Unity and the End Times

Should one’s end times’ views limit their unity with other Christian believers? Should churches and denominations spell out their particular end times’ theology, as a matter of their statement of faith? Should adherence to premillennialism, for instance, be considered a hallmark of the faith, a non-negotiable test of one’s submission to Christ?

Mark Dever doesn’t think so. In a recent sermon on Revelation, he commented:

I am suggesting that what you believe about the Millennium””how you interpret these thousand years””is not something that it is necessary for us to agree upon in order for us to have a congregation together. The Lord Jesus Christ prayed in John 17:21 that we Christians might be one. Of course, all true Christians are one in that we have his Spirit, we share his Spirit, we desire to live out that unity. But that unity is supposed to be evident as a testimony to the world around us.

Therefore, I conclude that we should end our cooperations together with other Christians, whether nearly (in a congregation) or more at length (in working together in missions and church planting and evangelism and building up in the ministry) only with the greatest of care, lest we rend the body of Christ, for whose unity he’s prayed and given himself. Therefore, I conclude that it is sin to divide the body of Christ””to divide the body that he prayed would be united.

Therefore, for us to conclude that we must agree on a certain view of alcohol or a certain view of schooling, or a certain view of meat sacrificed to idols, or a certain view of the Millennium, in order to have fellowship with one another is, I think, not only unnecessary for the body of Christ, but it is therefore unwarranted and, therefore, condemned by Scripture.

So if you’re a pastor and you’re listening to me, you understand me correctly if you think I’m saying you are in sin if you lead your congregation to have a statement of faith that requires a particular Millennial view. I do not understand why that has to be a matter of uniformity in order to have Christian unity in a local congregation.

I tend to agree with Dever’s assessment. I think a church could explain their preference, but to demand an end-times’ belief of any who would join with the church, seems too much. Of course there are Christian end times’ beliefs that are universally agreed upon. But I’m talking about your particular thoughts on when the rapture, or if a “rapture” will occur, and what kind of millennialism you hold to.

This is akin to baptism, but on that point Dever does draw the line of church fellowship tight. So would it would be reasonable for a church to draw their own lines on both baptism and eschatology, and yet admit they will fellowship in the gospel with all who carefully differ with them on these matters? Should baptism be more consequential than millennialist views? Which is more clear in Scripture?

I’m not sure I have all the answers here. Any thoughts? Others are hashing out these questions in the comments on the links below.

(HT: Justin Taylor, Ben Wright & Caleb Kolstad)

“Deliberate Simplicity: How the Church Does More by Doing Less” by Dave Browning


The book is quite intriguing, with a catchy title: Deliberate Simplicity. A while back I heard about a church in Washington that had locations in several countries (and continents). At the time it seemed as if they all were piped in by video feed to one location. That impression led me to be quite skeptical, I must admit.

As I browsed through, and read much of the book, my interest was piqued. Christ the King Community Church aims to be deliberate about three emphases: worship, small groups, and outreach. More than that, they intentionally choose to not make anything else a priority. They encourage ministry to be initiated and fueled by individuals, but they shy away from packing the lives of their members chuck full of programs and church functions. Keeping the main thing, the main thing, this church movement has had a global impact.

With a criticism of the status quo, and an emphasis on new methods for church growth, it would be easy to write this off as another emergent church phenomenon. But upon reading the various emphases covered in Dave Browning’s book, I don’t think that’s a fair assessment. Some valid criticisms are raised against Christians isolating themselves in a counterculture of their choosing. Meanwhile the spotlight is shone on the importance of outreach. What’s more, they aim to spread not by building megachurches which attract seekers, but by focusing on small groups where people are encouraged to go out and find the lost. The worship services stress authentic, real worship, that doesn’t cater to the lost, but lovingly shares the truth with them. Their honest, passionate message is reaching thousands across our nation and around the world. For that reason alone, Browning’s book is worth a look.

I was able to ask Dave, the author and a founding pastor of CTK, a few questions about his book, and he was kind enough to answer them. This is my first time actually giving questions to an author, so I’m afraid my “interview” isn’t all that insightful. I do thank Dave Browning for being kind enough to reply. After you read the Q & A, I encourage you to check out the book for yourself, and consider picking up a copy.

Q: I like your focus on being deliberately simple in how we “do church”. Does your emphasis on a multi-site, and even multi-country model take away from that simplicity?

A: It has become harder for us as we have continued to expand. But that is not to say it can’t be done. It just may take more work and discipline. The two words through which we try to filter our organization are “virtuous” and “empowering.” Whatever we do we want it to be virtuous and empowering.

Q: Would you consider yourself a proponent of the Emergent church philosophy? Will the principles in your book help all kinds of churches, not primarily those more open to an Emergent church perspective?

A: I don’t consider myself Emergent, but I can’t say that I am an expert on that word either. What I have sensed about where I’m coming from, relative to other restless young leaders, is that my learning style has been action/reflection instead of reflection/action. We have gone out and done it first, and then tried to figure out how to describe it. That has been a pretty messy process, but rich in divine discovery. When the process is non-linear it sometimes defies the neat categories. In some ways, CTK is like a can on the shelf without a label on it. You have to open it up and look inside to figure out what it is. I kind of like that. I do think that there are applicable principles that can apply across the theological spectrum.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by the publisher. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com or direct from Zondervan.

America — A Pagan Nation?

In the conclusion to my series on understanding the land promise made to Israel, I made the claim that America is just another secular, pagan nation. I’m not too surprised that someone objected to my claim. The idea that America is a Christian nation is a very common idea, but it is still misguided.

Yes, some godly people were involved in the founding of America. Most of our founders at least acknowledged God. But when they founded the nation, they founded a run-of-the-mill, secular nation. God made no promise in His Word about the founding of our nation. Our nation granted freedom of religion to non-Christian religions. The laws of our nation are secular laws, they do not come out of the pages of Deuteronomy.

But wait, some would say, didn’t our laws derive from Biblical principles? That may be, but they were still secular laws for a secular people. Excommunication from the church is never dished out by the secular state, here.

We may truly be thankful for the Christian, godly influence in the founding of our society. That may have given us advantages and blessings. But it does not constitute our country as uniquely created by God. We have no claims for God’s special favor. Like every other nation of men, we are accountable to obey God’s laws. And God ultimately is responsible for the authority our leaders have (Rom. 13).

Since America is just another secular nation, it should not surprise us when our country follows the whims and desires of fallen man. Christians in the era of pre-Christian Rome had a far worse society to deal with than we have. Roman senators openly kept mistresses and/or homosexual boys, Christianity was directly persecuted, and Bibles were illegal. Yet one will not find the Christians of that era complaining about how bad things were and how hard it was to be a Christian.

Today, however, Christians complain about how bad things are, and they long for the good old days, when America was truly a Christian place. However, America never was a Christian place. Morality apart from Christ is as heinous to God as immorality apart from Christ. A day where everyone saves face and looks good, while still being rebellious to God in their hearts, is not an age I want to return to. And I am at a loss to see how preventing homosexual marriage, and laws of this nature, do anything to “reclaim America for Christ”. The law is powerless to save.

We as Christians need to realize that we will always be in a world that hates us and in an environment that makes it hard for us to live for Christ. Always, until Jesus comes, that is.

And while I’m all for efforts to impact our culture for Christ, focusing on politics and political reforms often diverts us from the cause of the Gospel. It also blurs the distinction of Christianity in the eyes of the world. Rather than being known as those who prize the Gospel and love Christ, we are viewed as those who aim to foist our morality on the general public through whatever means possible.

Christianity is not a political party, nor a social club. American Christians, can’t ignore their global brothers and sisters. God is for America just as much as He is for Pakistan, North Korea, and every other nation where members of Christ’s body live. I’m not against being patriotic, but we must not pretend God is. We are citizens of a heavenly country, and just “passing through” this world, whatever earthly country we may dwell in.

Essential Reading on Fundamentalism

I don’t have time now to get in depth, but I wanted to at least give you the link.

9 Marks Ministries‘ March/April e-journal is on the topic of fundamentalism and separation.

Some of the very issues, I’ve been debating about recently here are covered (including article’s I’ve referenced by Albert Mohler and Wayne Grudem). There are other new articles and thoughts on this topic from Ian Murray, Mark Dever and others. And they include David Doran and Mark Minnick with a fundamentalist perspective. Ben Wright, of Paleoevangelical, also contributes.

Again, I’m pressed for time, so I’ll just give you the link to the PDF copy as well as a link to the page that introduces the journal and provides html links to the articles.

PDF / HTML

We Believe (#15): The Spirit of This Affirmation and the Unity of the Church

This is the 15th and last part in a series of Sunday posts celebrating the glorious Truth we believe as Christians. The readings are quoted from the Elder Affirmation of Faith, of my church, Bethlehem Baptist (Pastor John Piper). I’m doing this because every few weeks our congregational reading is an excerpt from this document, and 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.

The Spirit of This Affirmation and the Unity of the Church

We do not believe that all things in this affirmation of faith are of equal weight, some being more essential, some less. We do not believe that every part of this affirmation must be believed in order for one to be saved.

Our aim is not to discover how little can be believed, but rather to embrace and teach “the whole counsel of God.” Our aim is to encourage a hearty adherence to the Bible, the fullness of its truth, and the glory of its Author. We believe Biblical doctrine stabilizes saints in the winds of confusion and strengthens the church in her mission to meet the great systems of false religion and secularism. We believe that the supreme virtue of love is nourished by the strong meat of God-centered doctrine. And we believe that a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ is sustained in an atmosphere of deep and joyful knowledge of God and His wonderful works.

We believe that the cause of unity in the church is best served, not by finding the lowest common denominator of doctrine, around which all can gather, but by elevating the value of truth, stating the doctrinal parameters of church or school or mission or ministry, seeking the unity that comes from the truth, and then demonstrating to the world how Christians can love each other across boundaries rather than by removing boundaries. In this way, the importance of truth is served by the existence of doctrinal borders, and unity is served by the way we love others across those borders.

We do not claim infallibility for this affirmation and are open to refinement and correction from Scripture. Yet we do hold firmly to these truths as we see them and call on others to search the Scriptures to see if these things are so. As conversation and debate take place, it may be that we will learn from each other, and the boundaries will be adjusted, even possibly folding formerly disagreeing groups into closer fellowship.

*Taken from the Bethlehem Baptist Church Elder Affirmation of Faith, paragraphs 15.1-15.4. You are free to download the entire affirmation [pdf] complete with Scriptural proofs for the above statements.