Quote of the Day
This Quote of the Day comes from David Alan Black’s latest, The Jesus Paradigm:
The religion of our age is utopian pragmatism, and with it the whole social structure of America is tumbling down, dethroning its God and undermining all its certainties. I have no doubt that had C.S. Lewis lived long enough he would have devoted another Screwtape Letter to the devilish ways the American church has deceived itself into thinking it is following the blueprint of Scripture. (p. 29)
David Alan Black is professor of New Testament and Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina.
Symbolizing Our Unity as We Partake
Because of our human tendency to forget and distort, the Lord is in the symbolism business: for example, to remind Israel of their Creator and Redeemer, Yahweh gave them the Sabbath (Exod. 20:8-11; Deut. 5:15).
And we under the New Covenant are not exempt: we have been given the Lord’s Supper (Communion or Lord’s Table) to remind us of both our own redemption and inclusion in the renewed, eschatological people of God (1 Cor. 10:14-17).
While it seems at times that we stink at both, symbolizing our redemption and inclusion, the charge seems to be more so at the latter—our inclusion in the renewed, eschatological people of God:
"Because there is one loaf of bread, we who are many are one body, because we all share that one loaf" (1 Cor. 10:17, NCV)
1. Do we use one loaf of bread or several small pieces—to symbolize our unity?
2. Do we use one cup or several small cups—to symbolize our unity?
3. Do we have people walked forward to partake or remain in their seats—to symbolize our unity?
God is in the symbolism business. God is not in the symbolism business. Does God really want us to symbolize our unity as we partake of the Communion? Will we really benefit from such symbolic unity as we observe?
At this point, drive-thru Communion is not even an option,
John Piper on Reading C.S. Lewis: “His Value is not in Biblical Exegesis”
During this year’s Desiring God Pastors’ Conference, which concluded a few days ago, in a talk on C.S. Lewis and his value, John Piper made some intriguing observations—observations from an “Inconsolable Soul”:
Why has he been so significant for me, even though he is not Reformed in his doctrine, and could barely be called an evangelical by typical American uses of that word?
He doesn’t believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, and defaults to logical arguments more naturally than to biblical exegesis. He doesn’t treat the Reformation with respect, but thinks it could have been avoided, and calls aspects of if farcical. He steadfastly refused in public or in letters to explain why he was not a Roman Catholic but remained in the Church of England. He makes room for at least some people to be saved through imperfect representations of Christ in other religions. He made a strong logical, but I think unbiblical, case for free will to explain why there is suffering in the world. He speaks of the atonement with reverence, but puts little significance on any of the explanations for how it actually saves sinners. (emphasis added)
Piper continues:
In other words, Lewis is not a writer to which we should turn for growth in a careful biblical understanding of Christian doctrine. There is almost no passage of Scripture on which I would turn to Lewis for exegetical illumination. A few, but not many. He doesn’t deal with many. If we follow him in the kinds of mistakes that he made (the ones listed above), it will hurt the church and dishonor Christ. His value is not in his biblical exegesis. Lewis is not the kind of writer who provides substance for a pastor’s sermons. If a pastor treats Lewis as a resource for doctrinal substance, he will find his messages growing thin, interesting perhaps, but not with much rich biblical content. (read entire talk, emphasis added)
Frankly speaking, I’ve never really read or heard anyone treat C.S. Lewis as some great theologian of the church—an insightful, well-reasoned, literary towering figure, yes!
And like C.S. Lewis, we are all imperfect vessels, in the Master’s hands.
Women: Breadwinners and Benefactors in Earliest Christianity
”In Women in the World of the Earliest Christians (Baker Academic), Wheaton College New Testament professor Lynn Cohick examines literature, inscriptions, and other evidence to uncover what life was like for the earliest Christian women,” according to an interview with Christianity Today:
1. What are some misconceptions about women in the early Christian world?
One misconception is that women were not really part of the culture, that they were at home, uneducated, had their babies, worked their gardens, and that was it. What we find are very wealthy women who were patrons, doling out gifts and influencing senators. Only women were midwives or wet nurses, and there were women who were shopkeepers, heads of businesses, and lenders.
2. Where do our misconceptions come from?
We read people like Aristotle, who describes women as being inherently less than men. Then people read this as though it is describing rather than prescribing. Or, Christians read a rabbinic text like, “Thank God I am not a Gentile, a slave, or a woman,” and conclude that most Jewish men were against women. But I think the comment means that Jewish men were very thankful they could do the whole law while women could not, maybe in part because of childbirth purity codes.
3. Where do you find biblical examples that show women influencers?
In Acts, we see Lydia, who is a patron with clout, and Phoebe, whom Paul describes as a benefactor (Rom. 16:1-2). When you come across a Mary Magdalene and a Joanna in Luke 8, they supported Jesus and the disciples with their own money. This is not like they are having bake sales to raise a little bit of money to help the troops. This fits a pattern in the ancient world of women who are patrons, who are publically honored because they support groups.
The idea of benefaction really helps us understand Phoebe as a deacon. And that plays in then to the question of, What do we do with church orders now, and what kind of responsibilities do women have? Read entire Q & A…; emphasis added
Well, it’s about time to correct some of these misconceptions, especially in the church. Now I’ll have to get around to reading Women in the World of the Earliest Christians: Illuminating Ancient Ways of Life.
Receiving the Lord’s Supper as a Sacrament Weekly
This Thursday, over lunch, three brothers and I are going to discuss the Lord’s Supper and whether as a fellowship we should observe it weekly.
A. A brief word on the nature of the Lord’s Supper: Four views:
1. The Roman Catholic View: Transubstantiation. The bread and the wine actually become the body and blood of Christ.
2. The Lutheran View: Consubstantiation. The body and blood of Christ are present “in, with, and under” the bread and wine.
3. The Zwinglian View: Merely Symbolic. The bread and wine symbolize the body and blood of Christ and merely the spiritual presence of Christ (though not held by all).
4. The Reformed View: Spiritual Presence of Christ. This view speaks of the signs (the bread and wine) and the thing signified (Christ and all his benefits). For example, Michael Horton, Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Westminster Seminary, California, argues that the Holy Spirit works in such a mysterious way that believers truly receive the same body that was born of Mary and the same blood that was poured out on Calvary (A Better Way, pp. 117-18).
B. Now regarding the frequency of the Lord’s Supper, the Scripture itself is not specific. We simply read “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup” (1 Cor. 11:26, ESV). Some groups argue for a weekly observance based on Acts 20:7, but a careful reading of the text would reveal that the biblical writer was not preoccupied with the matter of frequency.
But if we view the Lord’s Supper as involving a mysterious “sacramental union” (Christ and all his benefits—participation in the benefits of his death, spiritual nourishment, unity of believers, affirmation of faith in Christ) as Michael Horton argues, then a solid case, though not binding, could be made for a weekly observance.
In other words, if we are convinced that when we observe the Lord’s Supper, we receive the blessings of Christ and all the benefits of his person and work, then why not observe it weekly?
However, it’s nature and frequency is still up to each local church.
Pumping more Testosterone into Churches
Another contextual cultural interpretation of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23—to reach those around us.
A growing number of evangelical churches are using mixed martial arts as a recruitment tool to convert more young men to Christ:
The outreach effort is part of a broader goal of pumping more testosterone into churches that some pastors fear have “become too feminized, promoting kindness and compassion at the expense of strength and responsibility,” the newspaper reports. Continue reading…
It’s true that most of our churches are already outnumbered by women. No argument there. But this remains a tough sell for me:
According to the Times, the predominantly white churches recruit young men through TV viewing parties and lecture series that draw parallels between the sport and Christ.
“Compassion and love – we agree with all that stuff, too,” Seattle pastor Brandon Beals told the newspaper. “But what led me to find Christ was that Jesus was a fighter.” (emphasis added)
The apostle Paul would either be extremely proud of this contextual interpretation and application of his words or, he would be extremely disappointed.
But you have to admire the innovative thinking behind this outreach.
The Assumptions of Children’s Church
To avoid the distractions of our children at church, we send them off to children’s church. In fact, when we’re looking for a church, we make sure that it has children’s church.
Or,
We don’t want to bore our children we adult worship, so we send them off to children’s church. They’re not going to get it. They need something on their level—we reason.
I use to think the above reasons really made a lot of sense for children’s church. But these days I find myself question the very notion of children’s church.
Who benefit the most from children’s church really? Grown-ups or the children? Isn’t it immeasurably better to have our children sitting and worshiping with us grown-ups, as we call ourselves?
Come to think about, What message is children’s church really sending?
(But I still think there’s a bigger problem with children’s church that has really blindsided us.)
The Pomp, Prestige, and Power of the American Church must Go!
From his book Dual Citizens, in a chapter titled The Power of Weakness: Why Christianity Works Best as an Underdog, Jason J. Stellman observes:
The difficulty is that most Americans are not used to being in the minority, and when it comes to being underdogs, we’re just plain bad at it. Hence flows the American church’s desire to craft a faith that is relevant and beneficial to the culture around it. Church leaders and members often ask themselves, “If our church were to pack up and leave town, would the community lament its loss and beg the church to stay?” The underlying assumption is that one of the ways to measure a church’s success is by gauging how popular and appreciated it is among those within its city or community. It must be asked, however, whether such an expectation is the result of actual exegesis of Scripture or of confusing the earthly kingdom’s idea of success with that of the heavenly kingdom? In a word, does the question above represent a biblical expectation to lay on the shoulders of the local church? (p. 48, emphasis added)
In a word, the upside down nature of the Kingdom of Christ and of God continues to elude us. Because such is the case, we keep telling ourselves, “What if we were to get a few Hollyhood celebs to convert to the Christian faith, imagine how successful the church would be? We would definitely be received much better by the world!”
Oh, the delusion!
Money and the Ministry: A Blessing and A Curse
Money is either a blessing or a curse. But I guess it’s more accurate to say that it’s our attitude toward money that is the real culprit here.
And the ministry is not exempt:
7 Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge? 8 I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you. 9 And when I was with you and needed something, I was not a burden to anyone, for the brothers and sisters who came from Macedonia supplied what I needed. I have kept myself from being a burden to you in any way, and will continue to do so. 10 As surely as the truth of Christ is in me, nobody in the regions of Achaia will stop this boasting of mine. 11 Why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do! (2 Cor. 11:7-11, TNIV, emphasis added)
Or,
Surely you remember, brothers and sisters, our toil and hardship; we worked night and day in order not to be a burden to anyone while we preached the gospel of God to you. (1 Thess. 2:9, TNIV, emphasis added)
If you really want to ruin a good ministry relationship, just let money become the focus. Paul knew this and was able to avoid the many, many monetary minefields of the ministry, either by accepting support from other churches or by working with his hands.
But why is it so easy for money to become a problem in the ministry? I’m serious. People either hold on too much to their monies and don’t want to give, or if they faithfully give their monies to their churches, the church leadership find some way to mismanage the money.
It’s time to get it right.
Greg Boyd told Mennonites to “Go to Hell”
During his keynote speech at a leadership conference held at Eastern Mennonite University in Harrisonburg, VA, pastor and author Greg Boyd told the assembled Mennonites to “Go to Hell”:
This lady particularly liked it when I told my Mennonite audience to “Go to Hell!” “I’m quite sure no Mennonite has ever heard that from a church pulpit before,” she said with a laugh. I honestly hadn’t planned on saying this (as if I plan most of the things that come out of my mouth!), but it just seemed to be an appropriate way to end a little talk I’d given on Jesus’ teaching that “the gates of hell won’t prevail against the church” (Mt. 16:16-18). I taught that, while Mennonites have traditionally tended to be preoccupied with keeping hell out of their communities and have thus tended to be a bit reclusive, Jesus is calling them (and all of us) to boldly take the Gospel into the world and aggressively storm the gates of hell (that is, areas that are under the dominion of Satan rather than God). And so, it just seemed appropriate to conclude this section of my talk by telling them to “Go to Hell!” It seemed they appreciate it! (read entire post…; emphasis added)
Telling people to “Go to Hell” seems to be the Kingdom way?
What About Our Aborted Babies?
Over this past weekend, numerous pulpits across the US were devoted to protecting the life of the unborn, from a biblical standpoint.
And we could go on debating when life actually begins in the womb. But does it really matter?
Since Roe vs. Wade some 50 million of our unborn babies have been aborted. Yes, nations have been destroyed by the selfish. Yes, the voice of millions upon millions of our unborn ones have been silenced by the monstrosity that is abortion.
And my dear wife asked me: Where do our aborted unborn babies go? I told her that they go to be with the Lord.
Recent Comments