Christian Joe

Archive for the ‘Fundamentalism’ Category

The Lord has used some people recently in my life to teach me about priorities.  I am not talking about priorities when it comes to human beings, but rather priorities as a minister of the Word of God, a preacher, if you will.  These are not new things, just things that I need to put in remembrance.

1.  My personal walk with God.
It is far too easy for a minister of the Word to become so focused on bringing fresh bread to the people of God’s pasture, that he ceases to feed his own soul with the Word.  Couple the eating with fervent prayer and we have a full meal.  Often I find myself thinking about what the church needs or what my duties are and how to accomplish those duties, meanwhile failing to spend much time in personal reflection and attention to my walk with God.

2.  My family.
This is cliché I know, but it is still true.  The pastor’s family is his walking résumé.  Most other professions do not require a family in submission to God’s teaching both in word and in conduct in order to continue at the job.  But the Bible clearly gives a requirement that the pastor’s family walk with God.  For this to happen I must be real as I live out what it means to be a Christian (notice that I did not say, “what it means to be a pastor”); and I must be really there (there is no substitute for the often presence of a father with his family).

3.  Exposition of Scripture.
My chief responsibility as a minister of God’s Word is to accurately know and proclaim the entirety of God’s Word within its context.  I must spend the bulk of ministry engagement in analytical study and prayer over texts of Scripture.  I must wrestle with original intent, grammatical wording, and logical relationships.  I must deepen my understanding of historical interpretations and original languages.  I must consult other men of God both living and dead who have wrestled with the same texts.  By the grace of God through the Holy Spirit, I must boldly proclaim the intent of a text and provide implications for how this ought to impact all who hear or read.

4.  Systematic teaching of Doctrine.
Along with exposition of Scripture, I must make it my delightful duty to study and prepare systematic teaching of the Word of God.  My job is not to change people, persuade sinners or saints, or to make clones of myself; but my job is to teach all who have ears to hear the manifold wisdom of God unfolded in a systematic, understandable fashion.  If I must part ways with those with whom I have been privileged to minister to, I must depart with the doctrines of God and grace firmly rooted in their hearts so that they might continue to teach others long after I am gone.

5.  Continued Discipleship of other men.
The things that I have learned of God, I must commit to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also.  This means that I must prioritize my time to teach the teachable, to study with those looking for answers, not those who imagine they have all the answers.  Jesus Christ taught multitudes, ordained 70, discipled 12, and devoted much time to only 3.  All were important to the ministry and to our Lord.  Instead of trying to build large congregations where crowds can get only a taste of Christianity, I must devote the bulk of my attention to those so satiated by the Word, that they will be able to feed others.

6.  Give further teaching to saints personally as needed.
Another way this has been expressed is with the word “counsel.”  Counseling is private teaching from the Word of God. Those who don’t desire to find the answers in the Word of God will not generally appreciate the type of counsel I can give.  I am not a therapist or counselor in the modern use of the word, but I can point people to Jesus Christ.  He has the answers to every problem, and he has given us the answer in His Word; ours is to obey.

7.  Facilitate proper worship of God and service to God.
A duty of mine as a minister of God’s Word is to help God’s people understand the true meaning and purpose of corporate worship and to facilitate such.  By facilitate, I mean both by example and principle, provide a God-honoring method and motive for pure worship in public reading, music, giving, serving, and prayers.  This mostly happens when we gather on Sunday to honor the Lord.  This, of course, implies that I would be confident in what God-honoring worship looks like from Scripture and be willing to model and gently urge toward that kind of worship.

8. Faithfully lead the church in spiritual direction.
This includes leading the church in administrative and policy decisions that enable us to more fully do the work of the ministry.  By example and teaching, God can use me to help the church make Biblical decisions that will set the direction for the church.  This is a far cry from a dictatorship, but rather through giving principles and then urging others how to practically follow those principles, God can use me to spiritually guide the course of the ship.

You might notice that some duties that ministers do are not included in my priorities.  I believe that we have confused what it means to be a pastor with a Christian at times.  I did not include my duties and priorities as a Christian in this list, but this does not mean that a pastor is exempt from them.  They are a given no matter what position I would hold in an assembly.  These would include (but not be limited to) evangelism, edification of others, service in the physical needs (the building, etc), visiting the sick, praying for one another, fellowshipping with saints, attendance to church services, Bible studies, discipleship, etc.

Consider this post as a work in progress, as this is my understanding with the Biblical knowledge I have at his time.  I have intentionally put these priorities in what I believe to be order of importance.  Although I did not quote Scripture, I believe that Scripture supports what I have written.  “And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enable me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry.” -I Timothy 1:12

I have been studying the use of the words “anger, wrath, hatred, fury, indignation” in the New Testament of the Holy Bible.  Although, there are several words used in the original languages (Greek) that correspond to these translations, there are three common Greek words and their derivatives. Orge-noun and orgidzo-verb which are translated wrath, anger, indignation, fury-but most commonly “wrath”; miseo/misos which is translated as hate, hatred, etc.; and thumos  which is translated passion, wrath, or anger (I only referenced the passages referring to “passion that stirs up anger”, not sensual passion).

Although these words are used at times interchangeably, they are not completely synonymous.  I won’t go into the details of the comprehensive word searching and studying of each passage, but I did want to draw a few applications  from my study.

Thirty one of the ninety-three instances (or thereabouts) refer specifically and uniquely to God’s wrath and anger in judgment.  Most if not all of those references refer to ultimate or final judgment upon unbelief. Fifty-one instances reference mankind and anger, wrath, or hatred.  I broke down these instances categorizing them as Command/Principle and Example/Illustration. Read the rest of this entry »

Responsibilities of Pastors to the Church

God’s organized organism is the local church.  The local church is made up of sinners who have placed their trust in Christ alone for forgiveness and restoration of relational worship with God having become saints.  God has placed leadership over his church to guide her and protect her, not to lord and control the church’s saints (I Pet. 5:1-4).  God gave the church two categories of gifted leaders both to form the structure and to facilitate growth and expansion of the church (Eph. 4:11-13).  God’s ultimate intent is glory in and through the church (Eph. 3:21). God’s glory in building his church is accomplished when God’s leadership and God’s people function in harmony with each other.  There is a Biblical pattern for how this is accomplished.

Formative Gifts (Eph. 4:11)
Originally, God gave Apostles to form the structure of the church, this was the job of the twelve, Paul calls himself one born out of due time, and the least of the Apostles.  In other words, he recognized that the original twelve were apostles, and he was the exception to the rule.  God used the Apostles to give Spirit led structure and teaching to the church.  As the Apostles died off, so did their gift, but their teaching remains in the NT which really is God’s teaching as he led each one specifically in his writing (II Tim. 3:16; II Pet. 1:20-21).  Prophets were other individuals God used along with the Apostles to form doctrine and correct understanding of God’s Word—Mark, James, Jude, Luke, were examples of Prophets.  As the Word of God was completed and the Apostolic age came to a conclusion, the prophetic gifts also ceased to be necessary for the church.   The Apostles and Prophets were used of God to form his church, and God used the next two gifted leaders to expand and lead his church.

Expansive Gifts (Eph. 4:11)
Evangelists or literally, gospelizers, were those individuals who were led by God to expand the ministry of the church by preaching the Gospel and organizing together those who accept the Gospel into local churches.  I believe many have misunderstood the gift of evangelists and have characterized them as itinerate preachers who travel in RV’s doing week long revival meetings.  I hardly believe that is what Paul had in mind when he told Timothy, the young pastor, to do the work of an evangelist.  The fourth tier of leadership God gave is called Pastor/Teacher. Read the rest of this entry »

Recently I have been challenged in my thinking regarding the doctrine of hell.  Is there really a hell, a place of eternal torment?  Does this make God sadistic?  I have been thinking about these things, not with an unbelieving heart, but rather with a conviction that we do not express the justice of God in sending sinners to hell enough in this age. I believe this is mostly due to an effort by many in professing Christianity to remove the seemingly rough aspects of God.  It is as if, preachers feel the need to polish God’s image or even make excuses for His “bad behavior.”  Hell is offensive; an eternal God who will judge with anger and wrath is not pretty or something that natural man wants to consider or contemplate.  It is best just to remove the “dirty” aspects of the Bible rather than to wrestle with the Truth-some might think.

The Bible teaches there is a literal hell, a burning fire which represents very well the burning justice of God.  To remove hell or “air condition hell” as some have said, is to mar and attack the character of a holy, just God.  To ignore or repudiate the reality of hell also numbs the call to “flee the wrath to come” and makes the demands of the gospel powerless.  It is not as simple as “just keeping it positive.”  Denying or softening the teaching of hell strips God of His moral character and ethic (how could a just God not send certain people to hell?)

I was encouraged by an article I read by Dr. Albert Mohler.  Here is a clip from that article and a link to the full article.

A new apologetic move is now evident among some theologians and preachers who do affirm the inerrancy of the Bible and the essential truthfulness of the New Testament doctrine of hell. This new move is more subtle, to be sure. In this move the preacher simply says something like this:

“I regret to tell you that the doctrine of hell is taught in the Bible. I believe it. I believe it because it is revealed in the Bible. It is not up for renegotiation. We just have to receive it and believe it. I do believe it. I wish it could be otherwise but it is not.”

Statements like this reveal a very great deal. The authority of the Bible is clearly affirmed. The speaker affirms what the Bible reveals and rejects accommodation. So far, so good. The problem is in how the affirmation is introduced and explained. In an apologetic gesture, the doctrine is essentially lamented.

What does this say about God? What does this imply about God’s truth? Can a truth clearly revealed in the Bible be anything less than good for us? The Bible presents the knowledge of hell just as it presents the knowledge of sin and judgment: these are things we had better know. God reveals these things to us for our good and for our redemption. In this light, the knowledge of these things is grace to us. Apologizing for a doctrine is tantamount to impugning the character of God.

You can read more of what Dr. Mohler has to say by following this link.

Let us be clear and unashamed of God’s truth as we propagate and protect it.

Last year, our church was privileged to be able to host a pastor’s conference regarding the roots of historical fundamentalism.  The word fundamentalism is thrown about today with a variety of meaning.  Our conference was not about polygamy as in fundamental mormons, nor was it about fundamental muslims who commit murder. Neither was our conference about fundamental Christians who rant and rave and slobber about different preferences with application of Scripture.  I identify with none of that.  Instead, we identify with the measured yet passionate defense of Biblical Truth and dogmatic propositional statements concerning Truth found only in the Word of God, the Bible.  In Europe and America in the early parts of the 20th century, there arose a fight among those who seek to deny the authenticity, inspiration, and authority of the Bible (called modernists or liberals) and those who wanted to defend the Scriptures and the God of the Scriptures (called fundamentalists).  They were called fundamentalists because they held to certain fundamental non-negotiable doctrines where the battle lines were drawn, and they were willing to do battle royal (not in a physical sense, but a spiritual, intellectual, and social sense) for those doctrines.  Historically, these men came from different denominational lines, different perspectives, and different societies.  The united together to do battle against modernism’s attack on God’s word and work.  Our conference goal last year was to set a foundation that would show the strengths and weakness of this historical movement as a whole and learn what we can from it.  Dr. David Doran of DBTS did a masterful job weaving Biblical truth and history together in a series of lectures.  Those lectures both challenged minds and impassioned hearts because it was an emphasis on God’s Holy Word, not man’s exuberance.

We are planning our second annual Foundations Conference at Grace Baptist Church, April 26-27, 2010.  This year, Dr. Kevin Bauder from Central Seminary will be our keynote speaker.  Building upon the foundation of last year’s conference, we are now looking to “Contemporary Issues Facing the NT Church.”  Topics such as church government, views concerning inspiration, fellowship with conservative evangelicals, and politics in the church will be addressed. I am looking forward to another great conference, one that I pray will sharpen my mind, soften my tongue, encourage my soul, and energize my spirit in the work of the Lord.

If you would like a brochure mailed to you just send me a message, or you can go to the Foundations Conference website to get more information and to register.

Over 27,000 Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, Mormons, JWs, and a whole host of  other religious people have recently affixed their names to a document called the Manhattan Declaration.  This document is championed by Chuck Colson who was the originator of the Evangelicals and Catholics together in the early nineties.  It is an attempt to foster unity between different groups who call themselves “Christians” to preserve and defend conservative values.  While I am in full support of conservative values, I cannot support this declaration by any means.  Some leading evangelicals have affixed their name to the document, which greatly disappointments me.  I was also delighted to see some names notably absent from the document.   Here is a list of the leading religious leaders who affixed their names.

Manhattan Declaration

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

What is most troubling to me is the continual referring to the signers as Christians, and in essence, describing the signers as Christian.  All of those who sign might call themselves Christians, but being a Christian is more than “following” a historic person named Jesus the Christ.  It is absolute surrender to what Christ came to proclaim-the Gospel, and it is not just some fuzzy idea of what the Gospel might “mean to me.”  The Gospel is the historic account of Jesus being fully God and fully man dieing on behalf of depraved sinners who when they come to him by faith alone because of grace alone, they are completely justified, forgiven, and being sanctified.  Catholics have a different gospel.   Mormons have a different gospel, liberal protestants have a different gospel.  Therefore there is more confusion generated when Evangelicals unite with unbelievers under the banner of the Gospel.  This does not mean that no Catholic or Mormon or Protestant is possibly saved, but rather that the belief systems are in fundamental opposition.  How can those who believe the Gospel is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone think it is okay to blur lines like this.  I know that my position does not make me popular as well as more notable Christian leaders who did not sign the declaration (after all, I really am not an “influential” Christian leader), but I will not contribute to the confusion created by reducing the word “Christian” to a political moniker, or “tradition” marker.

Note, my main problem is not what the declaration is trying to do.  My concern is that we soften Christianity and the demands of the true Gospel when we fudge on what the Gospel means.  Did not Paul tell the Galatians that there would be some who bring another gospel which is not another, but a twisted Gospel?  And did he not tell us that, that person who preaches that perverted Gospel should be accursed?  We have come a long way from Galatians in justifying participation with unbelievers “for the sake of conservative values.”  Let us have a clear voice that resonates with the true Gospel as defined in the pages of Scripture alone.

It doesn’t matter which side of the political spectrum one falls upon, there is certainly some who are willing to hack up God’s most holy Word, run it through the grid of what they think it should say, and then publish it for all to cringe over.  See the latest in attacking the authority and inerrancy of God’s Divine Word. www.conservapedia.com.

I had a hard time understanding why a “conservative” group would want to rewrite Scripture, since the word “conservative” carries the idea of “preserving” and “conservation.”  But then I realized they are supposedly “politically conservative” who want to give Bible translation to the people and let the “free market” decide what the Scripture means.  Are you kidding me?

In our adult Bible study at church we spent last week looking at leadership within a NT church. I am distinctively baptist because I believe the Scriptures most clearly articulate what baptists have historically believed. Therefore it would come as no shock to anyone that I strongly believe in two offices within the local church body. However, I have discovered through studies, that the positions of elders (shepherds) and deacons has a wide variety of applications. Often baptist churches have thought that the pastors and deacons are opposite offices functioning in some sort of balance of power. With the deacons’ job being to “keep the pastors in check” while the pastors’ job is to find some way to get his agenda through the deacon board.

When I study the Scripture, I wonder where that idea ever came from. Nothing could be further from the NT example and instruction regarding these two complementary roles with the local Body. Sadly, many of those in leadership lack to the fundamental quality necessary for these two offices to serve seamlessly–Trust. How often the pastors don’t trust the deacons to get the job done and so they take it upon themselves to do what is the deacons’ God given responsibility. (I suppose pastors might complain that often the deacons don’t do the job and it has to be done, but that is no excuse for crossing over roles on a continual basis). And how often deacons believe they must step in to make up what is “lacking” (at least in their perception) of the pastoral leadership. But if both offices would trust God that he has gifted and enabled His leadership, and not seek to be the “church police” regarding the other, great advances of growth would occur within the local church.

Both offices are servants of God serving his flock, the church. The deacons serve the physical needs of the church, while the pastors/elders serve the spiritual needs of the church (Acts 6:1-4). Right away the tendency can be to suggest then that the pastors are more important than the deacons. While the Bible does give precedents to spiritual food over physical food, in Acts 6, the lack of physical food for the Hellenistic widows was creating a spiritual problem. In other words, the elders (in this instance the Apostles) were having difficulty providing spiritual nourishment because the physical was lacking and disunity was growing. I see here one of the greatest responsibilities of the deacons of a church; they serve by promoting unity and preventing distractions that draw the heart and mind of the people away from the spiritual. What a great spiritual task, to manage the physical needs of the church well enough to hinder division and dispute within the body. Every pastor would take heed to encourage the deacons in this task. Here also, we see that the pastors/elders were responsible to not cease the service with the Word and prayer in favor of meeting physcial needs. Both are spiritual offices because we, as humans are spiritual and physical and the one affects the other more than we probably understand.

Both are servants, the deacons serving in the physical realm to promote unity and growth, and the elders to serve in the spiritual realm to promote unity and growth. But where is the “division of labor” so to speak? I think that these two job descriptions sum up the responsibility of the pastors and deacons. Deacons 1.enable the saints to do the work of the ministry (Acts 6) by providing for the physical needs to do so (promoting unity, managing the financial, supporting the ministry of Word and prayer). In other words, they remove that which would distract the saints from the work of the Gospel ministry, by enabling seamless, cohesive service to God. The elders 2.equip the saints to do the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:12). They teach, preach, guide, care, oversee, and pray for the people and they are equipped to serve Jesus Christ.

When these two offices function in harmony and uni-purpose, God is glorified as his church program “works” and the mission of Christ is moved forward. Praise God for his great wisdom in ordaining these two offices for the benefit of the local church.

In the previous post, I said that this one would be practical concerning the presentation of exposition. I am going to deviate a little bit here because I think that I missed an important point concerning why we should be committed to exposition as undershepherds, and why the people of God’s pasture should desire and demand expositional preaching.

Need for Exposition
The definition of expositional preaching is explaining a specific Biblical text (without our personal, cultural, or traditional opinions and biases) within its own context and providing implications concerning our lives. Since this is the definition, we must recognize that Biblical exposition may not always have immediate application in our lives. (Although I have learned that the Holy Spirit has a way of meeting a specific need that I had no idea existed when I have preached the Word). But that is okay! If we are living from sermon to sermon in order to “survive” as a Christian we are exhibiting immaturity and frailty in the Christian life. The Psalmist says, “Thy Word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against thee.” (Psalm 119:11) Often we use this verse to promote Bible memory, and that is good, but hiding God’s Word in our heart is better understood as storing up sustenance that will keep us in the moment of trial and temptation. That is why we must be active in receiving Biblical exposition even if the preacher’s sermon is not what we “need” today. Preventative treatment for illness is far better than prescriptive rescue when we are failing in spiritual health. No one would argue that counseling with a married couple on the verge of divorce is better than premarital counseling or consistent teaching on Biblical roles in marriage long before there is conflict. However, the church has long ago left this concept behind and has moved along with the culture in seeking instant gratification in all areas, even the spiritual. “I’m sick, fix me!” is the cry of the anemic Christian, or rather “My job is in danger, my kids are struggling, my marriage is suffering, etc. . . Fix it. . . Now!” Perhaps the cry should be, “I may become ill, build me up in the most holy faith in a consistent, thorough fashion!” (Personal note* As a pastor, that would thrill my heart more than a million statements like, “good sermon pastor, it was just what I needed today.”) One view seeks a solution from Christ, the other seeks after a relationship with Christ. Crisis preaching (topical preaching patterned to focus on man’s current need) views God and the Word as means to an end. Expositional preaching (systematic explanation of Biblical texts) views a relationship with God through the Word as the end itself. One is man-centered, the other is God-focused. I will let you guess which is which.

If we are committed to thorough, Biblical exposition, we will take great joy in preaching through texts that seem to have nothing to do with the “big issues” of today. The opposite is dangerous in my opinion because the preacher becomes tied to the issues at hand and may begin drifting toward a man-driven ministry rather than a Word-driven philosophy of ministry. On the flip side, it is a misnomer that some texts are alive while others are dry and boring. The entirety of the Word of God (even Leviticus) cries out concerning the beauty and glory of our great and mighty God. He is in every phrase and paragraph of Holy Scripture. We can delight in God through any passage of Scripture because the Bible is the revelation of God Himself, not a book of virtues or morals. Perhaps the style and type of preaching will reveal the preacher’s view of the Book itself and even the God of the Book?

Shepherds, be committed to expositional preaching. Flock be demanding expositional preaching from your shepherds. The health of the local church, present and future, depends upon it.

Preaching an expositional sermon is a lot different than studying for one. A lot of times, I can know what the text says and have discovered great implications (at least I think they are great because they have encouraged and/or convicted me); but struggle with how to present the text in such a way that is meaningful and understandable for the listeners. At the same time, I am keenly aware of the danger of overreaching a text or undermining a passage in favor of meaning and understanding. This is the balance beam of preaching an expositional sermon. It is a work in progress for me, and I need God’s Spirit and grace to accomplish this task for His glory.

I have been thinking of what exposition is not lately. I have thought through these things regarding experiences I have had (regrettably also that which I have done), as well as different books I have read. One resource that has caused me to think more about this topic is the book The Nine Marks of A Healthy Church by Pastor Mark Dever.

Exposition is not verse by verse explanation of a text. To the contrary, I wonder if chapter and verse divisions have not done more harm to proper exegesis than help. Preachers tend to divide their texts up in chapter units, and though at times the chapter/verse divides might be accurate, many times meaning is missed when we are afraid to cross chapter and verse boundaries. A common stereotype of expositional preaching is dry, droning reading a verse and then rewording it. Reading the next verse and then rewording it with the occasional pause for application or reflection. I do not think this is true exposition. Genuine exposition is alive as we are coming to a fuller understanding of an entire text (paragraph, sentences, phrases, or even books) and learning of the implications that text has on our lives even today.

Exposition is not void of using other texts. The method of exposition mainly stays on the lines of that particular text, but it is important to show how other texts illustrate or support the main idea of the primary passage. The opposite of that is taking a topic and preaching through various verses or phrases in support of the topic (proof-texting). I do think this can be done at times, but I believe it is dangerous to make this the steady diet of the church. The best illustrations of a Biblical text is another text that supports the premise of the primary passage.

Exposition is not simply restating the text in the preacher’s words. It can be an easy trap especially when the text is difficult to understand, to simply reword the Scripture. This is not giving the sense of the passage. An example of this could be reading Philippians 1:6 “Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.” And then the preacher saying something to this effect, “We should be confident of this very thing, that He, Jesus, who began the good work in us will perform it until Jesus Christ returns.” True, but all that the preacher has done is restate the text. To preach this text expositionally, there ought to be an explanation of the confidence which resides in the heart of Paul and possibly therefore in the saint and why it is there. How could Paul be confident, and can we be confident of this thing? The previous verses explain that. What is the good work begun in them? When was it begun, how was it begun, who begun it? What does he mean by “good” work? Why is there a completion to this good work and when is it completed? What exactly is the day of Jesus Christ? Is there any significance to verse 7 and Paul’s love for them being related to his confidence in Christ through them? There are hosts of other questions the expositor should be asking, these are just examples to show that it is not enough simply to reword the passage if we are to do proper exposition.

The next post will be positive and practical concerning the presentation of an expositional sermon.