the presbyterian form of church government most closely matches those teachings. I suppose it doesn't hurt that I'm an engineer and am naturally drawn to such a well structured and strictly governed organization as the Presbyterian Church in America. The Book of Church Order reminds me of a design specification for the construction projects I work on daily, and from what I can see, makes things so much easier on the leadership of the church. Disagreements over certain teachings, and difficult decisions that are made by pastors are not backed up merely by the individual pastor's opinions, but are shown to be either in or out of line with the accepted church position.

Some would argue that this adds to the requirements of Scripture, but that is only the case if the church's position is not thoroughly backed up by the Scriptures themselves. And all creeds, confessions, and similar documents must always be viewed as subject and subordinate to the ultimate authority of the Word of God. I've learned an incredible amount in the last 6 weeks, and am encouraged by our church's commitment to Biblical leadership and government. I wish more churches would take it as seriously as the PCA obviously does.

Back to Basics

I heard last week that something called "The New Calvinism" made Time Magazine's list of 10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now, and while blogging has taken a back seat in the last few weeks, I simply have to comment on this. Apparently, Reformed Theology is making enough of a comeback to rank in the top 3 of world-changing ideology. The article is very interesting, and confirms some trends that others have noticed in the last few years. The more mainline protestant churches (United Methodist, Presbyterian USA, etc.) are shrinking, while more and more young people are flocking to the more orthodox traditions.

The New York Times recently published an article about the uptick in attendance at churches because of the recession. They also note a study which found that between 1968 and 2004, attendance at "evangelical churches" increased as much as 50%, while mainline churches continued their decline, albeit more slowly, during times of economic recession.

It's no surprise to me at all, especially given the events of the last 12 months. As we Americans (and consequently the rest of the world) are forced out of the comfortably insulated prosperity that we've enjoyed for so long, more and more of us are searching for something real. It's easy to go to a church that simply tells you what you want to hear, or listen to a pastor that offers self-help psychology week after week, as long as life outside of church is just peachy. But let someone experience the threat of losing their job/home/retirement, and life here on earth just doesn't cut it anymore. All of a sudden, we want to be reassured that this life isn't what it's all about.

It also becomes more important (at least in our little minds) to be sure in our faith once the here and now can't satisfy us completely. Of course, this phenomenon will only reinforce the already prevalent mentality among so many who think Christians to be weak-minded simpletons who use religion and faith as a crutch to deal with life's problems. The simple truth is that all of us continue to struggle with worry and despair over these things, we just have a better, though still very limited perspective of what it all means. We have the assurance that all things work together for good, for those who are part of God's family.

I'm encouraged that more young folks are turning to the reformed tradition - I count myself among that group - as it shows a hunger for truth, and a desire to get back to the foundational tenets of Christianity. So much of evangelicalism these days is all about trying to relate to society on their terms. We have to sugar-coat our theology to get the hip, postmodern (whatever that means) generation to pay attention. Well, frankly I'm not much for putting God, or the Gospel, in a box. The Bible is pretty clear on the power of the Gospel - all by itself, without any help from us. That's one of the benefits of good theology: an accurate understanding of how the Bible says God works.

I hope that more and more churches will notice this trend of believers demanding more from their religious leadership, and focus more on ensuring their members get sound teaching and understanding about what they believe and why.

Evangelicals & Politics

There is a very interesting study out by the Barna Group concerning voters and their presidential candidate preferences. I recommend that you read the entire study, as it gives some very good insight into why people are supporting their candidate of choice. But the most interesting aspect of the study is the fact that the Barna Group shows McCain with a huge lead (61%-17%) over Obama among evangelicals. Now this certainly doesn't play into the narrative we've been getting from many media outlets over the last few months. I've read countless articles about Obama's supposedly strong support among "evangelicals", but as this study points out, very few surveys bother to determine whether their subjects are truly evangelical.

One of the most frequently reported on groups of voters is evangelicals. Most media polls use a simplistic approach to defining evangelicals, asking survey respondents if they consider themselves to be evangelical. Barna Group surveys, on the other hand, ask a series of nine questions about a person’s religious beliefs in order to determine if they are an evangelical. The differences between the two approaches are staggering.

Using the common approach of allowing people to self-identify as evangelicals, 40% of adults classify themselves as such. Among them, 83% are likely to vote in November. Among the self-reported evangelicals who are likely to vote, John McCain holds a narrow 39% to 37% lead over Sen. Obama. Nearly one-quarter of this segment (23%) is still undecided about who they will vote for.

Using the Barna approach of studying people’s core religious beliefs produces a very different outcome. Just 8% of the adult population qualifies as evangelical based on their answers to the nine belief questions. Among that segment, a significantly higher proportion (90%) is likely to vote in November, and Sen. McCain holds a huge lead (61%-17%) over the Democratic nominee. Overall, just 14% of this group remains undecided regarding their candidate of choice.

This certainly ties in to something I wrote about several weeks ago, when I noted a Pew survey which showed that nearly 60% of evangelicals believed that "many religions lead to eternal life." So, if only 8% of the adult population in this country qualifies for Barna's standard of evangelicalism, what kind of standards are they using?

"Born again Christians" are defined as people who said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Respondents are not asked to describe themselves as "born again."

"Evangelicals" meet the born again criteria (described above) plus seven other conditions. Those include saying their faith is very important in their life today; believing they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; believing that Satan exists; believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. Being classified as an evangelical is not dependent upon church attendance or the denominational affiliation of the church attended. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as "evangelical."

Non-evangelical born again Christians meet the born again criteria described above, but not the evangelical criteria.

Nearly half the people in this country think of themselves as Christians. But if only 8% can qualify as evangelical by meeting the very basic requirements listed above, which pretty much represent the basic definition of Christianity, we're in bigger trouble than I thought.

That's Calvinism...

Last Sunday afternoon, I was flipping through the channels on television when I came across a preacher, seated behind a desk, looking fervently into the camera over his Bible. I paused long enough to hear him issue the following statement:

“The teaching that God has predestined some to eternal salvation, and others to eternal damnation, is a false doctrine. That’s Calvinism, my friend. You need to put your faith in Jesus Christ today…”

My daughter walked into the room just in time to hear me responding to the television thusly, “and you need to open that Bible of yours to the book of Romans every once in a while, because you’ve basically just called the Apostle Paul a false teacher…my friend”

It’s okay, my daughter is used to my frequent, and sometimes quite animated conversations with the television (it’s actually rather gratifying to berate and argue with something that hasn’t the ability to respond), so she just rolled her eyes and kept walking. Seriously, though, a little more than 10 years ago I would’ve had no problem with the preacher’s statement. Of course, 10 years ago I had done little actual reading of Scripture other than what I was forced to endure through church, school, and parental oversight.

Having been raised, for the most part, as a southern Baptist, predestination was “not in my Bible.” Thanks to the influence of friends and teachers with a Prebyterian background, I was drawn to the teachings of the Reformation. After years of stagnant spiritual growth, I was reading through the Scriptures with a renewed hunger for knowledge. I began to realize that my whole understanding of the process of salvation was flawed. I had been taught that salvation itself had to be such a life-changing and emotional experience, that I would always remember the very moment it had occurred.

I, personally, have never been able to pinpoint a specific date and time when I first relied on Christ for salvation. For many years, I thought that this was because it hadn’t worked the first time. So, I kept walking down the aisle, and kept trying to exercise that saving faith that I knew was necessary for salvation. Whenever I’d ‘backslide’, I’d say, “Well, I guess that last time didn’t take – time to ask Jesus into my heart again. Maybe this time he’ll come in.”

No doubt, our friendly preacher would tell me that I wasn’t really putting ALL of my faith in Christ – in other words, I wasn’t doing it right. Finally, I realized that my whole concept of God’s plan for my salvation was wrong. Salvation is not something I ‘do’ – it’s something Christ DID. It’s done. Over. I don’t ‘choose’ Christ, he already chose me. A lot of people have a serious problem with this view of salvation, but it’s mainly down to a flawed understanding of our condition before God.

Arminianism’s influence on American Christianity has helped to develop the idea that we take the initial step in the salvation process. We choose to have faith in Christ, our souls are regenerated, and we are justified before God as without sin. The problem, at least according to my reading of the New Testament, is that before Christ, we are “dead in our sin.” How is it possible for one who is truly dead, one who would never choose Christ on his own, to take the first step toward salvation? It isn’t.

Without some intervention by the Holy Spirit, we would never even know of our need for salvation. Since no one chooses Christ on his own, it follows logically that God is the one doing the choosing. It’s difficult to believe in the total sovereignty of God, His control over every minute detail of every person’s life, without recognizing that He, at some point, chooses who will become part of the elect. The eternal status of one’s soul is, after all, not exactly a ‘minute’ detail of most people’s lives. But logic isn’t what sold me on the doctrine of election. Paul took care of that:

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. Rom. 8:29,30

...who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity. 2 Tim. 1:9

...just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him, in love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will... Eph. 1:4,5

See also, Romans 9

Oh, and this guy too:

John 6:37-39
John 6:65

It may fly in the face of our own understanding of ‘free will’, but since when does God’s plan depend on our own understanding of anything? The Arminian view of salvation, however, also limits the work of Christ, and in that, I believe, it commits its most serious error. Let's assume for a moment that I'm wrong, and we do, in fact, have to choose Christ before we are saved. If that's the case, then what, exactly, did Christ's death accomplish? As far as I can tell, it gives us nothing more than the opportunity to be saved. According to this view, Christ's death on the cross did not pay the full price for our redemption. We have to finish the job. That doesn't sound like the Gospel of the New Testament to me. Once again, we're dependent on ourselves for salvation.

Thankfully, Christ's death did accomplish ALL that was necessary for our salvation. God is sovereign, and it’s a huge comfort to know that I, literally, can’t screw up my salvation. It’s a good thing, too, because I’d find a way…believe me.

Presidential Politics & The Church

Rick Warren, author of the hugely popular "The Purpose Driven Life" and pastor of the influential Saddleback Church in California, has been stepping into the world of politics more and more lately. In an effort to encourage both his church, and the church as a whole, to be more involved in surrounding culture and society, he has established the P.E.A.C.E Plan. This plan is described as a "50 year strategy to mobilize millions of local churches around the world to address five global problems: spiritual emptiness, corrupt leadership, poverty, disease and illiteracy." Last November, the church hosted a Global Summit on AIDS and The Church at which Hillary Clinton gave an address, and the church is involved in numerous programs which encourage churches and members to address the problems they see throughout our society.

In another attempt to engage his flock, and other believers around the world, in this very important election, Saddleback will be the host of a Civil Forum on Leadership and Compassion on August 16. Both John McCain and Barack Obama have accepted the invitation to speak at the event, and I will be extremely interested to see how this plays out. I certainly agree that the church needs to be more involved in helping to solve the problems that plague our society, and I realize that the church, as a whole, has not done enough to address these problems up to now. I also wish that our churches would become more involved in the political process. The more liberal mainstream denominations have been politically active for years, and I think it's high time the more orthodox believers stopped withdrawing from society and started changing it for The Kingdom.

I want to believe that Pastor Warren has the right intentions, I know that he wants to see the Gospel advanced, but he seems to be edging ever closer toward programs for social change, and developing the marketing scheme for his ministries, at the expense of preaching truth from Scripture. My concern is that this particular foray into presidential politics will end up like the AIDS forum back in November, at which Hillary Clinton received a standing ovation, and lavish praise from Rick Warren himself after presenting a speech that was at best an endorsement of the Social Gospel - which is no Gospel at all. This is the danger when a church begins to focus too much on social change, and not enough on the Gospel. We need to find a happy medium, but recognize that social change should come as a result of a saving knowledge of Christ, through a church that is focused on the Great Commission. I sincerely hope that Mr. Warren will engage Barack Obama and John McCain on the issues that concern Christian voters, including abortion, but I'm not optimistic. Pastor Warren has done a great deal in raising awareness about AIDS and poverty around the globe, but lately says very little about this particular plague, which claims the lives of over a million children every year IN THIS COUNTRY.

Back in 2004 Rick Warren openly encouraged other pastors and Christians to vote for George W. Bush, citing a number of issues that he deemed to be of extreme importance to believers, and claiming that "those of us who accept the Bible as God's Word" should get out the vote for Bush. This election, he seems to be trying to chart a more moderate course, and I can't understand his reasoning for this. Those issues haven't changed - they are still crucial to the direction of this nation - and the Biblical position on those issues remains the same as well. On August 17, the day after this Civil Forum, Pastor Warren will give a sermon entitled "Making Up Your Mind: Questions to Consider Before the Election." It will be very interesting to see what advice he gives to his flock after hearing what the candidates have to say.

Daily Dose of Spurgeon

I've been going through Spurgeon's Morning and Evening devotion for the last several months, and thought today's entry was pretty timely for those of us concerned about the current state of affairs in the church. The subject text is Exodus 20:25, which is a command from God concerning the building of an altar. In it, God commands that any altar be made of undressed stone. Spurgeon's analysis shows the unity of Scripture, and the fact that even the Old Testament regulations point toward the Gospel:

God's altar was to be built of unhewn stones, that no trace of human skill or labour might be seen upon it. Human wisdom delights to trim and arrange the doctrines of the cross into a system more artificial and more congenial with the depraved tastes of fallen nature; instead, however, of improving the gospel carnal wisdom pollutes it, until it becomes another gospel, and not the truth of God at all. All alterations and amendments of the Lord's own Word are defilements and pollutions. The proud heart of man is very anxious to have a hand in the justification of the soul before God; preparations for Christ are dreamed of, humblings and repentings are trusted in, good works are cried up, natural ability is much vaunted, and by all means the attempt is made to lift up human tools upon the divine altar. It were well if sinners would remember that so far from perfecting the Saviour's work, their carnal confidences only pollute and dishonour it. The Lord alone must be exalted in the work of atonement, and not a single mark of man's chisel or hammer will be endured. There is an inherent blasphemy in seeking to add to what Christ Jesus in His dying moments declared to be finished, or to improve that in which the Lord Jehovah finds perfect satisfaction. Trembling sinner, away with thy tools, and fall upon thy knees in humble supplication; and accept the Lord Jesus to be the altar of thine atonement, and rest in Him alone.

Our attempts to alter scripture based on our own limited understanding will always produce something short of what God intended. This problem has revealed itself in many ways, most importantly in our understanding of salvation. As humans we want to believe that we have some role in our justification before God. Our limited understanding of time and space prevents us from fully grasping our relationship to God, but one thing is perfectly clear throughout the New Testament: Christ's death accomplished everything necessary for our salvation. It did not merely make our justification possible. It did not give us the opportunity to "make that decision" and save ourselves. In fact, though we are saved 'by grace through faith', even the very faith through which we are saved is a 'free gift from God.' This problem is more pervasive than most recognize. Even the most conservative of churches in America teach a means of salvation that is not entirely biblical - one in which we are the initiator in our saving relationship with Christ. If we are, as Scripture asserts, dead in sin, how are we able to 'choose' Christ?

And yet this problem is not limited to the area of soteriology. There are numerous issues in Scripture that have been diluted or even eliminated from the teachings of the church over the past decades, based on the ever evolving human mindset and culture. One such issue is that of the ordination of women as pastors. I don't particularly believe that women are any less effective than men at teaching or leading a body of believers. However, I tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to directly contradicting Scripture. Paul's clear command in I Timothy 2 is not a popular one in some circles. But what is the reason for its unpopularity? The fact that it offends our sense of equality and justice - or that our culture rejects such a sexist idea - is usually the answer given. Is this a good enough reason to reject a clear biblical teaching?

I would have to say that any argument based on human understanding or reason is a pretty weak one. And yet the most common argument in defense of women's ordination is that Paul was simply trying to blend in with the surrounding culture. Now that our culture accepts equality between men and women, we can simply ignore that little phrase. Well, what if we apply that rationale to every teaching in the Bible? At this point in time our society pretty well accepts homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle. Does this mean that we should ignore the numerous teachings in both the Old and New Testaments regarding its prohibition? And what if one day adultery is deemed acceptable by our culture? Where do we draw the line?

This is yet another result of a failure to teach sound doctrine in our churches. If we continually underestimate our basic condition before God (ie., total depravity), then we will always overestimate our own understanding of Scripture and it's teachings.

Serious Problems in Evangelica

A new Pew Research survey about Americans and their beliefs about religion has been released. Among the very disturbing findings, is the fact that 57% of "Evangelicals" believe that "many religions can lead to eternal life". Bear in mind, these are supposed evangelicals - those who are supposed to believe in the fundamental doctrines of Scripture. Even more disturbing, though not as surprising, is the finding that 83% of those associated with "mainline" churches believe this very same thing. As I said, this isn't all that surprising because we've known about theological liberalism's influence over the major denominations for decades. It is, however, a bit baffling that any pastor who claims to believe in the Word of God can teach such a thing from the pulpit.

What use is a religion that isn't the only source of truth? If many religions lead to eternal life, why be a Christian? Why not a muslim or a buddhist? The answer lies in one's view of the purpose of religion. For years, liberal theologians have advanced the notion that Christianity is more about our life on this earth than any life thereafter. The idea that Christ came not to save, but to set an example for how we should live is rampant in America's mainline churches. His death did nothing more than show us how much He loves us, and its purpose is actually to prompt us to love Him back, and live as He did. If this is in fact the case, we are all doomed. Show me one person who has ever lived up to such a standard.

I am truly baffled as to how one can read the letters of Paul and still be convinced that Christ's death was nothing more than an example. There are countless assertions throughout the New Testament concerning the purpose of Christ's death and resurrection. His death accomplished our salvation. End of story. The Gospel cannot be any clearer for those who have been given the faith to believe. It is no surprise that churches who long ago abandoned the orthodox teachings of Christianity are so lost. What is most disturbing is the fact that so many who are part of the evangelical movement can be so misguided. And yet, the cause is one in the same.

In recent years, more and more churches within evangelicalism have drifted away from the emphasis on sound doctrine and teaching in favor of marketing campaigns and entertaining services. The results of the Willow Creek model have opened many eyes to what happens when the focus of a church is on growing the numbers and meeting people's needs, instead of opening their eyes to the Truth. Many of us have totally lost the idea of what a church should be. The church service isn't a place for us to have our needs met. We aren't there to sing songs that are appealing to US. We don't need to hear sermons that make US feel good. We are there to worship the one true God for accomplishing our salvation. Our services should be focused on Him - not us. Our pastors should be relaying the truths of Scripture to us ever Sunday - shepherding us back toward the Gospel when we stray, preparing us for a difficult existence in a world that is fallen and cursed.

A church that loses all respect for doctrine and sound teaching will eventually lose it's way. We are sinful. Our natural desires will always lead us away from the truth, as is very evident in the findings above. The comfort lies in the other truths found in Scripture - that God is sovereign in His election and preservation of believers. Even the very faith required to believe in the historical and spiritual reality of the Gospel is a free gift from God.

Reverend Wright and Other Gospels

With all the furor surrounding the Reverend Wright over the past few weeks, I'm sure everyone's tired of hearing about it. But this raises a more important issue for the American church - whether black or white. Rev. Wright certainly isn't the only pastor out there leading his flock astray, but he's the most visible and extreme case we've seen in a while. One of my pet peeves as an evangelical in America today is the evidence that many pastors of all denominations seem to be turning deaf to Paul's warning to church leaders in Galatia - from chapter 1:

6I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;
7which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
9As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

I suppose it's no surprise, at least not to this Calvinist, that the church continues to deal with the same issues that have hindered it's mission and purpose for thousands of years. Until Christ returns, we will continue to operate under the curse of The Fall. But that is all the more reason to pay close attention to the warnings and instructions provided by those who received the Gospel directly from Christ. Paul's credentials, as listed in the verses following v.9, cannot be disputed. The Gospel message he brought to the Galatians, and to us through his writings, is the only message any biblical pastor should seek to convey.

Paul was speaking specifically to the immediate problem of certain church members imposing Jewish ceremonial law as additional requirements for justification before God, but the same principal of preaching, as the NIV says, "a gospel other than the one we [the apostles] preached to you" applies to the issues we face today. I would find it difficult not to classify Rev. Wright's brand of Liberation Theology as anything but "other than" the Gospel of Christ. But there are many other, more subtle versions of this dangerous trend. The Prosperity Gospel of Osteen and Co. comes most readily to mind, along with the rise of Red Letter Christians and the Social Gospel of those who would turn Christ's teachings and example into mere lessons for morality.

Don't get me wrong, many of the teachings associated with these movements are valuable, and even biblically based in my opinion. However, they should never constitute the sole message, or even the driving principle behind any pastor's teachings. That role should be filled only by the one true Gospel message brought to us in the Scriptures, and briefly described here in the Westminster Confession:

Ch. VII, Part V. The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for those whom the Father has given unto Him.

The only true Gospel is that Good News of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, and the resulting justification we receive as believers. According to Paul, only through the proclamation of the Gospel of Christ does God call men and women to faith in Him. The American church is paying for its long held aversion to doctrine, but if the sad state of preaching in many of our churches today doesn't produce a return to strong doctrinal standards, then I don't know what will.