Author: fundyreformed

More on Church Membership

~ fundyreformed ~ 11 Comments

Recently I asked the question, “Is Membership in 1 Local Church Biblical?” That raised some interesting discussion in the comments.

Pulpit Magazine, a magazine-turned-blog run by Grace Community Church (John MacArthur’s church, just completed a 2 part series on “Why Membership Matters” [see part 1 & part 2]. The posts comb through the New Testament data on the Church and provide several arguments for a visible formal membership (of the roll-call variety).

I thought it would be good to follow up on my previous post by highlighting the Biblical reasons provided in Pulpit’s articles. And while I wholeheartedly agree in principle with the claim that membership does matter, I disagree that membership must be strictly formal (as if to a political body). [Along these lines, a recent post by Jeff Voegtlin highlights a Biblical evidence of a more loose form of church membership.]

Let me share the following response which I left in the comment section of the 2nd post over there.

Personally, I am not convinced by these posts. Everything said is good. Believers should submit to church leadership and should commit to the church.

I think though that we are coming at these texts with our history of American-style democratic, congregational membership. We assume there must be a written record and a tally of noses.

Over and over again, the articles say “this assumes formal membership” , or something like that. These verses and teachings could just as easily assume that everyone attending is a member. The elders are appointed and entrusted by God to oversee the flock, since when do the sheep pick their shepherds?

By requiring attenders to jump through another hoop, the hoop of formally requesting membership, we allow for a 2 tiered system of membership. The members, and the attenders. Members are shepherded and attenders are allowed to just exist. Wouldn’t it be better to just teach that everyone who attends is treated like a member, is shepherded, and is expected to contribute to the body and submit to leadership?

Another issue this discussion brings up is the whole multiple churches in one city. In Reformation days, not to mention NT days, there was usually 1 church in 1 city. The Ephesian church, while extremely large was still considered just 1 church. Today its okay for there to be 20 or 30 evangelical churches in a given city. And its also okay to ignore all the other churches except the one you are a member of. People may rub shoulders with and live next to evangelicals who attend other churches. Don’t we have a responsibility as part of Christ’s body to help those believers too?

I raise some of these questions here, and a friend who contributes to Reformation Theology, ponders this problem in this post: “Shopping for the Right Church“.

All of this is not to diminish the importance of joining an assembly. And ultimately the responsibility lies in the members to do that. But even in a family, there are varying ages of children and various stages of discernment and independence. We, the church, should allow for the weak, helping them and enfolding them into ourselves. And we should be on the look out for those struggling around us.

Blessings in Christ,

Bob Hayton

One more thing here. I don’t have all the answers and I am not beyond critique! Any thoughts from you guys? I’m all ears.

Man-Centered Christianity (part 4)

~ fundyreformed ~ 6 Comments

previously in this series–part 1, part 2, “The Sinner’s Prayer Problem” (part 3)

In the posts above, I have introduced the problem of Man- centered Christianity, and begun exploring how the problem became so widespread in the American evangelical Church today. Part 3 was an aside, focusing on the problem of the “sinner’s prayer”–a method which has contributed in part to the problem of man-centeredness in Christianity. Before I continue, it might be good to review what it is I’m addressing in these posts.

Much like the problem of going to church for ourselves, man-centeredness results in a blurring of the distinction between the church and the world. God is important, church is my thing, but my life is, well my life.

I read the following quote in John Piper’s book The Legacy of Sovereign Joy (pg. 118):

“I suddenly saw that someone could use all the language of evangelical Christianity, and yet the center was fundamentally the self, my need of salvation. And God is auxiliary to that….I also saw that quite a lot of evangelical Christianity can easily slip, can become centered in me and my need of salvation, and not in the glory of God.” “” quoted in Tim Stafford, “God’s Missionary to Us” , Christianity Today, Dec. 9, 1996.

When church is all about us, that’s a problem. And today, the Bible has become a guidebook on how we can have a great life. Church is important, but not particularly vital. It’s sort of an optional extra which adds benefit to your life, but sometimes the cost can be a pain.

Theologically, God loves us, because we are so important and special to Him. That’s why Jesus died for all, He had to do what he could for us, you know.

How did we get here?

In part, the sinner’s prayer and other techniques for getting people to receive Christ are to blame. Of course many have legitimately been saved using these methods, but the methods subtly shift the focus from God to man. Whereas in the past evangelists majored on declaring the gospel faithfully, and letting the Holy Spirit work, today we encourage people to do something: pray a prayer, walk an aisle, etc. Then we pronounce them saved.

This leads me to today’s post: the common understanding of eternal security has contributed to this problem. Once saved, always saved–this idea has helped further the inordinate focus on man in today’s Church.

Here’s how it goes. A preacher attracts someone into the church by highlighting how Jesus can add purpose to their life. He gets the convert to settle his guilt problem and his anxiety over a possible eternity in Hell by promising the convert full salvation if he only prays the sinner’s prayer. After jumping through that hoop, the convert is then told he can never lose salvation. It’s free, and God’s not a liar.

The convert then is exhorted as to his obligations to love and follow God, because of all God did for him. So a dutiful following of Jesus often happens. And since worship is fun [or maybe the people are], the convert may stay around a while. Of course since, the convert’s personal value was what made the gospel important, so its natural for him to expect the other messages of the church to practically benefit his life and help him. However, the convert may eventually lose interest in church, or fall out of sorts with this or that friend. Since God wasn’t central, its easy to not look back–especially since the convert, if he knows anything, knows he has “fire insurance”.

Because security is taken for granted, the convert has no need to continue believing and trusting Jesus. He may love Jesus because of how he feels now; but with a change of feeling, the love might vanish as well. What God wants, and who God is, is sort of removed from the convert’s experience. He might learn to appreciate God’s perspective, but ultimately his own personal interests matter most.

Now I must make myself clear: the above scenario often does not happen. Often those who hold to this idea of eternal security still go on to live holy lives with genuine love for Christ. Many of these people are not man-centered at all.

Still, this understanding is wrong. The idea that just praying a prayer makes you eternally secure if very wrong. And if you’ve ever talked to backslidden converts, you will hear that they subscribe to this view. Even preachers have said that there’s nothing you can do once saved, to lose your salvation. And this can overtly encourage a very licentious lifestyle.

So, “eternal security” is wrong???

No, I’m not saying that true believers aren’t eternally secure. Don’t get me wrong, please. I am saying that the historic belief of the orthodox Church does not jive with a “once saved, always saved” (OSAS) mentality. Historically, emphasis has been on the perseverance of the saints not on their preservation. The saints are preserved, but all true saints, will persevere–they will not finally fall away.

The problem with OSAS is that it flies in the face of such clear Biblical warnings as:

  • “He has now reconciled [you]… in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard…” (Col. 1:22-23)
  • “…the gospel… which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you–unless you believed in vain.” (1 Cor. 15:1-2)
  • “…and we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope.” (Heb. 3:6)
  • “Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God…For we share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.” (Heb. 3:12, 14)
  • “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples.” (Jn. 8:31b)
  • “But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” (Mk. 13:13b)
  • “For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” (Rom. 8:13)
  • “…in due season we will reap [eternal life (see 6:8)], if we do not give up.” (Gal. 6:9)
  • “Strive for… the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” (Heb. 12:14)
  • “faith apart from works is dead” and “can that faith save him?” (James 2:26 with 2:14)
  • “And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.” (Heb. 6:11-12)
  • “…they believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away.” (Luke 8:13b)

The last verse above coupled with 1 Thess. 3:5, teach that faith might not last. 1 Cor. 15:2 teaches that belief could be in vain. Jesus warned against those who professed to know Christ but didn’t in Matt. 7:21-23, and he testified to the need for perseverance to the end in Luke 21:34-36. This is why the Scripture encourages us to “examine [ourselves], to see whether [we] are in the faith” (2 Cor. 13:5a) and to “make our calling and election sure” (2 Pet. 1:10).

I have more to say on this important point, and I’ll come back to it in the next post. I will leave you with a few earlier posts of mine which will help you understand what exactly I’m saying, and why I think it is Biblical.

Also, this external link, provides some excellent reasons why God would put such warnings in Scripture, even though all of the elect will certainly persevere (John 10:27-30, 1 Pet. 1:3-5).

We Believe (#1): Scripture

~ fundyreformed ~ 5 Comments

We believe glorious Truth as Christians. The next several Sundays I plan to post sections from my church’s Elder Affirmation of Faith. I’m doing this because every few weeks our congregational reading is an excerpt from this document. Every time we all read aloud the truths we confess, my soul rejoices. I pray these posts will aid you in worshiping our Lord on His day.

Scripture, the Word of God Written

We believe that the Bible, consisting of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, is the infallible Word of God, verbally inspired by God, and without error in the original manuscripts.

We believe that God’s intentions, revealed in the Bible, are the supreme and final authority in testing all claims about what is true and what is right. In matters not addressed by the Bible, what is true and right is assessed by criteria consistent with the teachings of Scripture.

We believe God’s intentions are revealed through the intentions of inspired human authors, even when the authors’ intention was to express divine meaning of which they were not fully aware, as, for example, in the case of some Old Testament prophecies. Thus the meaning of Biblical texts is a fixed historical reality, rooted in the historical, unchangeable intentions of its divine and human authors. However, while meaning does not change, the application of that meaning may change in various situations. Nevertheless it is not legitimate to infer a meaning from a Biblical text that is not demonstrably carried by the words which God inspired.

Therefore, the process of discovering the intention of God in the Bible (which is its fullest meaning) is a humble and careful effort to find in the language of Scripture what the human authors intended to communicate. Limited abilities, traditional biases, personal sin, and cultural assumptions often obscure Biblical texts. Therefore the work of the Holy Spirit is essential for right understanding of the Bible, and prayer for His assistance belongs to a proper effort to understand and apply God’s Word.

*Taken from the Bethlehem Baptist Church Elder Affirmation of Faith, paragraphs 1.1 – 1.4. You are free to download the entire affirmation [pdf] complete with Scriptural proofs for the above statements.

Attending Church For Ourselves

~ fundyreformed ~ 3 Comments

I was struck by the opening lines of this news item from Baptist Press: “Kingdom passion drives 71-member church“.

Prior to 2004, Macedonia Baptist Church’s heart beat almost solely for its members.

“We were a bunch of older folks who pretty much attended church for ourselves,” said Gerald Williams, a member of the Fayetteville, N.C., congregation. “We were self-centered in a lot of our church work.” [emphasis added]

The post goes on to detail how this small church transformed its emphasis into kingdom work. Giving, growing, serving, the church is gloriously different today. But I wonder, how many of us are just attending church for ourselves?

I’ve seen plenty of churches that seem more like a club. People attend because its what they are supposed to do. They do their thing, do the rituals, pray, sing, preach, etc. But its all about the social connection and their need to be obedient and go to church. At church, the conversation revolves around the weather and what they did last weekend; then, they leave, hardly thinking twice about the things of the Lord or serving the lost, caring for others, missions, anything until the next time they darken the door.

Often these churches prize sound doctrine. They are all about being Biblical. Yet each member lives for his family, his job, and his financial well being.

Come to think of it, I too often go to church for myself. While I might think of the things of the Lord at times during the week, I’m often simply storing up doctrinal facts and thinking about this and that doctrinal controversy. And I’m thinking about my family and my job, too.

Why is it so easy to live in the world, as if this world is all that matters? Why is it so hard to pull away from our own often very large and weighty concerns and look to the fields which are white and ready to harvest?

Lord, give us eyes to see the need, give us a heart to live for Your Glory and to spread Your fame. Lord help us to serve to love and to live for others. May we go to church for others, to serve them, love them, and be prepared to live for them.AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Romney's 2 Faces: Why I Don't Like Mitt Romney

~ fundyreformed ~ 3 Comments

Mitt Romney looks too good. He’s slick and smooth, almost slippery. He sounds presidential, they say. Well, to me he comes off as very…shall we say…political. Better yet, savvy. He says what people want to hear.

His recent conversion to the pro life positions seems suspicious to a lot of people. When he was vying for the votes of people in left-leaning Massachusetts, he was decidedly agnostic on that question. Now in preparation for winning the Republican nomination, he picks up a convenient position.

Recently Mitt Romney’s flip flopping came into clearer focus [HT: A Buck for Huck].

On August 6th in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, with the straw poll in conservative Iowa approaching, Romney claimed he supports a human life amendment to the Constitution. But this week in liberal Nevada, he declares he is for individual states having the right to keep abortion legal.

Anyone else see the blatant hypocrisy? The conservative face worked in Iowa, so why not bring out its moderate counterpart? Here’s the full quote from two-faced Mitt.

“My view is that the Supreme Court has made an error in saying at the national level one size fits all for the whole nation,” Romney told Nevada political columnist Jon Ralston in a televised interview. “Instead, I would let states make their choices.”

Asked by Ralston if it was “OK” with him that Nevada is a “pro-choice state,” Romney said, “I’d let states make their own decision in this regard. My view, of course, is I’m a pro-life individual. That’s the position I support. But, I’d let states have this choice rather than let the federal government have it.”

Now his campaign has an “explanation” as to why he is for a national amendment and states rights at the same time, but it seems a little hollow to me. What’s interesting in the above quote is his insistence that he is a pro-life individual. Sounds a lot like Guliani’s position.

Scott Klusendorf explains just why this is so troubling to pro-lifers like me [HT: Vitamin Z]:

The moral logic of the pro-life view–apparently missed by Romney–is that elective abortion unjustly robs the unborn of his natural right to life and thus NO state can legitimately allow the practice. From California to Massachusetts, the natural rights of the unborn transcend any laws generated by the states.

I don’t respect a candidate who always agrees with whomever he’s speaking to. I like one with a little bit more backbone. One who cares about doing what’s right enough to stand on his principles. That’s why I support Mike Huckabee.AddThis Social Bookmark Button