From the Mind of a Pastor

The Power of Promise

2012-01-09T08:33:00.000-08:00

“My friend is married to a woman with Alzheimer’s. She doesn’t even recognize him anymore. And as a result, he has decided to start seeing another woman on the side. I’m not sure what to tell him. Do you have an advice?”

That was the question asked a few months ago to well-known televangelist on his TV program. He replied, “That is a hard thing and I know it sounds cruel, but if he’s going to do something, he should divorce her and start all over again. Just make sure someone is still looking after her.”

A little shocked at his response, his co-host replied, “Isn’t the vow we take when we marry ‘for better of for worse, till death do us part’?” To which the televangelist said, “well, Alzheimer’s is ‘a kind of death.” She is, after all, “not there anymore.”

Now think for a moment what’s behind that answer (besides a horrifying misrepresentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ). He is, in essence, saying, if you find yourself in a situation were someone doesn’t benefit you anymore; it’s to your advantage to get out, if you find yourself in a situation that is difficult the right thing to do to start all over.

To be fair, most of us want that kind of advice; the kind of advice that encourages the easy road. Most of us have been faced with a situation that was difficult, one were you thought, “It’s too hard. I can’t do this.” It may have been struggling with a particular addiction, dealing with a hard marriage, caring for someone with an illness, working your way through school, but it seems to be more than you can handle. Is the best advice “get out and start over” or is there a better promise than that?

Israel, the Corinthians, and enduring trials

In 1 Cor 10:12-13, we find one of the greatest promises in all of Scripture. It is a promise that no matter what happens to you, you can hold on to. It instructs us on how we are to think and act during times of temptation, trials and difficulty.

The Context: Paul is writing to a group of Christians who, like all Christians, had experienced great spiritual blessings (salvation, Spirit, LS). However, they had given in to the pressures around them (philosophy, sexual immorality, fighting, etc.). So, in the first 11 verses Paul refers them back to the nation of Israel in order to show them they’re not unlike others before them.

Israel also had received great spiritual blessings; cloudy by day, passed through the sea, baptized into Moses, etc. [10:1-5]. But past blessings didn’t guarantee future obedience (vs. 5)! For as soon as they faced a trial in the wilderness they gave in, gave up, and wanted to go home, forsaking the promises of God! As a result, Israel fell into great sin: idolatry (vs. 7), sexual immorality (vs. 8), putting the Lord to the test (vs. 9), and grumbling (vs. 10). These “just so happen to be the same things the Corinthians were doing, which is why Israel served as an example for them to heed (vs. 6 & 11). Therefore, the issue for the Corinthians, as it was for Israel, was forsaking the promise of God during times of difficulty, which led to serious sin.

We are no different! (1) We have been blessed with so much. (2) The Bible commands sacrificial giving and promises to bless. (3) The economy is hard and times are difficult. (4) The easy thing is to forsake the promise and live in disobedience.

Or…(1) God has blessed us with a relationship with Him. (2) The Bible calls us to pray and promises to bless us when we do. (3) Our schedules are way too busy this week, we’ve got to much to do. (4) The easy thing is to forsake prayer and live in disobedience.

With that as a background, we know come to verses 12-14. Paul, here, addresses how we/they are to respond when faced with temptations and trials. How, unlike Israel, who forgot God’s promises when difficulty came, we can remain faithful.

A Perspective to Have

1. Don’t overestimate your abilities (10:12)

When faced with temptation or difficulty, one of the lies we believe is that we can handle it. “I’ve been a Christian for 20 years, taken a Christian Theology class, been in church all my life, graduated from school of hard knocks.” Our past victories/blessings make us feel safe. The Corinthians felt safe (we’re a sprit-filled church). Israel felt safe (we’re the people of God). And yet the same group that walked across dry land, walked around in a dry dessert for 40 years because of their rebellion. Self-confidence in the Christian life will result in carelessness in the Christian life!

I remember at youth camp hearing about a girl named Amy. Amy was college girl who had committed to sexual purity. Amy decided to go to Cancun on spring break with her friends. She heard stories about what happened in Cancun, but figured she’d never do stuff like that. While she was there she met a guy on the beach. They hung out all week and on the last night he invited her back to his place and they slept together. He took her to the airport the next day, told her how much he loved her and couldn’t wait to see her again, handed her a letter telling her not to read it until she got on the plane. As she was flying home, she opened the letter to read 6 words, “Welcome to the world of AIDS.”

You are not as strong as you think! And past victories do not guarantee future obedience! Some of you think, "I would never cheat on my taxes, engage in unethical practices, stop coming to church, do this or that.” Paul says, take heed lest you fall! The danger for most of us is not religious persecution or falling into heresy, it’s slipping into laziness, mediocrity, and self-confidence whereby we become foolish enough to think it could never happen to me. When the Bible describes Satan as a “roaring lion seeking whom he may devour” it’s not trying to be cute.

2. Don’t overstate your situation (10:13)

Read 10:13. Paul says, “you’re not facing anything unique.” At first this sounds insensitive. Like, “get over it sissy, it’s just cancer.” But this is not meant to belittle anyone’s situation, after all people are dying in this church because of their sin. Paul is making sure, by referring to Israel, that the Corinthians do not justify their behavior by saying “our situation is different.”

“If you understood how big those giants were, you’d understand why we wanted to go back to Egypt.” “If you had to live in Corinth, were married to my husband, had to face the loneliness I face, knew the addiction I’m dealing with, you’d understand.” The more unique you think your situation is the more likely you are to rationalize it. When it comes to struggle, you’re not special but you’re also not alone. You’re hurt is real, but it is not uncommon to man! This should give you hope that others have gone through it too.

3. Don’t underestimate God (10:13)

God is faithful. This was the problem with Israel, the Corinthians, and us. Theological we know God is big; practically we live as though our situation is bigger! Israel, God parted a sea! Don’t you think he can kill giants? Corinthians, God saved you from your sin! Don’t you think he can save you from your culture?

Their formula was: Easy life = Faithful God. But, if you want to see the faithfulness of God, look at the cross and the last word I would use for the cross is comfortable! The longer the enemy can convince you that God is weak or that He really isn’t for you (garden of Eden) the more likely you are to rationalize your failure.

A Promise to Hold

1. God permits the extent of your situation (10:13)

How many of you have seen load-limit signs on a bridge or elevator? The sign is there because engineers have determined the amount of stress it can handle. Paul promises that God is faithful and He will not allow you to be tested or tempted beyond what you are able. Now some of you would say, as Mother Theresa did, “I know God won’t give me more than I can handle. I just wish he didn’t trust me so much.” We know this is true from the book of Job. God told Satan, “you can have his health, but you can’t kill him.” God controls the limits.

Remember, also, this promise comes under the context of “God is faithful” meaning no trial/temptation is stronger than our spiritual resources. So if you have ever though, “I can’t handle this on my own” you’re exactly right but God’s grace is sufficient.

2. God provides the escape of your situation (10:13)

The GK word is the idea is of an army surrounded and then suddenly seeing an escape route to safety. Now, escape doesn’t always mean physically removed, it might be that God provides peace in your heart while still physically in the situation. In some cases, when not violating Scripture, it will mean leaving the situation.

The issue is never is there a way of escape, but do we like the way of escape? Example: “My boss said if I didn’t lie he would fire me. I had to do it.” No. God provided a way of escape to not work in that kind of situation; you simply wanted your job more than the escape. The Bible doesn’t promise to provide a way of escape you will like, or won’t be costly, or will come immediately, but a way that you no doubt need!

3. God promises the endurance of your situation (10:13)

"Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble." (Matt 6:34)

"The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is your faithfulness (Lam 3)

Notice the correspondence between “Each day” in Matt 6 and “every morning” in Lam 3. Meaning, there is a relationship between what you will face in a given day and the amount of mercy you will be given for that day. Don’t fight tomorrow’s troubles with today’s portion of mercy because there is not enough. You have to trust that when the day gets here, abundant mercy will come with it.

A Pattern to Heed

Read 10:14. God will provide a way of escape; will you take it? God has promised power to endure, will you use it? The responsibility for sin is never on God, He controlled the extent, provided the escape, and gave the power. He has been faithful, will you be?

Conclusion

Who knows what challenges we will have to face in 2012? There may be times when you will say “I can’t handle this” or “I can’t get through this.” You may be like the man married to the woman with Alzheimers thinking, “it would be a lot easier to walk away.”

When that happens, I hope you’ll remember another man who is married to a woman with Alzheimers. A woman who, one night in a garden when soldiers gathered around…ran away. One night in a courtyard when a peasant girl started asking too many questions, tried to play dumb. One day in the city of Corinth, fell in love with the surrounding culture. One day in the city of Decatur, lived a life thinking it will never happen to me.

She’s a woman who has on many occasions acted like she didn’t even know who He was. But He has not left her side; He’s never even wanted to. And for the joy set before Him endured a cross, so no matter what she faces, He promises to be right beside her every step of the way.

Pastor Wes

Won't you be my neighbor?

2011-08-24T11:20:00.000-07:00

How many of you remember watching Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood? Regardless of how silly you might think it was, Mr. Roger’s neighborhood was a television successful. It aired for 33 years, made 895 episodes, and next to Sesame Street, was one of the longest running shows in PBS history.

If you’ve seen an episode you might wonder why. There’s no state of the art technology (used hand puppets) or colorful animation. But what made Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood so successful was that it struck a chord with audiences about the importance of being a good neighbor, of caring for others. In fact, the driving question behind the show was, “Would you be mine, could you be mine, won’t you be my neighbor?” Now we laugh, but I submit to you that it is a deeply theological question. It’s a question God wants us to ponder. And it just so happens to be the central question of Luke 12 in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

The parable of the Good Samaritan is probably one of the best known parables in the entire Bible. The very title “Good Samaritan” is synonymous with someone who does good deeds. But I believe most have missed what the parable is about. It’s not a lighthearted story inviting you to be a better person, but a call to be transformed by the Gospel.

A public discussion (Luke 10:25-29)

Jesus is having a conversation with a lawyer. He is a theologian, an expert in the Law of Moses. And he comes to Jesus with a question…“What must I do to inherit eternal life?” Now that’s a great question, one everyone should be asking, namely how can I be right with God? But the way he asks the question reveals what’s wrong with his heart.

i. Wrong Motivation: Luke tells us he wants to trap Jesus. He wants a theological debate; square off against this up and coming Rabbi, he’s not really seeking the right answer. You ever meet people who want the theological proofs; they have these great questions, want to debate all the time. They will never truly believe until they come with right heart.

ii. Wrong Mindset: What can I DO to inherit? He wants a checklist; like the rich young ruler he wants to feel good about himself. Jesus has been receiving people by faith alone and this drives the religious rule-keeper crazy. You see, the point is you can’t DO anything to inherit eternal life.

iii. Jesus turns it back on him, “what is written in the law?” The man answers according to Deut 6 (27) and Jesus (I love this), “Right, now go and do that and you will be right with God.” In other words, you want to do this on your own, go ahead. If you want morality then go live a perfect life and you’ll be fine!!

Rather than repenting, he pushes the issue further, “Well, who is my neighbor?” He wants to know, not who do I have to love, but who do I not have to love. This context is crucial to getting this parable right. The context is morality, clearly defined parameters, etc.

A practical description (Luke 10:30-35)

Jesus tells of a man (Jewish), who was going “down from Jerusalem to Jericho”. Jericho is, after all, 3200 feet below Jerusalem and the road (17 miles) is winding and full of rocks where thieves can hide. The man is beaten and left bleeding and almost dead.

Along comes a priest, who would have been returning from temple worship. Surely he will stop? After all, if you were stranded on the side of the road, who would you rather see, your pastor or a gang member? But he doesn’t stop. People have said it’s because he was scared, but the truth is he couldn’t stop. According to the religious law, he can’t. He’s not allowed to touch a dead body or he would become unclean, have to go back to Jerusalem, through all the cleansing rituals, tell the other priests, and then come back (a 7 day turnaround). It would cost his time, reputation, family, and most of all his religious duty.

Along comes a Levi, whose job was to assist the priests. It is likely since the priest didn’t stop, why should he? Or maybe it’s because he had no resources as they didn’t have a lot of money. Regardless, both men see the suffering man and refuse to get involved and no doubt had good, justifiable reasons why they couldn’t.

Up to this point, while a little shocking, those listening would have been following. But then, Jesus drops a bomb. Three little words, “But a Samaritan.” A Samaritan? You mean our enemies, those half-breed Jews who intermarried with foreign woman, the ones who reject the Torah, the ones who established their own religion, that Samaritan?

"He that eats the bread of the Samaritans is like to one that eats the flesh of swine" (Mishna 8:10).

“How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?” For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans." (John 4:9)

You see, the phrase “Good Samaritan” to those listening was an oxymoron. Like saying passive aggressive, clearly misunderstood, jumbo shrimp, or Microsoft works! Call them whatever you want, but a Samaritan is anything but good. Yet, the Samaritan sees the man and is “moved with compassion.” Meaning he wasn’t acting out of law, or duty, or increasing his moral status, but his heart! And he puts his life on the line, gets bloody, tears his cloths for bandages, poured out his wine for medicine, and takes the man to a place of rest and pays his medical bills. And all of this for his enemy!

A penetrating discovery (Luke 10:36-37)

Now what happens in verse 36 is remarkable! Jesus has turned the situation upside down. Notice the man’s response. Who came to Jesus? A Jewish man. Who is on the road? A Jewish man. What was the man dealing with? Religious law. What kept the first two travelers from stopping? Religious law. How does this man view Jesus? His enemy. Who comes to help the man on the road? His enemy. In other words, a lawyer comes to Jesus asking about rules and morality and Jesus says I want you to imagine a man bleeding to death, beaten by robbers and left for dead. Imagine a religious man doing his duty walks by but unable to help. Imagine that a man, who he despised, is the only hope for his own rescue and healing. Do you see the man in the road, bloody, helpless, dying? Now imagine he’s you! This story is about a Jewish man in need of life and yet he can’t see that religion/morality can’t save Him and yet the very one he opposes can!

You think you’re supposed to be the Good Samaritan, but you not. You’ll never be the Good Samaritan until you become the man on the road! If you approach this text like the lawyer, “tell me what I supposed to do?” Baking cookies? Give money? You will end up a moralistic dead man! And that’s the very problem with the lawyer has. However, if you see yourself first as the man on the road, dead in sin, can’t get up, and if you see Jesus, though you were his enemy, going beyond the law because He was moved with compassion, let the one who had beaten you, crucify Him, tore his flesh and poured out his blood to forgive you, and took you to a place of rest and paid the full price for your healing! And when that happens, you won’t debate “who is my neighbor” you just go and do likewise!

A personal application

Not “who” but “what”: our neighbor is not a geographic, ethnic category, but what situation God has brought into your life right now whose need you can meet.

Not “why should I” but “how could I not”: the issue is not why should I do this, but how can I not do this. We will never be the church God has called us to be if we depend upon church programs and guilt-ridden sermons to get us to serve.

Not “what does it cost” but “whatever it costs”: Love our enemies, people who are not like us (homosexual community, addictions, etc. We will rally behind the unborn and the elderly because who doesn’t love a baby, but will we rally to show love to the homosexual community, the Islamic communities etc.). Sacrifice time and money (disciples who want convenience will always walk on by), placing yourself in danger (missions), etc.

Not “do” but “receive”: Those who inherit eternal life are those who come to realize God’s love can only be received by faith not earned by works.

Conclusion

Only when we are radically loved will we radically love. Only when you have been transformed by the Good Shepherd can you be a Good Samaritan. Have you? If not, look to the one who gave up everything for your healing and turn from your sin. And if so, then I ask you, would you be, could you be, how can you not be…a neighbor.

The Real Left Behind Series: preparing for the coming King

2011-08-03T12:17:00.000-07:00

Read Matthew 24-25 (emphasis on 25:1-13)

He stood there at the door knocking, but no one answered. After a few more tries, the door opened to an 89 year-old man. When the San Francisco Chronicle reporter asked him for a comment he replied, “I don’t understand why. I don’t understand why nothing has happened.” Those words were spoken on May 22nd of this year. They were the words of Harold Camping, the radio evangelist who predicted the return of Christ would occur the day before.

He wasn’t the only one shocked and disappointed. Robert Fitzpatrick, a retired MTA worker spent his life savings in preparation for the event. Adrienne Martinez, 27 and pregnant, dropped out of medical school, spent all of her savings, 1 month before her baby was born. Others sold their homes, quit their jobs, and gave up everything in expectation of Christ’s return.

Harold’s prediction was just the latest in a series of predictions gone wrong. After all, the 2nd Coming was to occur in 1948 when Israel became a state, 1967 when Israeli troops captured Jerusalem, 1973 when a comet was to crash into the earth, in 1978 a group of pastors predicted he would come in 1981, then changed it to 1982. Then it became 1988 (40 years after the founding of Israel), then it was Y2K, they were all wrong!

Let’s face it; we are a people consumed with the end times. In Matthew 24:3, we find the disciples asking the same question. Jesus has been telling his disciples about the destruction of the temple. Such a thought was so astonishing to the disciples; they immediately ask starting playing the REM song on their ipod’s because it’s the end of the world as we know it!

Jesus, sensing their fascination, tells them to go read the Left Behind Series (kidding!). Actually He gives them the Real “Left Behind” Series, namely a series of 4 parables that deal with His future return. (Faithful Servant, 10 Virgins, Talents, Sheep/Goast). I want us to focus on one, namely the parable of the Ten Virgins.

The Explanation of the Parable

A Wedding in those days happened in three stages:

Engagement: a contract was determined between the husband and bride’s father. Once they had agreed, a ceremony would follow in order to seal the contract. The bride and groom would exchange vows and the groom would give a blessing to his bride. The blessing was, “In my father’s house there are many rooms, I go to prepare a place for you and when I do I will come and take you to myself that where I am, you may also be.” [Sound familiar? This is what Jesus quotes identifying Himself as the true bridegroom.] At this point, they are legally bound.

Betrothal: The bride and groom would be a part for up to 12 months, he is preparing a place for her while she is remaining pure, waiting for his return.

Wedding Ceremony: At the end of the 12 months there was a wedding feast. This was the greatest of celebrations. The groom and his family/friends, on an unscheduled night, would make their way to the bride’s house to consummate the marriage in a wedding ceremony that would last up to 2 weeks.

The Groom: the main focus of the wedding. Unlike our weddings today (sorry ladies), the focus of the wedding was on the groom.

The Bridesmaids: main focus of the wedding party in this text. The bride picked out bridesmaids, unmarried virgins. Their job was simple, as the time was drawing near they were to be prepared on the night the groom came, they would take their lamps (torches), go out to meet him, and enter into the wedding processional. In this parable, 5 of them are wise and ready, 5 are foolish are have no oil.

The Intention of the Parable

The point of the parable is how true disciples live in between His first and second coming. These 10 virgins represent the visible church or “professing Christians”. In this parable, 5 virgins are considered wise and enter into the wedding feast and 5 are foolish and do not (vs. 10-11). So that’s the point, namely how do true disciples live during the time waiting for His return.

The Application of the Parable

True disciples are ready anytime!

Go to 24:36-39. Jesus is teaching the disciples that no man knows when He is going to come. Like in the days of Noah, everyone is eating and drinking, normal business until the flood. Just as the flood took the world by surprise, so will the coming of Christ. Though they knew the groom was coming, but they didn’t know when until it was announced (vs. 13). And at the moment it was announced, what separated the wise from the foolish was their readiness. Everything else looked the same; all are waiting, dressed, had lamps, gathered in the same place. If you looked at the 10 you could tell no difference! Yet one group was ready, one was not! You see, you can have the appearance of a Christian and not be ready.

Illustration: A few years ago there was a news story about a photographer who liked to skydive. He jumped from a plane with other skydivers to film the group. On one particular trip, when he reached for his ripcord he realized he was without his parachute. He was so caught up in what he was doing that he was unprepared for the jump to the loss of his own life.

“Heaven will be filled with people who believed in Jesus. Hell will be filled with people who meant to.” (Spurgeon)

True disciples live as though Jesus could return at any time! Does that mean sell everything, hide in a cave, and wait? No, notice that all of the virgins slept (vs. 5). Meaning, they went about their normal daily routine, but 1 group wakes up mindful that today could be the day.

Personal Preparation: when the announcement came they first tried to borrow their way in, but the other virgins only had enough oil from themselves. Listen, God does not have any grandchildren, he only has children. When Jesus comes it won’t matter that you wife or parents believed, it will only matter if you are ready.

Can’t be bought: They then tried to buy their way in, frantically trying to find a market open at night thinking the entire time “better late than never” and yet the failed to realize that when it comes to the return of the groom, late = never! True disciples are ready now!

True disciples are prepared to wait a long time!

The disciples are thinking this is going to happen now, but Jesus (given his soon death) wants to teach his disciples how to be faithful during the delay? So he tells a parable about a faithful servant (45-51), master and tenants (25:19), and the ten virgins (25:5). What do all of these have in common…delay! In other words, JESUS MAY TAKE LONGER THAN YOU THINK. And the difference between the wise and foolish are those who stayed faithful.

4 They will say, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation."…8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (2 Pt 3:4, 8)

“But I think He’s coming soon. I see all these signs coming together. There are wars and earthquakes.”

That may be true, but you are missing the point! (24:4-14) When Jesus speaks of wars and famines, He’s not giving his disciples an end-of-the-world timeline, He’s preparing them to be persecuted. When Jesus speaks of tribulation, He is not talking about some future tribulation period; he’s talking about the tribulation his disciples will face very soon. When Jesus compares this to a woman giving child-birth, He’s is training a group men some of who would be crucified upside down, some boiled to death, don’t lose heart, something new and glorious is coming! This isn’t meant for prophecy debates or to give TV evangelists with ungodly hairpieces something to talk about. It’s meant to prepare the kind of disciple who though the bridegroom tarries, endures to the end!

If your response to an earthquake is to put another check on your prophecy list rather than prayer, if you are spending more time trying to figure out who the anti-Christ will be rather than trying to defeat the spirit of anti-Christ in your own life, if all your hope is thinking you will one day be removed from tribulation rather than putting all your hope in the One who will resurrect those killed for His name sake, if you are more concerned about the timing of His return than loving with all your heart the One who will one day split the sky, I don’t care how many Left Behind books you’ve read, you may already be!

What the disciples want to know is “what are the signs?” What Jesus wants to know is, “are you the kind of disciple who grows tired and weary?” Because true disciples live as though the return of Christ could happen right now, but keep on serving when he doesn’t!

True disciples will be rewarded with a great time!

Jesus is compares heaven and his return to a wedding ceremony and he is doing that intentionally. This is the imagery in many other places in Scripture. John writes, And the angel said to me, "Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb."(Rev 19:9)

The wedding was the largest celebration you could have. In our day, this is like a wedding, Superbowl party, 50-yr anniversary all in one. It was a time of great joy. And when that day comes Jesus says it will be immediate, it will be intimate, “they went in with Him” and it will be eternal!

Are you ready? Not just believe in God or belong to a church, but have you made personal preparation to see Jesus? The Bible is clear in how we can be prepared. Repent of sin. Believe who Jesus is. Surrender to Him. Live for Him. Do not say, “Someday I’ll come to Christ.” Come now. Do not say, “I’ll repent later.” Such were the words of 5 foolish virgins!

Are you awake? Have you grown weary, sluggish, unfocused? Consumed in politics, relationships, deadlines at work, than the things of God? Wake up! Distracted or disinterested disciples will not be sufficient on that Day!

Are you watching/preparing? Worldliness is adultery for we are awaiting a wedding!

If not, you will find yourself like that San Francisco Chronicle reporter some day, standing behind a closed door…knocking, and knocking. Only this time the door never opens and you’re left wondering “I don’t understand.”

Watching for His Return,
Pastor Wes

An article from the Herald and Review about TBC Missions

2011-05-31T10:54:00.000-07:00

Dentist, Tabernacle Baptist Church members serve those in need of surgery, shelter

By JIM VOREL - H&R Staff Writer Posted: Friday, May 27, 2011 8:00 pm

DECATUR - When dentist and former soldier Dr. Kelly Clark last visited Juarez, Mexico, in 2010 as part of Tabernacle Baptist Church's mission trip program, he decided to offer a little free dental work, unsure of what kind of response he would have. Two days later, Clark and his aching back had served more than 70 patients, who came to have painful, infected teeth pulled after hearing of the American missionary performing dentistry at no charge. Now, Clark and the Tabernacle Baptist group are going back again, and he's bringing his dental tools with him.

"My back will feel better, I'm just happy to help," said Clark, a father of two and owner of Decatur Dental Care. "There is a great need in some of these impoverished towns for assistance of all kind, especially in housing, which is the real reason for the trip."

This will actually be Clark's third time making the trip with Tabernacle Baptist, which has spent five days each year in a small town outside the city of Juarez, each time constructing small, simple homes for needy families. Although the size of these completed dwellings are only "what people here would think of as a garage," in Clark's words, the important thing is to offer any shelter to those who have none.

"We go into areas where a home consists of just some wooden pallets on the ground," he said. "In one place, we met a family of six that was living out of their van. With the building we create, we're able to put a roof over their heads and give them electricity."

The dentistry Clark also offers was simply a natural addition; a way to spend his evenings in Juarez helping people after construction work has halted for the night. The sophistication of his setup in the small town is extremely simple: a tiny room with a single folding chair for the patient, a table to hold dental instruments, and a head-mounted light for Clark to see by. But still, the residents are thankful for any dental attention.

"We numb up three people at a time to pull teeth, so we can do as many as possible in one night," Clark said. "All we're able to offer is extractions of teeth, but most of the time when the tooth goes, the infection goes with it. These people are thankful because some of them are living every day in pain."

This isn't Clark's first time performing dental work far from home. He also did the same duties in Iraq, during his service in the military from 2000-03. The army paid for his final two years of dental school, in exchange for Clark's service in the field, performing basic dental work for soldiers on the front lines, operating out of a small tent.

"I was assigned to a field unit far from base, using portable dental equipment," he said. "I had access to things like X-ray, pretty much everything I needed, except air conditioning."

That tent, however, looks like a fully stocked dental office compared to the scarcity of equipment and services available in the outskirts of Juarez. In his time there, Clark said he's never seen another practicing dentist, and that he believes most tooth problems are never addressed due to a lack of professionals or lack of funds. Couple that with the plethora of challenges facing those without a structure to call home in the area, and you have a community in desperate need of help.

"Anyone who feels the need to help should make this trip," Clark said. "You don't need to have any construction experience at all to help build a home for these people. You just need to be there and be ready to help and listen to instructions."

The number of members attending Tabernacle Baptist's trip to Juarez has slowly increased, from 11 in Clark's first year, to 14 the second, and 17 this year. The dentist has even brought along his two children, ages 8 and 10, in an experience he believes has helped open their eyes and broaden their worldview to the struggles experienced by the less fortunate around the globe.

"They were humbled by it, I think," he said. "They didn't speak the language at all, but by the end of our time there, they had befriended all the other children and we're hanging out, playing soccer. I think it's been a really valuable experience for all of us."

Substitutionary Baptism? Paul's teaching on the "baptism of the dead."

2011-05-17T11:20:00.000-07:00

In our Sunday evening class we’ve been studying the views of Mormonism. One of the practices of Mormonism is baptism for the sake of the dead, were Mormons are baptized in the place of non-Mormon’s who have died with the belief that in the afterlife the “newly” baptized person (i.e. the deceased non-Mormon) will be able to enter into a higher level of Mormon heaven.

Quotes from Mormon leaders concerning the “baptism of the dead”

"The greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us is to seek after our dead...Those saints who neglect it in behalf of their deceased relatives, do it at peril of their own salvation" (Joseph Smith, in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.356, 196).

"These are the principles in relation to the dead and the living...their salvation is necessary and essential to our salvation...they without us cannot be made perfect---neither can we without our dead be made perfect...there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children...it is baptism for the dead. For we without them cannot be made perfect" (Doctrine and Covenants 128:15,18).

Biblical Basis?

Mormons also believe that this is what Paul is teaching in 1 Corinthians 15:29 where Paul writes, “Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? Is this what Paul is speaking of? Can one represent another in baptism? [It should be pointed out here that Mormons also believe water baptism saves so therefore being baptized, an act of salvation, for someone else can be the means of another’s salvation.]

What is Paul actually teaching in 1 Corinthians 15?

To conclude the Mormon teaching of “baptism of the dead” from 1 Corinthians 15:29 is to complete ignore context and faithful exegesis. Let’s take a look at Paul’s teaching in the larger context of this passage.

1. Paul, in the first 19 verses of chapter 15, has focused specifically on the resurrection of Christ as a historical fact. There were some within the Corinthian church who had started doubting this reality, therefore Paul deals with the proofs of the resurrection. In addition, Paul gives the theological implications if Jesus is not resurrected, namely we are still dead in our sins (15:12-19)

2. Next, in verses 20-23, Paul speaks of the order of the resurrection [Christ first, then those who are united with Him will be resurrected when He returns]. From there, Paul deals with the reign of Christ and the final destruction of death.

3. From this Paul questions, “what will those do who are not baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?”

Historical Context

Paul is writing to the church in Corinth. Corinth was surrounded by a variety of pagan religions. One group in particular was located in a city named Eleusis, just north of Corinth. This group practiced baptism in the sea as a guarantee for a good afterlife and anticipation of a future resurrection (see Homer in “Hymn to Demeter” pg 478-79).

The Corinthian church had demonstrated on multiple occasions to have been influenced by the beliefs around them, thus Paul’s writing to “set the straight.” An example of this can be found in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 where Paul quotes the false teachers (“Food is for the stomach and the stomach for food”) but goes on to teach the Corinthians that the “body is for the Lord and the Lord is for the body (6:13). {There are more examples of this kind of referencing in 1 Corinthians as well and in Acts 17 where Paul quotes their own philosophers as a means of leading them to Christ.]

Meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:29

So going back to 1 Corinthians 15:29, what does Paul mean then by the “baptism of the dead?” Paul, knowing of the practice and teaching of this pagan religion, uses them as an example. Since Paul’s primary point has been “if there is no resurrection, we are dead in our sin and our preaching is in vain (12-13)”, he uses the example of these pagans (those who were trying to be baptized for the dead) as an example to show than even the pagans see the importance of the resurrection otherwise they would not practice “baptism for the dead.”

One of the key phrases in the text is “otherwise what do people”. Therefore, Paul is NOT encouraging the practice and the Corinthians are NOT practicing such a ritual. Rather, Paul is trying to show believers the importance of the resurrection by showing them that if the pagans around them place such a great importance on the resurrection, how much more those who put their faith in the resurrected Christ.

Now some will respond that the above is not correct because the word “they” is not in the Greek text, namely “they are baptized on their behalf” rather than “you (the Corinthians) are baptized on their behalf.” However, the Greek word “baptizontia” is a present, passive, indicative, in the 3rd person, plural, meaning that “they” (3rd plural, the pagans not the Corinthians) are “being baptized” (present passive).

Therefore, Paul is simply using an example practiced by the pagans to illustrate how important even the pagans view the resurrection. How much more should we who have find our identity in the true resurrection…Jesus of Nazareth, the ONLY ONE who was baptized (the cross) on behalf of others!!!

Pastor Wes

A Christian response to the death of Osama Bin Laden

2011-05-05T12:08:00.000-07:00

One of the questions Christians are forced to deal with is, "How should a Christian respond to the death of Bin Laden?" Some will argue that we should rejoice because justice has been served, while others will defend that the death of someone (regardless of how evil) should be grieved. So how should Christians respond to this event?

I personlly think a Christian should have mixed emotions.

On one hand, a Christian should grieve the death of Bin Laden. They should grieve the death of anyone created in the image of God, they should grieve because hell is real and those without Christ will face the eternal judgment of God, and they should grieve because it remins us of the sinfulness of mankind is a present reality. I understand why many will be quick to "rejoice" in this event (and will argue below the way in which one should), but we check our emotions in light of the gospel. Death is tragic, sin has consequences, hell is real, and Jesus is the only hope! Therefore, death, regardless of who, is to be grieved.

On the other hand, I believe a Christian can and should rejoice in the justice of Bin Laden's death. Notice the difference! There is a difference in rejoicing in the death of someone (small lens) and rejoicing in what the death represents (larger lens). Bin Laden was an evil man, who was responsible for the death of hundreds thus requiring his own life as a just consequence (Genesis 9:6). In addition, God has ordained government in the yielding of the sword to carry out such justice (Romans 13). In this, we can rejoice. Therefore, when asked the question, "Should a Christian rejoice in the death of Bin Laden or grieve over it?" My answer is "yes." Biblically we must do both.

Below are a few links that provide more perspective on this issue. I think you will find them helpful in thinking through this issue.

http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/05/02/the-trial-that-still-must-come-the-death-of-osama-bin-ladin-and-the-limits-of-human-justice/

http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/is-god-glad-osama-bin-ladens-dead

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=91717

Pastor Wes

2011-04-04T12:10:00.000-07:00

The Relationship between Church Membership, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper: a position paper for Tabernacle Baptist Church.

By Dr. Wes Feltner (with help from Pastor Brandt Waggoner)

Over the past few years I have noticed that many in the church have struggled with issues related to church membership, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper. I have often been asked to explain why we emphasize the necessity of church membership, why we do not recognizes “infant baptism” as biblical baptism, or why we only biblically baptized believers should partake of Communion. My hope is that this article will help you think through these issues, regardless of what position you hold, as well as give an explanation as to how we believe these issues work in relationship to one another.

Let me first give an overview of each element.

Does the New Testament teach Church Membership?

The simple answer to this question is “Yes.” Now if one is looking for the term “membership” one will not find such a word used in Scripture (although it does commonly use “members” of one another as in Romans 12 and other places). However, just because the word “membership” is not used does not mean the activity is not practiced. For instance, words like “Trinity” and “rapture” are not used either and yet such doctrines are taught in Scripture.

A biblical overview of church membership…

1. Broader Model: While not specifically addressing “church membership,” there is a broader model in Scripture of recording names who are identified with a specific people (i.e. Israel, believers in heaven, etc.). See Exodus 32:32-33, Daniel 12:1, Philippians 4:3, and Revelation 13:8, 20:12, 15. Again, this does not prove church membership, but shows a larger model recorded keeping identification.

2. Acts 2: In the early church, after individuals believed in the gospel and were baptized, they were “added” into the life of the church (2:41). Regardless of how one interprets this, there was clearly some distinguishing mark, after baptism, whereby baptized believers were identified as being a part of the community of faith.

3. Church Discipline: In 1 Corinthians 5 Paul is rebuking the church for not expelling a man who is a part of the church but is living in serious immorality.

a. Paul writes: “But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral, or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. ‘Expel the wicked man from among you.’ (1 Corinthians 5:11-13)

b. Paul clarifies that he is not calling members of the church to avoid associating with those outside the church who are living a sinful lifestyle because they are expected to act in such a way. His concern is that these Christians not associate with people who call themselves Christians and are in the church, but go on living a sinful lifestyle. These people are to be expelled from the church. Now, if Paul differentiates between those who are inside the Corinthian church and those who are outside, clearly there is a way to determine who is in and who is out. In addition, how do you remove someone from the congregation if they are not a member of it? In other words, it is impossible to exercise discipline without having some way of identifying who is and who is not a part of the local church. Those inside the church were members who had made a formal commitment to the church and as a result the church leadership had counted them among their number.

4. Inside/Outsider Language: (1 Corinthians 14:23)

a. Paul writes: “If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?”

b. Similarly to the previous passage, Paul speaks of the “whole church” which is clearly not the universal church but all those who are members of that local congregation. He goes on to say that “outsiders” or “unbelievers” may enter. How would the Corinthian church know the difference if there was not some way of identifying who belonged to the “whole church” and who was an “outsider”?

5. “One Body” and “Membership” Language (1 Corinthians 12:12-16)

a. Paul writes: “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many…As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.” (12:12-16)

b. This picture of a church as a body pictures individual Christians as the members of a human body. At the core of what it means to be a member of a local church is a commitment to the rest of the “body parts” (members). In order to have unity, a believer must know exactly what people they are committed to living alongside as a unified body, and make a whole-hearted commitment to seeking the good of this group as a whole. Membership is a requirement in order to know who the other “body members” are that we are committing to, in order to live the life that Christ, as the head, intends for His church.

6. Church Leadership: In passages like Hebrews 13:7, 17-18; 1 Thessalonians 5:11-14; 1 Peter 5:2; and others, elders/pastors are exhorted to “watch over the flock” entrusted to them. How are pastors to care for the flock without having some way of knowing who is and who is not a part of that local congregation?

What does the New Testament teach about Baptism?

1. The Meaning of Baptism: Union with Christ

a. The public identification of union with Christ, symbolizing the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:3-4; Colossians 2:12).

b. The public identification of new life in Christ. (2 Corinthians 5:17; Romans 6:4)

2. The Subject of Baptism: Believers Only

a. EVERY New Testament baptism was someone who had repented of their sin and exercised faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 2:41, Acts 8:12-13, and others). Therefore, baptism is only for believers. Therefore, baptism is not baptism if the person is not a genuine believer in Jesus Christ. This would, of course, rule out people who have not exercised faith prior to their baptism or were unable to (as in infants) at the time of their “baptism.”

b. Note: It should be noted that baptism does NOT make you a Christian – it is meant to show that you are one. Baptism does not "save" you, only faith in Christ does (Eph 2:8-9). Examples of salvation preceding baptism can be found in Acts 10:44-48 and 1 Cor 1:14-17. However, given the importance and command of baptism, refusal to be baptized would cause concern about the genuineness of ones salvation.

3. The Mode of Baptism: Immersion

a. Jesus was baptized by immersion (Matthew 3:16)
b. Every New Testament baptism was immersion (Acts 8:38-39)
c. The very meaning of the word “baptizo” means “to immerse or dip under water.”
d. Conclusion: we believe strongly that the Bible teaches that baptism is only by immersion. This would, of course, eliminate sprinkling or pouring as legitimate forms of baptism.

4. The Importance of Baptism: Obedience

a. Following the example of Christ (Matthew 3)
b. Following the commands of Christ (Matthew 28)
c. Following the pattern of the New Testament church (Acts 2; and others)

5. The Timing of baptism: Post-conversion

a. Every New Testament baptism occurred after the individual exercised faith in Christ and was the visible sign in the early church of ones union with Christ (Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-4; Col 2:11-12). Therefore, baptism is the first sign of obedience and testimony in the believer’s life. Though the believer is not necessarily baptized within seconds of exercising faith, it should be done sooner rather than later.

What does the Bible teach about the Lord’s Supper?

1. The Subject of the Lord’s Supper

a. Those who participated in the Lord’s Supper were individuals who were already believers in Christ and were in fellowship with other believers (1 Corinthians 10:16-17).

2. The Mode of the Lord’s Supper

a. The Lord’s Supper has two specific elements involved, namely bread and wine (or the fruit of the vine). This is represented in the Passover feast, faithful to Jesus’ instruction with his disciples in the Upper Room (Luke 22), and Paul’s instruction to New Testament churches (1 Corinthians 10).

3. The Timing of the Lord’s Supper

a. Unlike baptism, which happens one time for the believer, the Lord’s Supper is repeated in the life of the church as the ongoing act of remembering the accomplished work of Christ and the future kingdom of God.

4. Different views on the Lord’s Supper

a. Transubstantiation: The Roman Catholic teaching that the bread and wine actually become the literal flesh and blood of Jesus due to an over-literal reading of Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, and John 6:54-56.

b. Consubstantiation: The Lutheran and Anglican teaching that the bread and wine co-exists with the flesh and blood of Jesus.

c. Remembrance: The Baptist (and other Protestants) view that the bread and wine commemorates and symbolizes the flesh and blood of Christ. It points back to the work of Christ on the cross and forward to His future return, just as the Passover feast pointed back to Israel’s redemption from Egypt and forward to the promises of God. I will not take time to list all the reasons but simply note that we reject both transubstantiation and consubstantiation as biblical views of the Lord’s Supper.

The Relationship between Church Membership, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper

Before I discuss the relationship between these three, let’s look at a few key passages of Scripture.

1. The Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20). After the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Jesus charges his disciples (representing the building of His Church) with what is known as the “Great Commission.” Notice the order…

a. All authority is given to Jesus (through his finished work on the cross)
b. His disciples are to go into all nations (a call to preach the gospel)
c. They are to “baptize” in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (Baptism was seen as the public identification of conversion/salvation).
d. Then they were to “teach them to observe all that I have commanded you.”

2. The Early Church Pattern (Acts 2:41-42). The pattern in the New Testament was exactly the pattern that occurred in the early church.

a. Peter preaches the gospel (“Go to all nations”)
b. His hearers “believed” and were “baptized” (Conversion)
c. After their faith/baptism they were joined the fellowship of believers.
d. Then, as a part of the union with other believers, they “devoted themselves to the Apostles teaching, prayers, and breaking of bread (communion).” [“teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”]

3. Conclusion: The order of the Great Commission and the practice of the early church was the…
a. Preaching of the gospel
b. Followed by faith/baptism
c. Followed by joining the fellowship of believers
d. Followed by participation in the life of the church (discipleship, prayers, communion, etc.). It should be noted that there is no biblical evidence of their being any different pattern than this in the Newt Testament church.

The Relationship between Baptism and Church Membership

The follow reasons outline why we believe baptism should lead to church membership and why baptism is required before church membership.

1. The Great Commission does not separate baptism and discipleship

a. The three participles in the Great Commission involve “going, baptizing, and teaching.” Therefore, when churches separate baptizing from the ongoing teaching and discipleship in a local congregation, they are not fulfilling the Great Commission.

2. The pattern of the early church

a. As seen in Acts 2, after they “believed” and were “baptized” the joined the fellowship of believers. Therefore, those who joined the fellowship of believers had already participated in believer’s baptism. Therefore, one should not be allowed into the membership of the church without first identifying with Christ through baptism.

3. Baptism symbolizes union with Christ and His body

a. It is true that the church exists universally (all believers) and locally (believers in a local church). However, the universal church is expressed through the local body of believers. Baptism points to union with Christ (Romans 6:1-4) and union with Christ is expressed through the participation of the local church (Romans 12, 1 Cor 10:16-17, Eph 1:22-23, 2:16; Col 1:18, 2:19, 3:15, and many others). This is also why we should see baptism as a “church ordinance” and not simply an “individual ordinance.”

4. It is spiritual dangerous to baptize someone without their participation in the local church

a. In Matthew 28 and Acts 2, the Great Commission is not fulfilled without discipleship. Therefore, new believers need the teaching, accountability, and discipline of the local church. To allow individuals to be baptized and not be under the watch-care of the church is to undermine the Great Commission and is spiritually dangerous for the new believer.

The Relationship between Baptism and the Lord’s Supper

1. The teaching of Matthew 28 and Acts 2

a. In both of these passages the Lord’s Supper falls after baptism. In Matthew 28, the Lord’s Supper would only qualify as being under the “teaching them all that I have commanded you” clause and consequently would not come until after baptism. In Acts 2, they did not “break bread” with one another until after they had participated in baptism.

b. In the New Testament, the Lord’s Supper is always second in order of observance to baptism. There is no record of any person in the New Testament ever partaking of the Lord’s Supper without having first been baptized.
2. The Logical order

a. In addition, such order only makes logical sense. After all, since baptism is the initial sign of identity with Christ and His body, then a believer would NOT join with believers in partaking of the Lord’s Supper until they had first been identified with Christ in baptism.

3. Baptist Confession (TBC’s statement of faith)

a. Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Savior, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper. [The Baptist Faith & Message, 2000]

The Relationship between Church Membership and the Lord’s Supper

1. The teaching of Matthew 28 and Acts 2

a. As I noted above, the pattern in the early church was to join the fellowship of other believers before “breaking bread together.”

2. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”

a. Paul states here that the “bread we break” is “participation in the body of Christ.” Now some will try to argue that this means the universal body of all believers. If such is the case, then one would need to answer the following:

i. When does the universal church gather the Lord’s Supper? It doesn’t! Because there is no such thing as the gathering of the universal church. The universal church is only expressed through local churches.

ii. To whom is Paul writing? A local church geographically located in Corinth. Paul is writing about “their communion” and “their participation” with one another. While there is no doubt there are implications for the universal church, Paul has in mind the local gathering of believers in Corinth.

b. Therefore, Paul’s teaching recognizes that “participation in the body” and “participation in the Lord’s Supper” are in relation to one another. This is why we believe that all those who come to the Lord’s Table should be active participants (members) and under the accountability of a local congregation.

3. The Logical placement of Church Membership and Lord’s Supper

a. In addition to the biblical evidence, it makes logical sense that membership within a local congregation would be a prerequisite before partaking of the Lord’s Supper given that the Lord’s Supper is a “church ordinance” and not nowhere in Scripture an individual act. Both the Passover meal and the Last Supper imply a specific group identity. It is very problematic for someone to argue that he or she can come to the Lord’s Table if they have refused to participate with the body of Christ.

4. Differing views on how the Lord’s Super relates to Church Membership

a. Open: anyone who is saved may partake.
b. Close: all baptized believers who are members of local congregations of like-faith may partake (this is TBC’s practice).
c. Closed: all baptized believers who are members of a SPECIFIC congregation may partake.

Common Objections/Questions

1. Should a church prevent someone from the Lord’s Supper over something as small as disagreeing on the “mode of baptism?”

a. This question assumes Scripture isn’t clear on the right mode of baptism or that baptism can be something other that what the Bible teaches. As a result, one would be asking a church to compromise the witness of Scripture for the sake of inclusion.

2. Isn’t the Lord’s Supper is a Christian ordinance given to the church universal?

a. The Lord’s Supper is not something that we do on our own as individuals, but as Christ said only as often as we commune or “gather together.” We celebrate the Supper as a church family, coming together to one table where we share in this meal as brothers and sisters. Christ has brought us all together into one family, and His presence is among us as we unite to celebrate Him. We “participate in the body of Christ” by sharing one loaf and one cup. Only Christians are invited to this fellowship, because only Christians are part of this family that will one day sit down at a table with Christ himself.

3. Jesus never mentioned baptism or church membership at the Last Supper?

a. One must keep in mind that Jesus is transitioning between the Passover feast of Israel to the New Testament act of Communion. There is no church membership mentioned because there is no church. Therefore, one must look to the instruction of the New Testament to conclude how these issues relate to one another.

4. What about the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8? He wasn’t a part of a local church.

a. First, it is likely that there was no church in Ethiopia at the time because the gospel was starting to spread.
b. Second, we are not given enough follow-up information concerning this situation as to discern what happened after his baptism.
c. Third, one should never take one example (of which we do not have all the surrounding information) and a make a universal principle out of it when the entire rest of the New Testament demonstrates to practice of baptism into the local body.

5. Won’t such “rules” seem unfriendly or unloving to visitors?

a. First, we do not view these as “rules” but as biblical guidelines.
b. While we will make every effort to be friendly and loving to visitors, being a friendly and loving church should not be equated to compromising biblical conviction. A local church cannot, even with good intentions, fail to maintain the proper administration of the church.

For His Glory,
Dr. Wes Feltner
Senior Pastor TBC

Like a virgin: what the first Madonna song teaches us about God.

2010-12-13T13:37:00.000-08:00

It’s the time of year where almost every radio station you turn on, every store you go in, almost everywhere you go you hear Christmas music. Have you noticed how almost every Christmas song is about happiness or joy?

Songs like…
• “Chestnuts roasting on an open fire”
• “I’m dreaming of a White Christmas”
• “Joy the World”
• “We wish you a Merry Christmas”
• “Tis the season to be jolly”

Christmas is a very sentimental time of year. But have you ever stopped to realize that the events surrounding the first Christmas were far from sentimental or jolly.

The Gospels reveal the anger of King Herod as he orders the slaughter of children in hopes to eliminate the threat posed by this “Christ-child.” The shepherds who are out in the fields are all of a sudden startled by warrior-like (known as angels) beings announcing the birth of Christ. Joseph, a day-laborer, just trying to make ends meet is told that his wife-to-be is pregnant and he knows he had nothing to do with it. He is now asked to put everything on the line to accept this story that the Holy Spirit has conceived a child in Mary and that she has not been unfaithful.

And then there’s Mary. When we think of Mary we often think of her as a soft-spoken woman with a blanket over her head. She’s a peaceful and sentimental prop in a nativity set. But that is not the picture we get from the Scriptures. Mary is a poor, peasant, teenage girl who has just received the news that she will give birth to the Son of God. News that one would think would bring excitement, but that is not Mary’s immediate response. Mary is afraid!

The Anxiety of Mary

Luke tells us that when Mary receives the news she is scared to death (Luke 2:29). An angel speaks to her and tries to calm her down saying “do not be afraid” (2:30). And then Luke says she “makes haste” to go to Judah to see Elizabeth. While the birth of Jesus is wonderful news, one can hardly blame Mary for being frightened as to how this will all turn out.

Why would this announcement make Mary so anxious?

1. Economically: She is married to a day-laborer and now will have to support a child.
2. Martially: She will have to break the news to Joseph. Matthew tells us that apart from an angel speaking to him he most likely would have broken off the engagement and put her away.
3. Socially: She might end up being a single-mom, not to mention that having a baby during a betrothal was socially unacceptable (and against OT law).
4. Spiritually: And on top of that she has just been told she will be the mother of God? How’s that for pressure? Try leading the prayer at that family meal? Try leading the family devotion when your child is the Creator of the world?

So the news of this birth brings financial, marital, social, and spiritual problems. I’d make haste and flee to Judah too! This was not sentimental, it’s far from a “jolly season” in the life of Mary. The first Christmas is more like “God I trust you, but I’m scared to death.”

The first Christmas wasn’t sentimental, because life isn’t always sentimental. Life is full of marriages that are one fight away from separation, financial struggles, silence caused from the loss of a loved one, and the building pressures of negative pregnancy tests. You see, sometimes God’s richest blessings come when your soul is the most troubled. It certainly was for Mary!

The Affirmation of Elizabeth

So Mary makes haste for Judah to visit her relative Elizabeth, a woman who Luke tells us had been barren all her life until about 6 months before this. In that day if you were barren, it was believed that you were being punished by God for something. So Elizabeth was a woman who knew suffering.

Now Elizabeth’s response says something significant. She has known the pain of barrenness all of her life and for the past 6 months has known the joy of pregnancy only to have her younger relative, who has never known the sufferings and reproach of barrenness, reveal the news that she is conceiving of an even more miraculous child than her own. Can’t you see the temptation to say “I’m really happy for you” as she walks away crying in the other room?

But Elizabeth is secure in God’s plan for her life. She is not drowning in self-pity or unrighteous jealousy? There is great freedom that comes when you can joyfully embrace God’s story in your life without comparing it to someone else's. Elizabeth was secure in the plan that God had for her and it didn’t have to be the same plan God has for Mary. This allowed Elizabeth to encourage Mary in her time of stress. Even the baby within Elizabeth leaped for joy!

Elizabeth’s words ministered to Mary, it brought her comfort. Through the affirmation of Elizabeth, Mary’s anxiety turned to adoration.

The Adoration of Mary

Things started to settle in for Mary and the text says that her soul turned to God and began to worship him in a song. Mary has just been told “blessed are you among women” and yet her response is to turn and praise God rather than glorify herself. Mary not only magnifies God, but she rejoices in God. Her joy in God surpasses the pain and anxiety of life.

How is Mary able to magnify God and find joy in God? I believe it was Mary’s view of God. Mary says at least 10 things that serve as an anchor when we are frightened and uncertain.

i. God is in control (“Lord”) Mary calls God her “Lord”. Mary could magnify and rejoice in God even in her circumstances because God was in control, not her.

ii. God will deliver (“Savior”) Mary calls God her “deliverer”. Mary believes that God will rescue her and lift her up in her time of need. [*Important to note that Mary realizes her need for a Savior, she’s not perfect.]

iii. God knows my situation (“looked on the estate”) Mary says that God has “looked on her lowly estate.” In other words, God is not unaware of her situation, He knows what the consequences will be, He knows what the outcome will be, and there is a great comfort in knowing that He knows.

iv. God is for me (“will call me blessed”) Mary realizes that though this situation is a lot to bear, God is for her. However this story unfolds, God has promised that her name will be blessed.

v. God has done great things (“has done great things”) Mary takes inventory of God’s resume. He has done amazing things in the past, and He has not changed!

vi. God is holy (“holy is His name”) Mary mediates on the nature and character of God. God is good, and perfect, and everything He does is right. Holy is His name.

vii. God is powerful (“strength in His arm”) In the eyes of man, this story seems impossible. But there is nothing that is impossible with God.

viii. God is just (“brought down thrones”) Mary sees God as a just God who holds the proud accountable. If this birth is the plan of God, then those who try to stand in His way will be put to shame.

ix. God is merciful (“his mercy is for those who fear”) Mary knows that those who look to Him will be shown mercy even when they don’t deserve it. God takes the proud and humbles them; God takes the humble and lowly and exalts them.

“Praise you God that you take peasant girls and give them a name, thank you that you take a criminal on a cross and give him paradise, thank you that you take fishermen and make them the foundation on which you will build your kingdom. Thank you that you will take a baby born in a manger and a man from Nazareth and change the world. Thank you that no one is too lowly that you will not lift up.”

x. God remembers His promises (“Ab and offspring”) Mary realizes that God is doing something through this birth that is fulfilling a promise of long ago. God had promised Abraham an offspring, God had promised David a heir to the throne, God had promised, and what God promises, He always delivers. God has not forgotten his people!!!

Now that’s a song! Mary has gone from worrier to worshiper, from afraid of shame to her name being blessed before many, from lowly to lifted up, from anxious to adoring God. Mary put her faith and found her joy in the true and living God. The God who is in control, the God who saves, the God who knows, the God who is for us, the God who has done great things, the God who is holy, the God who is powerful, the God who is just, the God who is merciful, and the God who always fulfills His promises.

Maybe this season we would do well to turn off for a moment the happy, sentimental Christmas songs and sing the Christmas song of a frightened, teenage peasant girl who was scared for her life. Her song is not a song about a baby who "no crying he makes", but a song about a man who cried out, “Father forgive them, they know not what they do.” Her song is not a song about sleigh rides in the snow, but a Savior on a cross. Mary’s song was a song of faith! Will you sing with her? If you do, you may feel something inside you leap for joy!

Pastor Wes

Divorce and Church Leadership

2010-12-08T11:13:00.000-08:00

Recently we studied the topic of “Divorce and Remarriage” in our Sunday night “Hard Questions” series. We were unable (due to time) to get to implications for church leadership. As promised, here our some notes to reflect on.

The debate really centers on the meaning of the qualification μιας γυναικος ανδρα, usually translated "husband of one wife" in 1 Timothy 3 for both pastors (elders) as well as deacons.

A few cautions:

1. Too Inclusive: Some, in the name of grace, want to lower the bar and make it easier for people to qualify as elders or deacons. This is usually because someone “knows someone” who they think should qualify rather than starting with the Scripture.

2. Too Exclusive: Others will wish to raise the bar and make it more difficult to qualify.

3. We should not make the qualifications of pastor/deacon any more inclusive or exclusive than God does. We must let the text say what it says, regardless of how difficult or unpopular it may be. Scripture is not written to back up our preferences.

Views on “husband of one wife”

1. Polygamy: Some say the phrase should be taken to mean that a polygamist is not qualified to be a pastor or deacon. This is the most literal interpretation of the phrase. Though I have been quick to dismiss this view in the pastor, there is a credible argument to be made on this point. D.A. Carson, for instance, argues that Paul is talking about those who have come into the church from the “outside” world, which would have had polygamist. As a mark of church leadership, pastors and deacons should be models for the “one-wife” picture of Genesis 2. Though credible, I am not convinced (yet) that this is what Paul is addressing directly (though indirectly in certainly applies).

2. Married, not single: This is remotely possible since the Sanhedrin—an elder sort of leadership body—required that its members be married, because a married man would be more merciful in his judgment. That Paul is requiring that all church elders and deacons be married seems unlikely, since Paul himself was not married, and actually argues for greater ministry freedom for the unmarried (1 Corinthians 7). The apostle Peter calls himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1: “Now the presbyters among you, I, who am fellow presbyter and witness of the sufferings of Christ and a partaker of the glory that will be revealed, exhort: shepherd the flock of God among you, being overseers....”

3. Moral Purity: This would indicate that a pastor or deacon must be absolutely loyal to the woman he is married to. This interpretation focuses more on moral purity than marital status. Given the additional clause of “above reproach” moral purity is most certainly apart of the qualifications whether that is what is meant by “husband of one wife” or not.

4. One Marriage (no divorce): The phrase could also be understood to declare that in order to be an elder/deacon/pastor, a man can only have been married once, meaning his has never been divorced. The problem with this view is that someone could be divorced and never have remarried and would not have broken this qualification theoretically. In other words, since singleness is clearly not apart of the discussion (see comments above) and a man has divorced by not remarried, one could not argue that “being the husband of one wife” has been broken based upon the divorce alone.

It is noteworthy that Paul doesn’t say “no divorce” he says “husband of one wife.” If that is what Paul meant, it would have been easy to make such a statement clear. In addition, the Bible provides grounds for divorce: adultery (Mt. 19:9) and abandonment of a non-believing spouse (1 Cor. 7:15). This does not settle the question about pastors and divorce, but it does tell us to acknowledge that a pastor, like anyone else, can be the innocent victim of a spouse’s covenant-breaking sin. Moreover, the biblical standards for the office of elder – which includes pastors – contain guidance about marriage.

Therefore, if a man can justly (keeping within biblical guidelines) divorce his wife it doesn’t not necessarily make him unqualified (it doesn’t guarantee that he is qualified either).

What it does mean?

Interpretations 1) and 3) are the most likely. Interpretation 4) seems to be unlikely, primarily because Scripture clear permits (though doesn’t command) divorce in exceptional circumstances (Matthew 19). Since, therefore, the phrase “husband of one wife” do not necessarily exclude a divorced man from serving as an elder/deacon/pastor, there are other issues to consider one must consider.

1. “Above reproach”: The divorce could have occurred in a way that disqualifies a man over this. The means circumstances of the divorce matter. If the man committed adultery and abandoned his wife and children, then he has broken this qualification. But if the man was the innocent party or and if the man has gained the respect of Christians and non-believers by his subsequent conduct in marriage, then I do not see why his divorce renders him less than “above reproach.”

2. “Manage his household well”: Paul links the man’s ability to lead the church as demonstrated in his ability to lead his family. If the divorce someone breaks this then he would be disqualified. However, if the divorce is not a reflection on the man’s leadership (and there are certain examples of this) then the divorce does not necessarily disqualify.

3. Did he remarry? If he divorced for non-biblical reasons and remarried then he is not a “one-woman man” and would be disqualified based on this qualification. See Luke 16:10 and Mark 10:10-12.

4. Is he sexually faithful? Regardless of divorce or no divorce, is he currently sexually faithful to his wife.

Additional comments on the phrase “husband of one wife”

“The phrase literally reads, "one-woman man." As simple as that sounds, it has been the subject of numerous interpretations....(some) have interpreted the phrase to mean that a candidate for overseer must never have been divorced in his life...But this seems to be too restrictive...in light of Jesus' words in Matthew 19:9, where he permits--though He does not promote--divorce on the grounds of sexual immorality. So what does 'husband of one wife' mean? Taken in its most basic sense, it means that an overseer, if married, must be married to only one woman (which excludes bigamy, polygamy, and homosexuality) and must be devoted to his wife (which excludes promiscuity and an unhealthy marriage)." (Chuck Swindoll, Guide to 1st Timothy, pg 41)

"Paul is not referring to a leader's marital status...rather the issue is his moral, sexual behavior. Many men married only once are not one-woman men. Many with one wife are unfaithful to that wife. While remaining married to one woman is commendable, it is not indication or guarantee of moral purity. Some may wonder why Paul begins his list with this quality. He does so because it is in this area, above all others, where leaders seem most prone to fall. The failure to be a one-woman man has put more men out of the ministry than any other sin. It is thus a matter of grave concern. The Scriptures permit and honor second marriages under the proper circumstances....Still others hold that this qualification excludes divorced men, from spiritual leadership. That again, ignores the fact that Paul is not referring to marital status. Nor does the Bible forbid all remarriage after a divorce. In Matthew 5;31-32 and Matthew 19:9, our Lord permitted remarriage when a divorce was caused by adultery." (John Macarthur)

Final Comments

1. Therefore I believe what Paul has in mind is that to be the “husband of one wife” or “a one-woman man” means that…

a. If married, he is morally pure and faithful to his wife (obvious from text).
b. Not a polygamist (obvious from text).
c. If divorced, he was not the guilty part and the divorce was on biblical grounds (from other Scriptures and “above reproach” clause).
d. If divorced, the divorce did not bring reproach on his name nor bring question to his ability to lead and manage his family (from the “above reproach” and “manage his household well” clause).
e. If divorced and remarried, does the remarriage make him unable to be considered a “one-woman man?” If divorced and remains single (given the above is true) then he is still qualified as well.

2. Grace makes clear that all sin is forgiven in the cross, but it also calls for us to hold church leaders to a high standard.

3. It is important to remember, though, that just because a man is disqualified from serving as an elder/deacon/pastor, he is still a valuable member of the body of Christ and can (and should) serve in many other key leadership positions.

Pastor Wes

THE GAY GENE AND THE EVANGELICAL RESPONSE

2010-12-06T18:25:00.000-08:00

The homosexuality debate is one of the most important issues facing the church today, specifically whether homosexuals are biologically predisposed or if such a lifestyle is a matter of choice. Most evangelicals are committed to the view that homosexuality is a self-consciously chosen sexual preference (and an immoral one at that). On the other hand, many homosexuals would argue homosexuality is caused, not chosen. According to such a view, homosexuals are born predisposed to such tendencies, often emerging later in life, but have been possessed from birth. So how should a Christian respond?

Relevance to the Homosexual Community

The possibility of biological factors influencing or determining an individual’s drive towards homosexual behaviors has significant implications for most homosexuals. First of all, many in the homosexual community see biological predetermination as grounds for recognized rights. “A major goal of the homosexual-rights movement has been to stipulate a biological cause of homosexuality, in order to shift the discussion of homosexuality from morality to minority rights.”[i] If homosexuality is caused from birth, and is therefore not merely the choice of the individual, advocates believe rights should be given to homosexuals like any other minority. For many homosexuals, biological determination removes any notion of blame and should lead to accepted sexual orientation. “It could gain them the civil-rights protections accorded any ‘natural’ minority…”[ii] It is important to mention that not all in the homosexual community are concerned with whether or not there is a biological connection, for them homosexuality is legitimate either way.

Biological predisposition also raises the question of whether homosexuality should become an accepted moral lifestyle. “It then becomes necessary to accept human sexual diversity rather than to find ways to limit it. The question becomes less of a moral one and more a statement of biological fact.”[iii] One should understand, however, that there is a difference between giving rights to homosexuals and accepting the lifestyle completely.

If there is a biological connection, many homosexuals will want to go as far as to say that homosexuality is therefore moral and given as a gift from God. “A homosexual man could claim that because he inherited the gay gene and did not choose a gay orientation by his own free will, he is morally innocent.”[iv] According to their view, if homosexuality is biological then it must be natural, and if natural, it must be moral. Many homosexuals even want to claim that God has gifted some with homosexual desires. Notice this chilling article written by a gay woman:

Yes, God has called me. He did not just choose just my mind, just my body, just my speaking ability, just my caring. He chose me—the total and complete me. He not only chose me, but he made me. He has gifted me and a portion of that gift is my being gay. Yes, being gay is a gift from God and we are called by this same loving God to be the best, total, loving persons we can be. To do this, we must learn to love ourselves as God loves us—completely, unconditionally, totally—with all our gifts, including, and maybe especially, our gift of gayness.[v]

The progression of thought is clearly seen. Genetic homosexuality starts with rights, leads to acceptability, and concludes, at least in part, with morality and God-given approval. The homosexual community claims “homosexual behavior is naturally occurring, morally blameless behavior which should find expression.”[vi]

The importance of the issue is obvious. The next question that must be answered is whether or not there is any proof to makes any biological connection with homosexuality? Does the homosexual community have any grounds to make a case for predisposition upon birth? Is homosexuality volitional or is it a matter of genetics?

Overview of research

Research related to Twins

One of the most common studies conducted concerning homosexuality and biological influence is the genetic similarities found in twins. A popular study, done by Bailey and Pillard, compared fifty-six monozygotic twins, fifty-four dizygotic twins, and fifty-seven nongenetically related adopted brothers.[vii] These experiments tried to pin point particular genes with particular traits. The idea is that the more genes an individual shares with another, especially in situations like identical twins, the more common traits that should be found. In this particular study, Bailey and Pillard found that 52 percent of monozygotic twins were both gay, 22 percent of dizygotic twins were found to be gay, while only eleven percent of adoptive brothers were shown to be gay.[viii] Bailey and Pillard did a similar study on lesbian women, and the results were practically the same. These results show, at least on the surface, that there seems to be some connection between the genes and the commonality of traits found. Bailey and Pillard concluded that genetics explain a significant amount of the reason why people have a homosexual orientation.[ix] Their study alone has left many believing that homosexuality is genetically caused after all.

Prenatal Neurohormonal Hypothesis

This hypothesis, most attributed to Ellis and Ames, focuses on the 5th month of gestation for fetuses. They tried to show that sexual orientation is based upon the sexual differentiation of the gonads and the brain determined by the neurohormonal interactions.[x] Amounts of testosterone can affect the gonads and the hypothalamus to develop according to the male pattern. For a male, if there is not enough testosterone, female development could occur. Therefore, male homosexuality would occur from a feminization of the brain, while female homosexuality would occur from an overexposure to testosterone.[xi] There was a study done in 1985 showing an increase in female homosexuality and bi-sexual preferences because of over exposure to male testosterone. Similar experiments were done on female rats, when after injected with a dose of estrogen, responded with a release of luteinizing hormone (LH). The researchers thought there was evidence that a “feminized brain” was a result of early brain patters before birth.[xii]

Neuroanatomical Evidence

Another hypothesis given by Simon LeVay, tried to show how sections of the brain determined the sexual orientation of the individual. For homosexual men, the third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus is smaller than that of heterosexual males. LeVay scanned the brain of 41 cadavers, including 19 homosexual males.[xiii] His findings showed that a cluster of neurons known as INAH 3 was more than twice as large in heterosexual males as in the homosexual males. This has left many suggesting that the INAH 3 is dimorphic for sexual orientation and may constitute a biological substrate for homosexuality.[xiv]

The Gay Gene hypothesis

Finally, there have also been studies done trying to show whether or not an actual “gay gene” exists. Dean Hamer did the most popular study in 1993, were Hamer and his colleagues tested 76 men who had homosexual brothers as well as homosexual tendencies themselves. They examined the X chromosomes of these men and found that 33 of 40 brothers shared similar chromosomes. Because of these high numbers, many researchers believed that chromosomes played a large role in determining the sexual orientation of the individual.[xv]

Critique of the research

Research related to Twins critiqued

There are some serious problems surrounding the research of Bailey and Pillard. The first problem is with the research itself. At least in part, the research that Bailey and Pillard conducted dealt specifically with identical twins, yet only 52% had a probable connection. Chandler Burr has it exactly right when he writes:

Ironically, what the study actually demonstrates is that homosexuality is not purely genetic. Identical twins—clones—have the same genomes exactly. If sexual orientation were 100 percent genetic, then 100 percent of all identical twins would have the same sexual orientations. But they clearly don’t. Only about 50 percent of them do, so the other 50 percent must be nongenetic.[xvi]

Even the 50% findings have been called into question. As Jones and Yarhouse point out, even Bailey himself acknowledges that some of their findings were flawed.[xvii] Research concerning twins also points to different conclusions as well. A study done by McDonald in 1992 found a high degree of discordance for sexual orientation for men and woman who were twins.[xviii] The evidence found in the studies related to twins is inconclusive at best.

Prenatal Neurohormonal Hypothesis critiqued

As with the study on twins, other research has shown different results concerning the role of testosterone and its affects on the brain. A study done by Gooren (1986) “demonstrated that the LH response to estrogen could not discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual men and suggested that the findings of the preceding study may have been due to a failure of investigating the entire hormonal picture involved in the LH response.”[xix] In recent years the research for this hypothesis has become less convincing, especially in its effect on female orientation towards homosexuality. It is doubted that it results in any females, and even the findings for men lack solid evidence.[xx]

Neuroanatomical Evidence critiqued

Regarding LeVay’s research, it is widely held that his findings do not give any certainty and at best do not go far enough. Schoenfeld has pointed out that the brain is a product not only of genetic directions but also of early experience and social environment.[xxi] Therefore, since the brain is affected by many different factors, it is impossible to make conclusions by focusing on one area only.

Another problem with LeVay’s research is related to the individuals he used for his experiments. Most of the individuals he used died of AIDS, and therefore no attention was given to the type of sexual involvement practiced prior to death. A virus such as AIDS could have a tremendous impact on the INAH 3. There has been little research to result in the same kind of statistics that LeVay’s has reported, not to mention research that has shown larger structural differences in the brain for homosexual males.[xxii]

The Gay Gene hypothesis critiqued

The first main problem with the “gay gene” theory is that of replication. Chandler Burr has rightly noted, “Replication in science is everything…Researchers can do a study, find the answer to the question of life itself, but if no one can repeat the work and arrive at the same results, the effort is, for all practical purposes, worthless.”[xxiii] So far, Hamer’s research has not been replicated enough to cause a significant impact yet. Even now there seems to be little relationship between the chromosomal markers and the actual sexual orientation of the individual.[xxiv] Many other inconsistencies remain, such as nonhomosexual brothers who share the same chromosomal markers but not the same sexual orientation.[xxv]

In conclusion, given the research concerning the biological connection of homosexuality the results are at best inconclusive. Even those from the homosexual community admit, “That genes do play some role in homosexuality seems to be almost certain, that environment plays some role in homosexuality seems just as certain, but we are still a long way from sorting out the respective components.”[xxvi] However, what if in the coming years more research points us towards biological predisposition for homosexuals? How should evangelicals respond to this issue in the midst of a wide range, and often confusing, scientific opinions?

An evangelical response

Many evangelicals are perplexed concerning the issue of biological causality for homosexual lifestyles. The simple, off-the-cuff answer “it is just a choice” will no longer suffice in the face of twenty-first century research. Many conservatives have viewed homosexuality more as a lifestyle or a disease than anything having to do with biological orientation.[xxvii] However, as Chandler Burr points out, if all conservatives can say about this issue is “it’s a choice” they may find themselves with the painful reality of being proven wrong.[xxviii] The research has already been seen to be mostly inconclusive and unconvincing at the present, but what if the research leans towards a biological connection in the future? Will evangelicals be ready with the proper response? The fact is, despite what science concludes, evangelicals do not have to compromise biblical truth.

Biological Orientation would not eliminate responsibility for actions.

Every individual is responsible for his or her actions despite their genetic make up. Genes do not make us guilty; our evil actions and desires make us guilty.[xxix] In a postmodern culture, individuals are willing to place blame on anything but themselves. However, a genetic link to homosexual tendencies does not elevate one from the responsibility to avoid such actions. Accepting the fact that there is a biological predisposition to homosexuality no more excuses such behavior than does an overdose of male sex hormones excuse a heterosexual rapist of his behavior.[xxx] Dr. R. Albert Mohler correctly notes,

A genetic basis—unlikely in the extreme—would, if objectively established, not carry great theological importance. A genetic link may be established for any number of behaviors and patterns, but this does not diminish the moral significance of those acts nor the responsibility of the individual. Genetic links have been claimed for everything from diabetes and alcoholism to patterns of watching television.[xxxi]

Biological Orientation would not change the biblical view that all are born sinful.

The person contending with inclinations to homosexual behavior, then, ought to view such a predisposition as “a kind of symptomatic participation in the fate of the fallen world,” on the same level as our other inclinations to act in defiance to God’s plan for his creation.[xxxii] The Bible teaches that all of us are born sinful with a predisposition to sin. We are born with natures that hate God and desire nothing more than to live in defiance to His created order.[xxxiii] Chandler Burr may be right when he claims, “The gay gene is a remarkable vindication of conservative ideas about human nature and may offer one of the most devastating refutations of liberalism we have yet seen.”[xxxiv] As evangelicals who hold to the teachings of Scripture that all have sinful predispositions, a biological connection to homosexuality, if proven, does not affect the sinful nature of homosexuality.

Biological Orientation would still make homosexuality a biblically sinful lifestyle.

Even if homosexuality had proven biological tendencies, it would not change what the Scriptures teach us concerning homosexual behavior. Leviticus 18:22 teaches that homosexual behavior is an abomination to the Lord, while 20:13 speaks of it as a detestable act. Paul explains it in Romans 1:26-27 as a degrading passion that is unnatural, while also listing it in 1 Cor 6:9 as describing someone that cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Last, but not least, Paul also lists homosexuals beside immoral men in 1 Timothy 1:10. Although the hermeneutics of biblical interpretation would be questioned from many in the homosexual community, most evangelicals can agree that a biological predisposition would not change the stance of the Bible, but would rather serve to all the more prove it.

Conclusion

In a cloud of inconclusive data and in a culture of inconceivable challenges, the evangelical position is poised to make a stand. The issue is important on both sides of the aisle. Homosexuals want their lifestyle to be accepted as natural and moral and the call for biological confirmation is louder than ever. However, the point is clear, no direct coloration can be established for biological predisposition to homosexuality, and if there was, it would not change the immorality of homosexuality. So whether homosexuality is caused or chosen, biological or psychological, the evangelical can stand up for truth no matter what the next season of science may bring.

[i] R. Albert Mohler, “When science is enslaved to social agendas: what should the church think of the ‘gay gene’ studies?” World Magazine 31 Jul (1993) 22.
[ii] David, Gelman. “Born or Bred?” Newsweek 24 F (1992) 48.
[iii] Allan P Drew. “Genes and Human Behavior: The Emerging Paradigm.” Zygon 32 Mar (1997) 47.
[iv] Ted Peters, Playing God? (New York and London: Routledge, 1997), 96.
[v] Unknown. “From Abomination to Blessing: The Gift of Being Gay.” Theological Pastoral Resources Aug (1981), 74.
[vi] Jones, Stanton L. and Yarhouse, Mark A. “A Critique of Materialist Assumptions in Interpretations of Research on Homosexuality.” Christian Scholar’s Review 4 Nov (1997), 482.
[vii] Chandler, Burr A Separate Creation (New York: Hyperion, 1996), 35.
[viii] Ibid., 35.
[ix] Stanton and Yarhouse, Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church’s moral debate, 72.
[x] Sherwood O Cole. “The Biological Basis of Homosexuality: A Christian Assessment.” Journal of Psychology and Theology Sum (1995), 92.
[xi] Ibid, 92.
[xii] Stanton and Yarhouse, Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church’s moral debate, 63.
[xiii] David Gelman. “Born or Bred?” Newsweek 24 F (1992) 48.
[xiv] Cole, Sherwood O. “The Biological Basis of Homosexuality: A Christian Assessment.” Journal of Psychology and Theology Sum (1995), 94.
[xv] Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse, Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church’s moral debate, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2000), 79-80.
[xvi] Chandler, Burr A Separate Creation (New York: Hyperion, 1996), 47.
[xvii] Jones, Stanton L. and Yarhouse, Mark A. “The Incredibly Shrinking Gay Gene.” Christianity Today Oct 4 (1999), 53.
[xviii] Cole, Sherwood O. “The Biological Basis of Homosexuality: A Christian Assessment.” Journal of Psychology and Theology Sum (1995), 91.
[xix] Ibid., 93.
[xx] Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse, Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church’s moral debate, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2000), pg 79-80.
[xxi] Drew, Allan P. “Genes and Human Behavior: The Emerging Paradigm.” Zygon 32 Mar (1997) 44.
[xxii] Cole, Sherwood O. “The Biological Basis of Homosexuality: A Christian Assessment.” Journal of Psychology and Theology Sum (1995), 94.
[xxiii] Chandler, Burr A Separate Creation (New York: Hyperion, 1996), 42.
[xxiv] Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse, Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church’s moral debate, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2000), pg 80-81.
[xxv] Ibid, 81.
[xxvi] Geoff Puterbaugh, Twins and Homosexuality (New York: Garland, 1990), 117.
[xxvii] Burr, Chandler (Why conservatives should embrace the Gay Gene) Retrieved April 2004, http://members.aol.com/gaygene/index.htm
[xxviii] Ibid, 2.
[xxix] Ted Peters, Playing God? (New York and London: Routledge, 1997), 109.
[xxx] Cole, Sherwood O. “The Biological Basis of Homosexuality: A Christian Assessment.” Journal of Psychology and Theology Sum (1995), 96.
[xxxi] Mohler, R. Albert. “Homosexuality in theological perspective: toward an evangelical response.” Oct 29-31 (1993), 21.
[xxxii] Jones, Stanton L. and Yarhouse, Mark A. “A Critique of Materialist Assumptions in Interpretations of Research on Homosexuality.” Christian Scholar’s Review 4 Nov (1997), 494.
[xxxiii] Romans 3:10-11, 23. Eph 2:1-3.
[xxxiv] Burr, Chandler (Why conservatives should embrace the Gay Gene) Retrieved April 2004, http://members.aol.com/gaygene/index.htm

Is Baptism a prerequisite for the Lord’s Supper?

2010-10-18T09:51:00.000-07:00

Recently in conducting the Lord’s Supper I made a comment that in order to partake one needed to have been scripturally baptized and a member of a church of like faith and practice. There were a few who had never heard this before and wondered why Baptists hold to this order. Last night, in our Sunday evening Bible Study I taught on this topic and the following is an overview of what we discussed....

There are two ordinances in the New Testament, namely baptism and the Lord’s Supper. They work in relation to one another as a proclamation of the gospel in the life of the church. Therefore, we must first understand what the purpose of each ordinance is before we can see how they work together.

A (very) brief overview of baptism as a church ordinance

* The SUBJECT of New Testament baptism was someone who had repented of sin and exercised faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, we believe strongly that baptism is only for believers (hence the name “believers baptism”). Therefore, baptism is not baptism if the person is not a genuine believer in Jesus Christ. This would, of course, rule out people who have not exercised faith or were unable to (as in infants) at the time of their “baptism.”

* The MODE of New Testament baptism was immersion, namely the submerging of the believer completely under the water. The very meaning of the word “baptizo” is to “dip” or “immerse.” Therefore, we believe strongly that baptism is only by immersion. This would, of course, eliminate sprinkling or pouring as legitimate forms of baptism.

* The RELATIONSHIP of New Testament baptism is to the local fellowship of believers. Therefore, we believer strongly that baptism is a church ordinance, not an individual act. It is to be done under the accountability and oversight of the local congregation as a proclamation of the gospel of Jesus in that church and in the individual’s life.

* The TIMING of New Testament baptism is in relationship to the individual’s conversion. Therefore, we strongly believe that the Bible teaches that the Bible is the first sign of obedience and testimony in the believer’s life. Though the believer is not necessarily baptized within seconds of exercising faith, baptism is something that should be done sooner rather than later if the person has genuinely believed. So baptism is closely connect with the sign of conversion in that it symbolizes the forgiveness of sins (Acts 22:16) and one’s union with Christ (Romans 6:3-4; Col 2:11-12).

A (very) brief overview of the Lord’s Supper as a church ordinance

* The SUBJECT of the Lord’s supper is an individual who has expressed their union with Christ and is in fellowship with other believers (more on this to come).

* The MODE of the Lord’s Supper is bread and wine (or the fruit of the vine). This is represented in the Passover feast and faithful to Jesus’ instruction with his disciples in the Upper Room.

* The TIMING of the Lord’s Supper is ongoing. Unlike baptism, the Lord’s Supper is repeated in the life of the church because whereas baptism is the initial act symbolizing conversion, the Lord’s Supper is the ongoing act of remembering the accomplished work of Christ and the future kingdom of God.

* The RELATIONSHIP of the Lord’s Supper is to the unity of the church and unity in Christ. Paul notes in 1 Corinthians 10:16–17, “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” The Lord’s Supper represents accountability within the church, both personally and corporately.

So why does biblical baptism need to occur before participation in the Lord’s Supper?

The order of the Great Commission: Matthew 28:18-20
1) All authority belongs to Jesus.

2) The church is to go into all nations (evangelism/missions).

3) “Baptizing” them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is recognized as “conversion” because baptism is (as stated above) the initial sign of one’s union with Christ and forgiveness of sins.

4) Then, comes “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” Clearly, fulfilling the command of observing the Lord’s Supper falls here and not before.

Therefore, it is after conversion, which is seen publicly and symbolically through baptism that a person would gather with other believers (the church) in participation of the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper.

The pattern of the early church: Acts 2:41-42

1) Peter preaches the gospel.

2) They “believed” and were “baptized”.

3) After faith/baptism they were added to the “fellowship of believers”.

4) As apart of that fellowship with believers they devoted themselves to the Apostles teaching, prayers, and “the breaking of bread”.

This is a clear example of the order we see in the Great Commission, namely evangelism, conversion/baptism, and then participation in the life of the church (which would include gathering for the Lord’s Supper). It should be noted that there is no biblical evidence of their being any different pattern than this in the NT.

The Logical placement of Baptism and Lord’s Supper

If baptism is the initial sign of identity with Christ and His body, then it only makes sense that a believer would NOT join with believers in partaking of the Lord’s Supper without first express such union in the way Scripture teaches (i.e. believers baptism).

Baptist Confession

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper. The Baptist Faith & Message [2000]

Objections to Consistent Communion

The case cannot clearly be made from passages like Matthew 28:18–20.

Answer: Though the topic is not directly addressed, it is a natural assumption derived from these passages. Assuming that the “all things” of Matthew 28:19 includes everything which Jesus taught, it is only logical that his teaching regarding communion.

You shouldn’t prevent someone over something as small as disagreeing on the “mode of baptism.”

Answer: You are assuming that Scripture isn’t clear on the right mode of baptism and therefore one’s “opinion” of baptism trumps the clear teaching of the NT. As a result, you are asking the church to compromise their clear conviction of NT baptism for the sake of inclusion.

The Lord’s Supper is a Christian ordinance given to the church universal.

In the New Testament, it was local congregations that “broke bread” together. It was when the congregation was gathered that believers were instructed to examine themselves before partaking. There are no examples in the New Testament of the Lord’s Supper occurring outside of the context of a local church gathering.

Pastor Wes

Life and Death: meditations on the restoration of all things

2010-08-31T22:24:00.000-07:00

Over the past couple of weeks my family has experienced a rollercoaster of emotions. Two weeks ago this Friday we welcomed our 3rd child (Ashlyn Grace) into the world, and a week ago this Saturday we lost my father-in-law who went home to be with Jesus. On one hand, we have experienced the joy of new life. On the other hand, we have experienced the sadness and grief of death. And as I have reflected these past few days on these events I a reminded that is precisely what we are seeing taking place all around us. When one studies the narrative of Scripture, two main themes emerge: “new birth” and the “curse of death.”

“Curse of Death”: Since the Fall of humanity, all of mankind has been born in sin and died as a result. After the sin of Adam and Eve God places a curse upon them and the creation (Genesis 3) and the pattern of Scripture after that is we are “born” and then we “die” (Genesis 5). After all the wages of sin is death (Romans 5) and the entire creation has been subjected to futility (Romans 8). The imagery that Paul uses to explain this curse is “birth pains” an experience that is blazed into my mind after two weeks ago. Our first two deliveries went fairly smooth, this one did not. I will spare you the details, but this husband/father got caught up in the intensity of the moment. The anticipation got stronger, the pains of birth (at least for my wife) continued to mount, and I longed for it to be over and see our new gift of life.

Yet I could not help but think that this is exactly what all of God's children are experiencing. Paul writes in Romans 8:22, "We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth." Jesus said in Matthew 24:8, speaking of the tribulation, "All these are the beginning of birth pains." There is absolutely nothing joyful about the “birthing process” outside of the fact that we know what is coming is “new life.”

So as I watched my wife suffer the pains of childbirth, I also became aware of the birth pains I see all around me. A father-in-law dying of cancer, a church member with an alcoholic family, hurricanes that destroy cities in a matter of moments, a family that holds grudges and refuses to forgive, a body that grows older and older by the day, a father who decides to just walk away from his family, a baby who dies at an early age, nations that rage, and people who think life is all about them...oh how I long for NEW BIRTH!! Not just for a baby, but for a fallen world! As we see numerous birth pains all around us we know that there is nothing joyful about it, other than the fact that you know it’s pointing you to new life, a future resurrection that is kept by the power of God in Christ (1 Peter 1:3-7).

“New Birth”: Most Christians have been taught to believe that the “ultimate” future is heaven. This is not, however, what Scripture teaches. Our future hope is a new creation, a city that comes down rather than us going up (see Rev 21). The separation of the spirit and body is not according to the original design of God (Genesis 1-2) and while to be absent form the body is to be present with the Lord, a future resurrection in a restored creation is the new birth we are all longing for.

Not only is new birth the ultimate future reality for those who are in Christ, the promise of this new life is tasted of through genuine conversion now. The transformation we see in our lives as we come by faith to a resurrected Messiah is a transformation of death to life, of cursed to blessed, of slave to free. This theme is all over the biblical narrative. Ezekiel speaks of a day when we will be washed with water, which Jesus shares with Nicodemus when he tells him you must be “born again” (John 3). Jeremiah speaks of a covenant when we will have a heart of flesh and “know the Lord” (Jer 31). Paul uses this imagery in 2 Corinthians 5:17 when he says that if you are “in Christ” you are a “new creation.” In other words, what we are longing for eternally, namely a new birth, we are able to experience the first fruit of now “in Christ.” After all, the narrative of Scripture boils down to whether or not you are “in Adam” and dead or “in Christ” and alive (see 1 Corinthians 15).

What my family has experienced in a 1 week time frame is the very same experience we are all facing if we will just look around. There are images of new birth and images of death all around us and each one is saying something to us about a future reality and a future hope.

We waited, and the day finally came when our little girl was born into the world. What a wonderful day that was! After all new birth is a beautiful thing.

We waited, for the day when my father-in-law would take his last breath. And as we laid his body to rest today in a grave that will one day be opened with a trumpet shout, I am reminded that we must all wait for a day when the skies will be opened and our Savior will return to make all things new. What a wonderful day that will be! After all new birth is a beautiful thing.

Awaiting the Restoration of all things,
Pastor Wes

Speaking in Tongues (a reflection on the Great Debate 2)

2010-08-02T19:14:00.000-07:00

We had another great evening last night as we hosted our second “Great Debate” at TBC. Our topic was on the gift of speaking in tongues. We were blessed to have Pastor Ron Strack from Meadowbrook Community church in Champaign, IL representing the Charismatic viewpoint, Dr. Alan Phillips Jr. from Bloomington, IL representing the Open but Cautious view, and Dr. Mark Coppenger from Evanston, IL representing the Cessationist view. These three men handled themselves with class, humility, and gave challenging insights to God’s Word. I am deeply grateful to each of these men for their contributions to our event.

My post is not to rehash the discussion from last night, but to provide some additional thoughts on the issue of speaking in tongues. As moderator, I did my best to remain neutral. As pastor, I want to add some thoughts regarding the issue.

The Church: A Theological Framework

In Ephesians, the Apostle Paul uses specific language to describe the Church. He describes the Church as, “God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone" (2:19-20). This is a very important description in my mind. Paul recognizes that the “chief” cornerstone is the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross and his resurrection so that “no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 3:11; 15:3-4).

The next building stage is the work of the Apostles and prophets, not because the work of Christ is insufficient, but in order to carry out the mission Jesus gave His followers (Matthew 28). Therefore, the Apostles have a unique role in spreading a revelatory Word in the mission of Christ as He builds His church (Matthew 16). So the finished work of Christ is joined with the Apostolic witness, which was to provide revelatory, infallible witness through the Holy Spirit that would bring about sacred Scripture and the spread of the gospel to the nations.

Just as Christ would not be on earth permanently, neither would the Apostles (the office or the gifts associated with it as I will argue later). How do we know that the Apostolic office was temporary? First of all, to be an Apostle you had to be an eye-witness of Jesus Christ (Acts 1:21-26 and 1 Corinthians 9:1). Secondly, Paul viewed himself as the final Apostle (1 Corinthians 15:7-9). Thirdly, (and yes I realize this is an argument from silence) we never hear of the office again. Timothy, Paul’s son in the faith, is never viewed as having Apostolic authority but rather is encouraged by his “father-in-the-faith” to study the Scriptures “which are able to make you wise” and “rightly handle the word of truth.”

The Apostolic Age: Signs and Wonders

In addition to the office and role of Apostle, Jesus said that “signs and wonders” would accompany the spreading of the gospel, which is in the context of the Apostolic witness moving forward.

And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.” (Mark 16:17-18)

One should first note that there is a lot of discussion as whether or not these verses are in the original manuscripts. That said, Jesus says that these signs will accompany the spreading of the gospel (“those who believe”). Therefore, they are intended demonstrate the authenticity of the gospel. One of these signs is “glossolalia” which Jesus described as “new” languages. "New" meaning unknown to the speaker. Therefore, as the gospel is going forward one of the signs that will accompany it will be the ability to speak in languages “unknown” by the speaker. This interpretation is enhanced and supported in how the story unfolds in the book of Acts.

And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:4)

In Acts 2, the Spirit comes down and fills the Apostles and they began to speak in other tongues (glossolalia) just as Jesus had said and just as the prophet Joel had prophesied (Joel 2). Peter himself refers to this in Acts 2. Yet Jesus mentioned that these signs would serve so that people “would believe.” This is why through the gift of tongues and the proclamation of the gospel (Acts 2) Peter concludes that it was to “let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified (vs. 32)." In other words, this event was to show the Jews that Jesus was who he said he was (proclamation of the gospel).

Some important facts:

1. It is clear in this passage that the gift of tongues was a known language because the response of those who heard it was "are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? (vs. 8-9) What was amazing was that these speakers were speaking in a language they did not previous know.

2. The content of the message was concerning the gospel of Jesus Christ so as to prepare their hearts to come to faith in Christ. So the miracle of the gift was to draw attention to the gospel.

3. Only existing believers received this gift and there is no evidence that new converts received such a gift after coming to faith in Christ. The gift they received was the Holy Spirit Himself. (2:38)

This event continued at other times in the book of Acts.

Acts 10:46—what happened in Acts 2 to the Jews, happened again to the Gentiles in Acts 10. God manifested Himself again for the Gentiles. Once again the purpose of the gift was to verify that the Father was active in saving people (now to the Gentiles) by sending His Son and Spirit.

Acts 19:6—the experience of Jews and Gentiles is now occurring for the followers of John the Baptist. This is the third and final time in the book of Acts. In all cases the gift is public, communicates the gospel, and verifies who Jesus is for three different groups.

Also, there are instances of the coming of the Holy Spirit without any record of speaking in tongues (Acts 2:41-42, 8:12, 9:17-19).

Other comments from the book of Acts

Many Continuationists have concluded that “being filled with the Spirit” resulted in speaking in tongues, prophesying, and/or performing miracles. However, in all of the verses that speak about “being filled with the Spirit” not a single one mentions speaking in tongues. Rather in all of these occasions the individuals spoke the word with boldness. Therefore, to be filled with the Spirit should refer more to bold evangelism rather than speaking in tongues. (4:8,31; 13:9,52)

The Apostle Paul and the Corinthian church

Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away, For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. (1 Cor 13:8-10)

Paul is writing to an extremely unhealthy and fractured church that was caught up in paganism and therefore he must reeducate them on the proper place of tongues. Unlike the churches in Jerusalem and Ephesus, the use of tongues in Corinth was unintelligible and had caused division. Paul does confirm that speaking in tongues is a spiritual gift (though among the least 14:1) though it is not possessed by every Christian (12:30).

What is very clear from this passage is that tongues and prophecies will pass away or cease, so cessationism is true on some level. The point Paul wants to make here is to compare love (eternal) to gifts (passing). Now two important questions emerge: why tongue and prophecies and when do they cease?

Why tongues and prophecies? It’s simple. For Paul, tongues (when interpreted and under control) and prophecy work together because they are revelatory gifts (14:1-7). In fact, I would suggest that tongues, used properly, are a mode of prophecy. So these gifts are used together to bring revelation (see 14:14-19) in that it bypasses the intellect of the speaker and comes through the Holy Spirit.

When do they cease? Paul here is discussing present knowledge (which is partial) and future knowledge (which will be complete) when we see Christ (when the perfect comes). Many cessationists have argued that what Paul means here is the closing of the canon, or Bible. Continuationists would argue that the perfect is the Second Coming of Christ and therefore these gifts will continue until then.

Most likely, Paul does mean here the Second Coming and not the closed canon (because it assumes that Scripture is only sufficient when completed). However, just because it refers to the Second Coming does not prove a continuation of tongues/prophecies/etc. With this emphasis on partial knowledge, prophecy and tongues are no doubt singled out. But the time of their cessation is not the concern Paul has here. His stress is on the duration, until Christ returns, of our present, limited knowledge. So this passage does not teach that prophecy and tongues (revelatory gifts) will continue until the Second Coming, but only that they will pass. Complete knowledge will occur at the Second Coming.

2 For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, 3 how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, 4 while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. (Heb 2:2-4)

Notice once again the progression of revelation: “declared by the Lord,” and then “attested to us by those who heard” [Apostles] by the witness of “signs and wonders and various miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.” The phrase “bore witness” is a present participle and therefore some argue that these “signs and wonders” continued on.

The participle, however, is a genitive absolute which means it must be linked to the main verb (“attested”) which is an aorist verb. Therefore, the “signs” happened in the past. In other words, at the time the Apostles “attested” the signs “bore witness.” So these verses are strong evidence that signs and wonders were connected with the witness of the Apostles. In addition, (though again an argument from silence) if the signs and wonders where happening for the author’s audience all he had to do was refer to the “signs and wonders” happening in their presence. Rather, he referred back to the “signs and wonders” associated with the Apostolic ministry. These verses further prove that the gifts of the Holy Spirit served to authenticate the gospel message during the early church.

Final Comments on Continuationism

First, passages such as Eph 5:18-20, 6:18 and 1 Thessalonians 5:19, and Jude 20 are often used to suggest the modern practices of speaking in tongues. However, glossolalia is never mentioned. Therefore, I do not believe these passages speak to the gift of tongues.

Second, based on what I see in Scripture (as detailed above) I personally have a hard time recognizing a correlation between the modern practice of tongue speaking and the biblical form as expressed during the Apostolic age.

Third, (I realize this is an arguement from history and not Scripture) it is hard for me to understand how outside of Montanus and a few of his followers in the later part of the second century, the emphasis on glossolalia was silent until the 19th century with the birth of Pentecostalism. If the gift of tongues is so foundational to the body of Christ, why was it silent for so long? Just a curiosity more than a dogmatic statement.

Theological Triage: keeping the main thing the main thing

In closing, I must admit that while I have biblical convictions regarding the gift of speaking in tongues, I would not want to break Christian fellowship over the issue. There are much more imporant topics (in relation to the gospel) that we cannot compromise on, namely the exclusivity of the gospel, the baptism of believers by immersion, the virgin birth, the inspiration and authority of Scripture, and many others. Though we may disagree on the timing of the cessation of tongues, I would join with my charismatic brothers and sisters in defense of the gospel of Jesus Christ any day. For one Day, we’ll all be speaking the same language!

Pastor Wes

Book Review: Crazy Love

2010-06-29T12:23:00.000-07:00

While I was gone to the Southern Baptist Convention a few weeks ago I was able to catch up on some reading. One of the books I read was Crazy Love by Francis Chan. The book is excellent in that it challenges you to go beyond the status quo of Christianity and hunger for an authentic faith that is deeply in love with God.

Chan touches on a lot of important themes in the book. He talks about how our passion for God starts with seeing God for who He is. Most Christians get stuck in the status quo because their God is too small. Chan challenges us to think big about God, which will in turn cause us to be amazed at the fact that we get to have a relationship with Him.

He also devotes an entire chapter to lukewarm Christianity. We all know that we are not supposed to have that kind of faith, but we don't always know what lukewarm faith looks like. Chan (with Scripture references) lists the following descriptions of lukewarm faith:

They attend church regularly because they believe that is "what good Christians do."
Give money, as long as it doesn't threaten their standard of living.
Care more about being saved from the penalty of sin, rather than actually being saved from sin. As a result, they don't geniunely hate sin they just don't want God to punish them for it.
Are moved by stories about people who do radical things for Christ, but assume that is just for "extreme" Christians.
Rarely share their faith with their neighbors, coworkers, or friends becaues they do not want to be rejected.
Gauge their own morality be comparing themselves to the secular world.
Jesus is "a part" of their lives.
Love others, but not as much as they do themselves. They spend most of their time with people who are just like them.
Think about life on earth much more than they do about eternity in heaven.
Will do whatever it takes to keep themselves from feeling guilty.
Like playing it safe, in fact they even structure their life so that they don't have to live faith.
Probably drink and swear less than average, but besides that, they really aren't very different from your typical unbeliever.

I don't know about you, but those are penetrating statements. I think most of the Christians in American can find at least a few of those that relate to their own walk with Christ. May we seek each day to learn what it truly means to take up a cross and follow Him.

One last helpful part of the book is when Chan gives real examples of people lived with a crazy love for God. So often we think that such committment is only for those in the Bible and that no one in the real world lives that way. He shares examples of members in his own congregation and many others to help the reader see that this is the life God has called all of us to live not just a few elite Christians.

I would encourage you to read this book and let God use it to minister to you as you seek to love Him more than ever before.

Pastor Wes

Why I’m proud to be a Southern Baptist: an overview of the Great Commission Resurgence from the 2010 Southern Baptist Convention.

2010-06-21T17:58:00.000-07:00

Last week I attended the Southern Baptist Convention in Orlando, FL. One of the major topics of debate was the Great Commission Resurgence (GCR) recommended by the Great Commission Task Force of the SBC. Since I realize that many of you will be unaware of what was recommended and approved, I will summarized the major propositions and then give you my feedback.

Proposition #1: Adopt a new mission statement.
“As a convention of churches, our missional vision is to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every person in the world and to make disciples of all the nations.”

Proposition #2: Adopt Core values, as a Convention, which should define what we do and how we act. The core values were the following:

•CHRIST-LIKENESS: We depend on the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, the Word of God, and prayer to make us more like Jesus Christ.
•TRUTH: We stand together in the truth of God’s inerrant Word, celebrating the faith once for all delivered to the saints.
•UNITY: We work together in love for the sake of the Gospel.
•RELATIONSHIPS: We consider others more important than ourselves.
•TRUST: We tell one another the truth in love and do what we say we will do.
•FUTURE: We value Southern Baptists of all generations and embrace our responsibility to pass this charge to a rising generation in every age, faithful until Jesus comes.
•LOCAL CHURCH: We believe the local church is given the authority, power, and responsibility to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every person in the world
•KINGDOM: We join other Christ-followers for the Gospel, the Kingdom of Christ, and the glory of God.

Proposition #3: Encourage Cooperative Program giving and other Great Commission giving.

Proposition #4: Refocus the North American Mission Board by focusing more on church planting, particular in more populated regions and areas beyond the southern states, and to slowly withdraw for current partnerships.

Proposition #5: Free up the International Mission Board to be able to focus on international people within the United States (which removes a previously held limitation).

Proposition #6: Promote the Cooperative Program more effectively and stress the importance of biblical stewardship.

Proposition #7: Increase the giving from the Executive Committee to the International Mission Board from 50% to 51%.

The Urgency of the Great Commission Resurgence

The following is from the report given by the GCR task force. If you are a Christian and these numbers do not lead you to weep, pray, and give, your heart has become calloused to the plan and purposes of God!

There are almost 7 billion human inhabitants of planet Earth. At the most generous estimate, somewhere around 1 billion are believing Christians. That means that over 6billion people are lost, without Christ, and thus without hope. Of these 6 billion, over 3.5 billion have never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Over 6,000 people groups are without any Christian witness. There is no way that Southern Baptists can make real progress toward reaching these unreached people groups unless we experience a genuine Great Commission Resurgence. We must see a tidal wave of evangelistic and missionary passion, or the numbers of unreached people groups will only grow, and lostness will spread.

In North America, evangelical Christians are falling behind the level of population growth. Put simply, we are failing to reach new immigrant populations, the teeming millions in urban areas, and a generation of youth and young adults who are living in a time of vast change and confused worldviews. Lostness is not only our concern when it is found across oceans – it must be our concern when it is across the street. North America represents a vast continent of lostness, where millions still have never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and where many communities and ethnic groups are woefully underserved by Gospel churches.

In our own congregations, we see falling rates of baptism and other signs of concern. In 2008, Southern Baptist churches baptized more than 33,000 fewer people than in 1950 – and that was with more than 17,000 additional churches. Baptism rates among teenagers have fallen dramatically, and many young people become disengaged with the church soon after graduation from high school. In 2008 we baptized only 75,000 teenagers. In 1972, we baptized 140,000. Why?

Research conducted by LifeWay Research on the Millennial generation and research by Thom Rainer on previous generations indicate that every American generation from early in the twentieth century forward has been less evangelized than generations before. Tracing generational patterns from the World War II generation to the Millennials, the estimated number of Christians has fallen from 65 percent to 15 percent. Churches in America are losing ground with each successive generation.

We desperately need to reach our communities for Christ – and this starts with our own young people. Furthermore, we must see this generation of young Baptists take their places on the front lines of the Great Commission Resurgence. Humanly speaking, that is our only hope for a bold advance of the Gospel in the coming generation.

My Thoughts on the GCR and the future direction of the SBC

I have been Southern Baptist all my life. I have developed a deep appreciation for our heritage, our theological conviction, and our unwavering commitment to take the gospel to the nations. This is why I am Southern Baptist. I, as a young Southern Baptist pastor, have grown concerned over the past few years with the amount of money given to administration and pet programs at the expense of missions. I realize that healthy levels of administrative positions are needed to make organizations function, and leadership is critical for any convention. However, over the past several years more and more missionaries have been turned away while more and more money is spent on local programs.

When a Southern Baptist church gives to the Cooperative Program around 60% (it varies by state) of that money goes to the state convention while 40% goes to the national convention. The national convention then divides that 40% up between the International Mission Board, the North American Mission Board, the six seminaries, and other agencies. While I am pro-state and local associations, there is a far greater need (in my opinion) that more money being going to send missionaries to places where the gospel is not known and churches are not established.

While I realize it is controversial to some, this committed Southern Baptist longs to see a day when local/state conventions, while still healthy and able to function, are trimmed down in such a way that more international missionaries are sent to the field. This means reprioritizing our convention, our churches, and our lives!

So why do I place my full support behind the GCR?

1.I think these changes mean that our best days are still ahead of us as we, as a convention, focus more than ever before on reaching the nations for Christ.

2.The GCR continues to emphasize the need for “cooperative” giving through the Cooperative Program. This is a foundational tie that holds Southern Baptists together.

3.We are simplifying! Just as the church has become over-programmed, we as a convention have become over-programmed and must get back to the simple goal (which should be reflected in our convention structure) of reaching people for Jesus.

4.The GCR focus on church planting. To be the largest Protestant denomination, we should be leading the way church planting around the world.

5.The GCR focuses on places beyond the South. While I am a Southern boy at heart, I live and pastor in a pioneer state (IL). We must reach the major cities and other populated areas in places other than the Southeastern region of our country.

I will close by giving some food for thought. To be honest, I have not thought through all of the following recommendations, but they are worth our consideration. The following recommendations are from our newly elected SBC president Bryant Wright who will serve in 2011. Dr Wright suggests:

1.That each state strive to keep no more than 25-30 percent of the CP funds in state. Funds staying in state currently range from 43-86 percent (see documentation here). The local church should be the primary vehicle in carrying out state and local missions.

2.That at least 50 percent of the CP funds from our local churches go to the International Mission Board (IMB) vs. the present average of approximately 16 percent. How can we keep saying that supporting the CP is supporting missions when only about 16 percent of the funds go to the IMB?

3.That we increase the percentage of funds directed to the North American Mission Board (NAMB) to help us reach our nation for Christ, with a primary focus on church planting – especially in unreached areas.

4.That we dramatically increase the percentage of CP funds going to our seminaries that are training thousands of men and women who will lead the way in carrying out the Great Commission. The called in this younger generation have a passionate love for Christ and are willing to go to the hard places.

Wright admits, “this is a major change that would need to be implemented over 3-5 years to allow the state conventions to adjust in their planning. But implementation toward this goal needs to begin immediately.”

Much more could (and probably should) be said about the GCR and the future of the SBC. While we still have our problems and will still face many challenges, today is a great day to be apart of what God is doing through Southern Baptists.

For the sake of the nations,

Pastor Wes

Jesus was a communist (and other things you can conclude if you take the Bible out of context).

2010-04-13T14:48:00.001-07:00

Back on March 22, 2010, an opinion article was written in the Herald & Review about how the Bible supports the recent health care reform. The author, in the context of a commentary on Glenn Beck, mentioned that Jesus was a communist or at least advocated for the communist ideology. After all, “the Apostles who spread the Christian faith to the Gentiles certainly thought so.”

The author goes on to quote Acts 4:32 that “the community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had every thing in common.” According to the author, this verse presents a problem for “real Christians” who want to take the Bible “literal.”

If right-winged Christians, according to the author, ignore this verse they are engaging in a “Wikipedia-style project to rewrite the New Testament.” The author concludes by saying that “at least I don’t have to rewrite the Bible to support passage of health care reform.”

Wow! There are so many exegetical, hermeneutical, and theological problems with this statement I don’t even know where to begin. Before I make a brief comment, let me say upfront that my desire in responding is NOT political, it is theological and biblical. I am not trying to defend any political party, I am defending the Bible when it is taken out of context and used to advance a political agenda (particular one the Bible doesn’t support).

That said, the author makes a major error by taking what is true of the Christian community (i.e. the sharing of possessions), which is done voluntarily and upon a common confession of Jesus Christ, and tries to make it normative for an entire government. In other words, it is beyond the bounds biblically to take what Christians are to do because they belong to one another in Christ (Romans 12:4-5) and argue that it should be legislated for all Americans. Such a view is an impossible exegetical jump.

Since Christians in the early church voluntarily gathered on Sunday for worship would the author support worship-reform, whereby legislating all Americans to be in church on Sunday or face penalty? For some reason I don’t see that reform passing.

In doing this, the author is guilty of the very same thing she accused “right-wing, biblical literalists” of doing when she accuses them of being “selective in their Bible readings.” By pulling this verse out of context and arguing that it encourages some form of communism is to be most selective indeed. Why, even Wikipedia has higher standards that that!

Pastor Wes

Where do babies go when they die? Biblical Reflections on the death of the little ones.

2010-04-07T09:27:00.000-07:00

I know of very few issues that have been harder to deal with in ministry than the death of a baby and the unbelievable grief experienced by the parents. I do not write this article out of personal experience and therefore am not trying to act as though I know what others who have gone through such a tragedy may feel. Rather, I write this article because I am asked often about what happens to babies when they die and want people to be biblically informed in handling these situations.

When approaching an issue like this it is easy to run to emotional responses or human logic for the sake of comfort, though many times void of truth. It is easy to be sentimental rather than biblical. This is dangerous and unhealthy because one should not “hope something is true” but rather “know something is true” based upon the authority of Scripture. Therefore, before I share what I believe the Bible teaches concerning infant salvation, let me first expose some of the false beliefs that many have embraced.

False Belief #1: Babies go to heaven because they are innocent (Pelagianism).

I have heard many who hold to an age of accountability [a term that I am not a fan of, nor use] share that they believe that children are “innocent” until they reach a certain age. Then at a certain age they become accountable for sin. This is far from a biblical understanding of original sin and is, in fact, an early church heresy known as Pelagianism [the belief that human beings are born morally innocent].

The biblical reality is that no one is born innocent [minus Jesus], no not one! No one is righteous (Rom 3), we are by nature children of wrath (Eph 2), and we are born in sin (Psalm 51). [Other Scriptures: 1 Kings 8:46, Psalm 143:2, 1 Jn 1:8, Psalm 58:3] So regardless about what one believes about the salvation of infants, one cannot biblically argue that babies are innocent.

False Belief #2: Babies go to heaven because everyone goes to heaven (Universalism).

Though not as common in evangelical circles, there are certainly some who would say that because God is a loving God he would not send anyone to hell, particular babies. Of course this is a false view of God’s love. God’s love is not expressed in his willingness to overlook sin and accept everybody, but in his willingness to offer his own Son so that by faith we can enter into a right relationship with God.
The Bible is clear that not everyone will go to heaven (in fact the majority won’t).

Jesus said, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life and only a few find it” (Matthew 7:13-14).
There are many other texts [Matthew 13:37-42, Luke 16, 2 Thess 1:9, Rev 20] that teach against universalism, namely the idea that all will go to heaven.

So one cannot make the argument that babies go to heaven because “God is so loving he would never do something like that.”

False Belief #3: Babies go to heaven if they are “baptized” as infants (Paedo-baptism).

Some would argue that babies who have been sprinkled go to heaven because “baptism” removes original sin. (I place baptism here in “” because I would argue that baptism is only a believer by immersion and therefore “infant baptism” is a contradiction in terms, but that’s for another article )

Luther believed that baptism “worketh forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil,” Catholicism teaches that “by baptism one enters into the kingdom of God and into the sphere of the saving work of Christ.” Even Augustine believed that paedo-baptism released the baby from original sin [I have written a length article on Augustine’s view of baptism if you are interested].

The problem here is that the Bible teaches that “entering the Kingdom of God” or “being forgiven of sin” is something that is conditioned upon faith and union with Christ. “For God so loved the world…and whoever believes will not perish (John 3:16).” “Whoever believes in him will have eternal life (John 6:35).” “If you confess with you mouth and believe in your heart (Rom 10:17).” In fact, the entire book of Galatians is an argument that those who inherit the blessings of Abraham are those who like Abraham believe in the promised seed (Gal 3). [See also John 3:3, Titus 3:5]

In light of this, all baptisms in Scripture are believers who are immersed. Therefore, in my opinion, the issue of infant “baptism” is no biblical solution at all and does not assure the baby of heaven. In fact, such a process can give false hope to parents who assume that “because their baby was ‘baptized’” he or she is secure. Such an approach bypasses the clear biblical teaching of personal faith in union with the death and resurrection of our Lord Christ.

False Belief #4: Babies go to heaven because they are given the opportunity to believe after they die.

I will not expound on this for there is simply no biblical evidence to warrant such a belief. A relationship with Jesus Christ is a prerequisite for heaven, not something that follows it. This position was held by Gregory of Nyssa, who claimed that all, regardless of age, would have an opportunity to believe after death. The Bible simple does not teach such a belief.

What I believe the Bible teaches concerning babies going to heaven.

I have tried to be biblically faithful to this point, demonstrating that all are born in sin, all must have faith in Christ for the forgiveness of sin, and only in Jesus Christ can that forgiveness be realized. It would seem then that I would be arguing against the salvation of infants. However, such a conclusion would be invalid.

In addition to the previously mentioned claims, the Bible also teaches that the judgment of God will be based upon the “deeds done in the body" (2 Cor 5:10, Matthew 16:27). In other words, we are born in sin and as we grow will act out in rebellion towards God because of the sinful, depraved nature inherited in Adam. When we are exposed to the General Revelation of God (law of God in our hearts and God revealed in creation) we will suppress the truth and live for our own desires (see Romans 1-3 for more on this).

So you have two parts here: 1) Humans are born sinful, 2) Humans will act in rebellion towards God because of that sin when exposed to the General Revelation of God. Therefore, as Paul states, man is “without excuse" (Rom 1:20). Babies (and mentally handicapped), however, never make it to step 2. In other words, they never advance to the stage where they act out in rebellion against the General Revelation of God. They simple do not have the cognitive or moral capacities to do so.

This does not mean that they are born innocent; they simple never act on their guilt. [The emphasis on the rejection of the General Revelation of God is key here because in my view this is what separates babies from those who live in other countries and have never heard the gospel. They, unlike babies, have rejected the General Revelation of God and are without excuse, subjecting them to the judgment of God.]

Though we are born in Adam’s sin, we must answer for our own personal, willful acts of rebellion towards God, something that infants have not done. As a result, I would argue that babies/infants do not face the condemning judgment of God. In light of Luke 18:16 where Jesus says, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these” I believe that babies are objects of the mercy of Christ, purchased through the cross of Christ, therefore avoiding the condemning Judgment of Christ.

So in summary, are babies born in sin? Yes. Do they act on that sin? No. As a result, they are received into heaven through the atoning work of Christ.
I must add that if babies do face the judgment of God, God is not for a moment unjust. We must always remember that God is but nature just and therefore we have absolutely no right as the clay to tell the Potter how He is to act. So the justice of God is not in question, regardless of the outcome.

When we deal with the death of infants we do not run to false beliefs, unbiblical claims, or mere sentimental appeals, for none of these can offer us hope. For our hope must be rooted in the word of God and the work of our Christ, the One who gave His life for the old…and the young.

Pastor Wes

The Platonic Captivity of the Church: thinking biblically about the human body

2010-01-25T09:33:00.001-08:00

I often reflect on the things I was taught, whether intentionally or unintentionally, growing up in the local church. I vividly remember pastors, revival speakers, or traveling evangelists, most of whom were significantly overweight, preaching against smoking, drinking, or sexual immorality because after all the body is “the temple of the Holy Spirit.” I’ve always found that a rather odd contradiction. Make no mistake about it, the Scripture does teach that our bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit because we have been united to the True Temple, the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, what we do with our bodies has everything to do with Christ.

Yet, these same preachers, preaching for the body in this life, were preaching against the body in the life to come. Death was the final end for the human body, at least in how it was described. In preaching the funeral I would hear them dismiss the body and give encouragement that the “true person”, namely the person’s soul, is now in heaven with the Lord. To me, this was a contradiction, namely why preach for the body (“you are the temple of the HS”) in this life, when the body is really not that important when you die (“it is just a container/shell of the true person”)?

My conclusion has led me to see that many in the church do not understand what the Scripture teaches concerning the human body. We view our bodies as an instrument of our own desire, with little regard for what the Creator of our bodies has to say concerning it. We have, unfortunately, viewed the Christian life as though it was only spiritual and that all that really matters is that we go to be with the Lord when we die. I think the Bible rejects both of these statements.

Most of our views on the body are more influenced by Plato, the early Greek philosopher in the 5th century B.C., and Gnosticism, an early church heresy, than the Bible. Plato taught that the human being was made up of two separate parts, the physical (body) and the spiritual (soul). The physical world was viewed as evil, while the spiritual world was viewed as good. (Kind of sounds like most funerals I’ve been to).

Plato adopted this view and argued that the soul of a human being existed in the highest heavens, though currently trapped in a body, which he viewed as a prison. Salvation, according to Plato, was the release of the soul from the evil body. [If you are interested in learning more of the background here, Google the “Orphic myth” for the teachings of Greek mythology]

The early church was influenced by Platonic thought. There arose two major heresies in the early church concerning the body/soul relationship. One was Docetism (the body of Christ was only an illusion) and Gnosticism (the heavenly soul was imprisoned in the sinful body). As a result, the focus on “spiritual” things became a priority. It is clear to see how the earlier Platonic view caused such heresies to arise in the early church and how many of the implications of these teachings still linger in our churches.

Yet, there were many Christians in the early church who rejected such a notion of the body (1 John 4:1-3). They did so for the following reasons…

1) God’s creation of a physical universe, which was pronounced as very good.
2) The physical incarnation of Jesus Christ.
3) The clear interaction of the soul/mind and the body.
4) Sin can take place in the soul, not just body.
5) The necessity of a physically resurrected Christ
6) The promise of a future bodily resurrection of believers.
7) The future restoration of a physical universe.

So how do we know when we are being more Platonic than Biblical concerning the body?

1) When you view the body as something to be disposed of upon death.
2) When you view the body as something meaningless and insignificant.
3) When you view death as a glorious end, rather than the future resurrection of the body.
4) When you do not take care of your body, which is an instrument of worship (Rom 12).
5) When you view the Christian life as primarily “spiritual” in nature.

Let me give you a few general statements concerning what the Bible teaches concerning our bodies.

1) We were created as embodied creatures (body and spirit) as a part of God’s glorious physical creation, of which God, when he had finished His work, described as very good. (Genesis 1:26-31, 2:7, 2:18-3:1, Psalm 139:13-16) We find in these passages that God created us as a gender, as sexual beings, with a vocational purpose, and many other implications (Too many to cover in this article).

2) As a result of the fall, our physical bodies, along with the physical creation are in need of sanctification (1 Thes 5:23, Romans 8) [clothing of the body in Genesis, not letting sin reign in our body in Romans 5-6, etc]. Our bodies are not to be a slave to anything ungodly, which is a part of the sanctification process (1 Cor 6:12-20).

3) As a result of the fall, our physical bodies will die. Though this is a tragic reality, the body is to be honored in view of the complete creation of God (2 Cor 6:19-20).

4) Even though the body will die, our future hope is not our spirit with the Lord in heaven (2 Cor 5:6-10) but a future bodily resurrection (1 Thes 4:13-18, 1 Cor 15) in the restoration of the physical creation (Revelation 21).

This topic may be foreign to may of you, as it was me for many years, mostly because we have been taught that the Christian life is what we do “spiritually.” However, as believers in the Lord Jesus Christ we need to think biblically about the body. Issues concerning the human body are all around us from cremation vs. burial, how we approach funerals, issues of cloning, transplants, abortion, euthanasia, reproductive technologies, stem cell research, dietary and other health related issues, and much more. How is a Christian to respond to this issues?
When is the last time you’ve stop to think how your body is being used as an instrument of praise, which it was created to be? As the Apostle Paul writes in Romans 12, “I appeal to you, therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice.” This is, after all, a “rational” act of worship given God’s overall redemptive work.

May we as Christians take care of our bodies now, honor our bodies upon our death, and look forward to the day when our bodies will come out of the grave, just as One did 2000 years ago.

Pastor Wes

Bible Reading Plans for 2010

2010-01-01T09:31:00.000-08:00

Last Sunday I was asked by a church member about thoughts on Bible reading plans. In addition, I will be calling us as a congregation to pursue Christ with all of our passion in the coming year. Therefore, I post these suggestions for those of you who are interested in having a plan in the New Year for digging into the Word of God.

Click on the highlighted link or you can just copy and paste into your web browser.

There are a number of Bible reading plans on the ESV website. Go to http://www.esv.org/biblereadingplans to access these.

Here are some of the advantages…

1. At the above website there are numerous ways to receive the information (print them, have them sent to your mobile devices, receive them through email, and many others.)

2. Pick you genre. You can do reading plans through various genres. You can do Psalms and Wisdom, or Gospels and Epistles, etc. There are about 10 total plans in all.

3. Pick your strategy. You can do reading plans chronologically, each day in OT and NT, etc. Lots of flexibility here.

The ESV site also has the M’Cheyne One-Year Reading Plan. This plan has you read through the NT twice, the Psalms twice, and the rest of the OT once throughout the year. The only concern is that some have found this plan to be too wide because it has you in 4 different places in the Bible on a given day. Others like the variety though. You can decide!

Other Suggestions…

1. The Discipleship Journal Reading Plan (http://www.navpress.com/uploadedFiles/15074%20BRP.dj.pdf) The advantage to this plan is that you can catch up if you fall behind.

2. The Book-at-a-Time Reading plan. (http://www.navpress.com/uploadedFiles/BRP2.pdf)

3. (http://www.amazon.com/Search-Scriptures-Study-Guide-Bible/dp/0830811206/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230711958&sr=8-1) This is more of a study guide than a reading plan, but maybe helpful for those who use an NIV.

4. http://www.bible-reading.com/bible-plan.html

May our passion for Him and His Word ever increase in 2010.

Pastor Wes

2009-12-05T07:14:00.000-08:00

According to a recent Yahoo report, famous tennis star Andy Murray and his long-time girlfriend are breaking up. Now why would a pastor write a blog comment over such dramatic event? The answer….because it is the perfect example of delayed manhood.

Evidently his girlfriend decided to dump him because he spends seven hours a day playing video games. Seriously, there is something wrong in a culture when 22 year old men are spending 7 hours a day playing video games, dating a girl for four years without any marriage in sight (or at least there was no evidence of such plans in this case).

I’m seeing this issue over and over again in marital counseling. The responsibilities of early 20-year-olds such as work, pursing a family, and cultivating spiritual maturity have been replaced with living at home with parents, playing video games all night, spending their weekends out with their buddies, and delaying the responsibilities of manhood. If I may be so blunt as to say that the results are 30 year-olds with the maturity level of 16 year-olds. While this is obviously not true in every case, there has most certainly been a shift in the culture on this issue.

One of the tragic affects of delayed adulthood is the conflict it brings into marriage. The longer one lives out their independence the harder the transition to being dependent (marriage) will be. Now this doesn’t mean everyone needs to be married by 18, nor am I suggesting such an arbitrary guideline. What I am suggesting is that if you are 22 and are playing 7 hours of video games, a transition to marriage and taking on the responsibilities of a family will be very challenging.

Genesis 1 is clear that God’s design for manhood is rooted in three main tasks, namely work, marry, and have a family that you protect and provide for to the glory of God. While there are individual circumstances preventing some of these, that is God’s design for being a man and it is a glorious responsibility because it is rooted in the image of God. Maybe Andy Murray needs to work on a different kind of serve?

For His Glory,

Pastor Wes

2009-11-23T22:32:00.000-08:00

Preaching and naming names: when is it appropriate to mention the names of other preachers?

2009-11-23T18:01:00.000-08:00

In the manuscript below you will notice that I “call out” one of prosperity preachers by the name of Creflo Dollar. My sermon on Philippians 4 dealt with Paul’s contentment both in hunger and in abundance. I mention Creflo Dollar and his comment that you won’t have peace if you don’t have money. I believe that such teaching is a serious offense to the teaching of the Bible and contrary to the heart of the gospel.

This, however, does raise a good question, namely when is it appropriate to mention the name of other preachers in a sermon, particularly when it is a point of disagreement?

This Specific Example

In this particular example, I not only feel it is appropriate but I believe it is important to do so. The reason is that believe that prosperity gospel preachers manipulate the gospel and do serious harm to the body of Christ. The prosperity teaching, namely that God promises His children will be healthy, wealthy, and always abounding, is a serious assault on the biblical text and completely contrary to the teachings of the Bible.

Therefore, as a pastor who takes the protection of his flock very seriously, I will unapologetically continue (when appropriate) to expose those teachings and teachers in the culture who do serious manipulation to the gospel of Jesus Christ. I have, and will continue, to address serious theological error that are in the mainstream Christian culture.

The Larger Context

Given what I have stated above, one should not conclude that preaching should be a time of name calling and should only been done when the situation warrants. Here are a few questions I think are important to consider.

1. Is it a gospel issue? Is what you are addressing a minor disagreement or a major theological issue. There is a significant difference between the disagreements preachers have about minor issues as opposed to issues that are leading people away from the integrity of the gospel. If it is a serious gospel issue, then I think it is appropriate, in a Christian spirit, to address it straight on.

2. Is it a character attack or a theological attack? I certainly do not believe that it is appropriate to get into character issues. Theological issues, particularly those that are of serious nature, should be open to public criticism because the integrity of the gospel is at stake. Therefore, so long as personal attacks are avoided, theological critique is appropriate if the theological issue is significant.

3. Is it biblical or a personal agenda? Preaching should never be about personal agendas but faithfully teaching the biblical text. I do not believe that it is appropriate to merely address personal disagreements in a sermon. However, exposing another’s view (when a gospel-centered issue is at stake) in light of the biblical text is appropriate.

At the end of the day it is the pastor’s responsibility to faithful care for the flock of God. In a politically correct culture we are supposed to tolerate all beliefs and never expose error. The gospel of Jesus Christ, however, does not give us such freedom. Though not a common practice, I believe that there are occasions when the integrity of the gospel is at stake and preachers must be willing to graciously address those issues, along those who advocate them, for the protection and edification of the body of Christ.

Pastor Wes

2009-11-23T17:53:00.000-08:00

Series: Life at Peace
Title: In all things content
Text: Phil 4:10-13, 1 Tim 6:6-10
Date: November 22, 2009

Introduction

I will never forget several years ago the first mission trip I took to Mexico to build houses. I remember going the entire week without a shower because there was no running water at any of the facilities. A restroom was a bucket and a place to hide. I remember walking inside of what the family was living in and watching a little boy, not much older than my son, as flies consumed his bowl of cereal and followed the spoon as he brought it too his mouth. I remember another little boy who had tied a string to a bug and would watch it fly around as though it was a new toy plane. And I remember the look on the families face as though were overjoyed with simple things like a bar of soap. And I remember how all week long they smiled and seemed far happier than me.

And I remember flying back home reading about a new, high-tech, $5000 toilet that was soon to be introduced in the US featuring a wireless remote to raise and lower the seat, a deodorizer, a warm-air dryer, water temperature controls, why it even had massage options. And I remember returning to a nice bed and nice long hot shower. And I remember thinking to myself… “Would God be enough?” Regardless of the conditions I lived in “Would God be enough?” Could I say, as the Psalmist said…

25 Whom have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing on earth that I
desire besides you. 26 My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the
strength of my heart and my portion forever. [Psalm 73]

This issue of godly contentment is at the core of living a life at peace. And we live in a culture that is very discontent.

• We are discontent with what we have so we go into debt to have more.
• We are discontent with where we are so we keep moving hoping that we’ll be happier at the next stop.
• We are discontent with our marriage so we decide to find someone else that might make us happier.

And there is a voice within us that keeps saying I think I should already be here, I should already be able to retire, I should already be having children, I should already be a supervisor, the church should already be doing this or that. And that voice of discontentment destroys the peace in our lives. And while there is nothing wrong with having those desires, sometimes those desires control our ability to be content and live a life at peace.

Illustration: U2 song, “I have climbed the highest mountains. I have run through the fields. I run, I have crawled, I have scaled city walls. But I still haven’t found what I’m looking for.”

Some of us here this morning are still looking and searching for something bigger, something better, something that we think we fulfill us.

We see here in Philippians 4 a man who had learned to be content.

Teaching

Here is a man who sets in a prison cell because of corrupt officials awaiting a possible execution over false charges. Here is a man who writes a thank you letter to a church that he loves who was dealing with some relational conflict. He wanted to be with so that he could help them work through their issues. But Paul was in prison, He couldn’t be where he wanted to be. He feels confined by the prison cell. And yet Paul was content to remain where he was, in prison, in chains.

The Peace of Contentment

• Paul says, “I have learned in whatever situation to be content.” The word content comes from a Greek word meaning “self-sufficient or independent.”

o Stoics: It was used by the Stoics in those days as a detachment of emotions or an indifference to all things. It was a chief virtue.

o But that is not how Paul is using the word. Paul doesn’t mean don’t care about anything, for Paul content was “an inner peace that comes from knowing that God is in control of his life.”

o In the book Authentic Faith, Gary Thomas says that “Contentment is nothing more than ‘soul rest.’ It is satisfaction, peace, assurance and a sense of well-being that is cultivated by pursuing the right things.

• Though Paul had desires and dreams and goals he was not controlled by them. “By now I should be set free” “by now I should be in Philippi” “by now, by now, by now.” Paul had learned to walk in peace in the present.

I) The example of Paul’s contentment (11, 14-19)

• Notice in 11, 14-19. If one didn’t know of the great relationship Paul had with these people they might think this is offensive. Paul wants to make clear that while he is deeply appreciative of their gift, he wasn’t in want. He was fully confident in God. His joy was not bound to their gifts for it was rooted in the sovereignty of God.

• Paul sets the example for us here. That our peace is not based upon what we get or what we don’t get. It we get something, we’re thankful, if we don’t we trust God.

• “But this is the Paul” “He is a super Christian”. But Paul said, “I have learned to be content.” This is not something he got at Apostle school, this wasn’t some overnight supernatural work of God, it came through continuing to walk with God through all seasons.

II) The extremes of Paul’s contentment (12)

• Notice both extremes that Paul gives.

o Abounding: Those times in my life when my goals are being met, my desires are be fulfilled…we find our we are pregnant, I get the raise, we have lots of food in the refrigerator, the tests come back positive, the surgery went well…I am at peace. And most of us would be content if this were always the case. God bless me and I’ll promise to be content.

o Lacking: Those times in my life when my desires are not being fulfilled, retirement is forced, the job is lost, the economy is failing, a friend hurts you, are you content? Paul is! Because knows that sometimes God brings you low, sometimes God gives a torn in the flesh, sometimes God brings you to a point of hunger to save your soul, He brings you to the point of little so you’ll find much in Him, sometimes God brings you low so you’ll lift Him high, and sometime God will take everything away to show you that he is everything after all!

o Paul was satisfied with little. It didn't matter that he was a prisoner, it didn't matter that he was chained to a Roman soldier, that he ate things we wouldn’t want to smell, that he stayed in a place that was greatly lacking in comfort. As Paul said in 1 Tim 6:8, “ But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content.” [translation: if you have a t-shirt and a loaf of bread you have enough…and of course a cell phone, computer, and ipod right?]

• Illustration: This is why I get so angry at advocates of the prosperity gospel. As one pastor (Creflo Dollar) stated, “See there are some people that do not believe in prosperity they don‘t want to hear that God is a God who wants to put money in your hand, well you need to hear about money because you aren’t going to have no joy no peace until you have some money.”

o If you have to abound to be content your peace is not in God, it’s in His gifts!

III) The endurance of Paul’s contentment (13)

• Paul says “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” This if often one of the most misquoted verses in the Bible. We have made it mean, “with Jesus I can do anything!” “I’m going to try and bench press 400pds because…” “I’m going to dunk a basketball ball because…”

• Paul uses this verse in the context of living a life of contentment, namely how am I able to be content when I have nothing and content when I abound…the strength of Jesus Christ.

• "I can endure all things." He uses a Greek verb, ischuros that means to be strong, or to have strength. He is saying, "I am strong enough to go through anything because of Him who infuses His strength into me." Paul says, "I'm content, I've seen the power of God."

Transition: 1 Timothy 6:6-10

So we see in Paul an inner peace that he learned by walking with the Lord that grounded him both in lacking and in abundance through the power of Jesus Christ. By why should we pursue this kind of peace?

1) Godly contentment is great gain

a. You are truly able to enjoy life. You won’t be tossed around by the waves.

b. We should be content so we can invest in what really counts. Three billion people today are outside Jesus Christ. Two-thirds of those without a Christian witness. If we, like Paul, are content with the simple necessities of life, thousands of dollars at TBC and millions of dollars in the SBC and hundreds of millions of dollars in the Protestant church would be released to take the gospel around the world.

2) Godly contentment maintains a right perspective

a. Test 1: what did you have when you came into the world? What will you take with you when you leave? Everything else is bonus!

b. Test 2: If you want contentment and peace, do not compare what you have to what others have. Compare what you have to what you should have which is hell. You and I were a train wreck waiting to happen, we were hell bound because of our sin, and God intervened. God opened our eyes to see His glory and as a result we have so much more that we could ever deserve and yet so many of us remain unsatisfied.

3) Godly contentment protects from temptation
a. If we don’t learn godly contentment we will be tempted to doubt God when we are hungry and ignore God when we abound.

Five Warning Signs of Declining Church Health

2009-09-10T09:34:00.001-07:00

The following is an article by Dr. Thom Rainer, CEO of Lifeway Resources. The article is about warning signs that a church is not as healthy as it should be. I post this not because it applies necessary but things to keep in mind as we continue to move forward to what God has for us in the future.

Pastor Wes

......................................................................................

December 17, 2004, should have been a day of celebration. Nellie Jo and I had been married 27 years on that date. We were in Naples, Florida, enjoying the sunshine and each other.
Then the phone call came.

We had been given a great deal of confidence that the biopsy would likely prove negative. Proceed with our anniversary celebration, we were told. In the unlikely event that the report was not good, they would let us know.

The report was not good. Nellie Jo had cancer. The next two years would prove to be some of the most challenging years of our lives and marriage.

When an Unhealthy Body Looks Healthy

Looking back, it is amazing to recall how healthy Nellie Jo looked. She showed no signs of fatigue or sickness. Had she not seen a couple of warning signs, she might have found out too late about her cancer. She might not be alive today.

I’ve seen it countless times. My team would go into a church for a consultation, and we would begin interviewing church members. We would hear from many of the congregants that their church was healthy and thriving. Then we would see the warning signs. And we would begin to fear that the apparently healthy body was not really healthy at all.

The church was sick. Some of the churches were really sick.

Five Warning Signs

What were some of the warning signs my team saw? Though the list is not exhaustive, these five issues were common. Some of the churches had a one or two on the list; some had all five.

1. The church has few outwardly focused ministries. Most of the budget dollars in the church are spent on the desires and comforts of church members. The ministry staff spends most of its time taking care of members, with little time to reach out and minister to the community the church is supposed to serve.

2. The dropout rate is increasing. Members are leaving for other churches in the community, or they are leaving the local church completely. A common exit interview theme we heard was a lack of deep biblical teaching and preaching in the church.

3. The church is experiencing conflict over issues of budgets and building. When the focus of church members becomes how the facilities and money can meet their preferences, church health is clearly on the wane.

4. Corporate prayer is minimized. If the church makes prayer a low priority, it makes God a low priority.

5. The pastor has become a chaplain. The church members view the pastor as their personal chaplain, expecting him to be on call for their needs and preferences. When he doesn’t make a visit at the expected time, or when he doesn’t show up for the Bible class fellowship, he receives criticism. In not a few cases, the pastor has lost his job at that church because he was not omnipresent for the church members.

Where Do We Go from Here?

The bad news is that few churches recover if the patterns above become normative. The church is a church in name only. It is self-gratifying rather than missional. It is more concerned about great comfort than the Great Commission and the Great Commandment.
The good news is that a few churches have moved from sickness to health. The path was not easy. It first required that the congregants be brutally honest with themselves and God. It does no good to speak glowingly of a church that is unhealthy and getting worse.
Many of the turnaround churches we consulted then moved to a time of corporate confession and repentance. They confessed to God their lack of obedience and their selfish desire for their own comfort.

And still other churches made an intentional effort to shift the ministries and the money of the church to a greater outward focus. This step can be particularly painful since a number of church members often protest with vigor that their needs are no longer being met.

To Become a Healthy Church

Indeed we could focus on the reality that the great majority of sick churches do not recover. But that focus provides little value.

We should look at the admittedly few churches that have moved from sickness to health. We should learn how they turned from an inward focus to an outward focus. We should follow their examples of moving from selfish desires to radical obedience to God.

In His power the unhealthy church can become healthy.

Heed the warning signs.

It could be the difference between life and death.

The Anointing: Spirit, Word, and our inheritance in Christ.

2009-08-24T09:08:00.000-07:00
I remember one night at a youth summer camp I was staying up too late watching TV with some of the staff team when a TV preacher came on offering to send out “anointed” one dollar bills to anyone who would make a contribution to his ministry. His promise was that “as long as you hold on to this anointed dollar bill you will always have money.” I wondered how many people really fell for this.

This topic of “anointing” is one that has been misunderstood biblically. For some it conjures up thoughts of a sweaty preacher with a hanky, speaking in tongues, or some kind of special blessing. In 1 John 2, John tells his readers that they have been “anointed by the Holy One” (vs. 20) and the “anointing that you received from Him abides in you” and “teaches you everything” (vs. 27).

So what does John mean by anointing?

Context: It is important to remember that John is dealing with believers who are facing the false teaching of the Gnostics, those who believed in a “higher knowledge” of “spiritual things.” They were most likely using “anointing” language as a means of leading others astray in hopes of gaining some kind of enlightenment. John uses the language of the anointing in the context of exposing these false teachers, namely that they would not be deceived because they have already been anointed.

Background: The OT background of anointing surrounded the offices of prophets, priests, and kings who were anointed with oil as a ceremonial act as they entered into their office of service. Their anointing recognized them as being set apart for the work of God. David, for example, is God’s anointed king who is set apart to defeat the enemies of God. This is precisely why when he sins with Bethseba he prays, “take not your Holy Spirit [i.e. anointing] from me” (Psalm 51:11). In other words, don’t remove me from being king. The anointing he had received was his identification as Yahweh’s king.

Likewise, when Jesus comes up from the waters of baptism the Holy Spirit descends upon Him, recognizing Him as the anointed One (“the Christ”) and is marked out for his earthly ministry of prophet, priest and king only to go into the wilderness and defeat the enemy of God.

In addition, the New Testament teaches that all who are in Christ have been set aside as a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9) and are kings and priest of God (Rev 1:6) and co-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17).

Meaning: The anointing, therefore, is something that is true of all believers who have identified themselves in Christ and not some special blessing or superior Christianity. In 2 Corinthians 1:21-22 Paul writes, “And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.” In other words, the “anointing” of God for believers happens as you are “in Christ” and the Holy Spirit is given as a guarantee of our eternal inheritance. The anointing of the Holy Spirit is what sets you a part as true sons of God (Romans 8:14). So to be a Christian is to receive the Spirit (“anointing”) and consequently no one can be in Christ without having the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Some believe that because of the anointing believers can have direct revelation from God apart from the Word of God. Back in the seventeenth century such a dispute took place between the Puritans and the Quakers (who came out of the Puritan movement). The Quakers viewed the work of the Spirit as more than an identification of union with Christ (i.e. the Puritans) but rather a means of direct revelation through an “inner light.” This led them to conclude that they did not need to be guided by the Word of God because they had the Spirit of God, a more “direct line.”

The Quakers, along with other “mystical” type of groups, believed that truth was something to be found inward and that all spiritual truth dwelled within. We find many of the same teachings in our culture today, namely that we all have a “personal truth” that we have within us.

But doesn’t John teach that we no longer need a teacher? John does not mean that a Christian knows everything just because they have the Spirit. In fact, why would John even write the letter if these believers had all the instruction they needed as a result of their anointing? Instead, John understands that in the OT God spoke through mediation, namely prophets and priests (Heb 1:1), but Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would come and be our teacher (John 14 and 16). Though God has appointed pastors and teachers (Eph 4:11) to faithfully proclaim the Word of God, what John means is that we don’t need a teacher for new revelation when we have the Spirit of God and the Word of God. He writes these things so that his readers would not be deceived.

What a blessing it is to know that God has not left us alone but that He has given us His Spirit as a guarantee of our inheritance in Christ, an inheritance that I am quite sure is worth more than a dollar!

Pastor Wes

Response to the Great Debate

2009-08-04T13:38:00.000-07:00

Our first "Great Debate" has come and gone here at Tabernacle and by all accounts it turned out to be a great night of theological discussion. Our final count was 361 in attendance. I am very thankful for Dr. Gary Gilley, pastor of Southern View Chapel in Springfield, IL, and Dr. Robert Kurka, professor of Theology at Lincoln Christian College in Lincoln, IL.

Both of these men did an outstanding job presenting their perspectives and did so with an atmosphere of Christian brotherhood.

If you did not get a chance to attend you can listen to the debate at http://www.tbcdecatur.org/.

Though both of the speakers did an excellent job, I must say that my position has not changed in the slightest degree. I believe that the Scripture overwhelming demonstrates that a genuine believer is secure in Christ.
A few other things I would have added (though time only allowed an overview) to the position of security are...

The totality of forgiveness. The Protestant (and biblical) understanding of justification is that in Christ believers are forgiven of all their sin (past, present, and future). The writer of Hebrews is clear that Jesus would have to be offered over and over if forgiveness was temporary status. Therefore, if we are forgiven of all of our sins then how can a believer fall away when the sin he/she commits is already forgiven in Christ (see Hebrews 10).
The Parable of the Sower. Based on my interpretation of the parable of the Sower (or seeds) is that Jesus clearly teaches that there is a seed that produces a temporary fruit but ultimately dies off. It is only the seed that produces good fruit that is the "good soil." Therefore, Jesus teaches that there is such a thing as a temporary belief that is not truly rooted in genuine transformation. This is why I find the argument that "we all know someone who was a Christian and fell away" unconvincing. It doesn't matter who you know, or how they live, whether or not someone is a genuine believer is a matter of them and the Lord. There are many who say "Lord, Lord" but do not actually entire into the kingdom of God.
Biblical Warnings. I do not have the time to develop this completely but I believe that the so-called "warning-passages" in the Bible actually serve as the means through which believers will persevere. In Hebrews 6, right after the author warns them about "falling away" he writes "though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things(vs. 9)". In other words, by warning them of the danger of falling away the writer is actually confident that they will not. The interpretation of the warning passages deserves it's own article. If you want a good book on this I recommend "The Race Set Before Us" by Schreiner and Caneday.
For those who have asked for our own confession I have listed it below. It is from the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.
Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.
All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.
Thanks again for all who attended. I have received many emails regarding when the next one will be. Not sure, but there will certainly be more things like this to come.

Pastor Wes

Knowing when to marry

2009-07-31T09:30:00.000-07:00

One of the things I advise young couples to do is to not put off getting married if biblical conditions are met. Marriage is something that has been put off until "education is finished" a "career is established" or "finances are secure." The problem with these arguments is that they are man-made. Now I am not suggesting that marriage should be entered without caution or wisdom. I am, however, suggesting that marriage is becoming less of a priority in our culture in place of personal, self-centered accomplishments. This is a topic I will write on more in the future, but for now let me direct you to the link below for an article in Christianity Today that I think is worth your time to think about. I will try and post more of my thoughts in the days ahead.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/august/16.22.html

Pastor Wes

Can a Christian lose thier salvation?

2009-07-28T12:43:00.000-07:00
This coming Sunday night at Tabernacle Baptist church we have hosting our first "Great Debate." This evening is designed to study God's Word through hearing different perspectives on a theological subject. Sunday's debate will center around the topic of Eternal Security (or "once saved, always saved").

There are many Christians who believe that once a person becomes a follower of Jesus Christ they can never lose their salvation. This does not necessarily mean that one can "live however they want" and still be a Christian. Rather, a genuine Christian experiences spiritual transformation and though they will sin, they are kept secure as they are brought into conformity to Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, there are other Christians who believe that it is possible for a genuine Christian to fall away and forsake their salvation. Just as an individual can choose to become a believer, they can also choose to forsake their Christianity, therefore forfeiting their salvation.

We are thankful to have two speakers who will present both sides of this issue. It is my prayer that we will be challenged to think biblically and that the Lord will solidify what we believe in the teachings of His Word.

So make your plans to come out Sunday night. It will be fun, challenging, and thought-provoking as we seek to understand God's Word together.

Pastor Wes

Baptized into one body

2009-07-28T09:41:00.000-07:00

Several years ago, in a different ministry context, the pastoral staff was asked if we could do a favor for one of the relatives of a church member. The sister of one of the ladies in the church had recently accepted Christ as her Savior and wanted to be baptized, but lived several hours away. Since she was coming in to visit, the request was made to the pastoral staff if she could be baptized at our church while she was in town.

What should we have done? Should churches baptize people from out of town? Should baptism occur separate from church membership? Is the church commanded to baptize a part from the ongoing process of discipleship?

We discussed this situation in great detail among our staff. Though opinions varied and disagreement was expressed, we finally agreed that we would not baptize her but would encourage her to find a local church in her area, follow the Lord in baptism, and join that fellowship for accountability and fellowship.

There are several reasons why I believe that churches should not separate baptism from church membership.

1) Baptism symbolizes union with Christ and His body.

It is true that the church exists universally (all believers) and locally (believers in a local church). However, the universal church is expressed through the local body of believers. Baptism points to union with Christ (Romans 6:1-4) and union with Christ is expressed through the participation of the local church (Romans 12, 1 Cor 10:16-17, Eph 1:22-23, 2:16; Col 1:18, 2:19, 3:15, and many others). Therefore, you cannot separate union with Christ from union with His body, expressed locally in covenantal community.

Think of it this way…
Baptism shows union with Christ—Union with Christ is shown through participation in His body—participation in His body is shown through local church membership.

2) The Great Commission does not separate baptism and discipleship.

The three participles in the Great Commission involve “going, baptizing, and teaching.” Therefore, when churches separate baptizing from the ongoing teaching and discipleship in a local congregation, they are not fulfilling the Great Commission.

3) Baptism is a “church ordinance” not an “individual expression.”

I have said often that baptism is not an individual event, it is a congregational event. In baptism, the person expressions identification with Christ, the church is affirming that profession, and the local faith community is proclaiming the gospel to one another. That is why we believe there are two ordinances…baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Just as you would not (or at least should not) participate in the Lord Supper in isolation of the local church, baptism is not to be separated from the local body either. You don’t take your wife out to eat and say, “I think we should take the Lord Supper together tonight.” Why? Because it is a church ordnance to be practiced within the local covenantal community…as does baptism. Baptism was practiced in the early church under Apostolic authority within the context of the visible church (Matt 16:16-18).

4) The teaching of Acts 2.

The clear order of Acts chapter 2 is the preaching of the gospel, the baptism of believers, and the addition into the local church. Though the phrase “the church” is not given, verse 42 speaks of life and function of the local church. Words like “Trinity” or “rapture” are not given, but we see their process and function.

5) It is spiritually dangerous to baptize someone without participation in the local church.

More than anything, new believers need the local teaching, accountability, and discipline of the local church. To allow individuals to be baptized (affirmed by that congregation) and not placed under the watch-care of the church can have dangerous consequences upon the believer.

There are other reasons why I believe that baptism and church membership should be connected. Those who disagree often point to the Ethiopian eunuch as not being baptized into the local church. There are a few problems with this example.

a) It is likely that there was no church in Ethiopia at the time because the gospel was starting to spread.
b) We are not given enough follow-up information concerning this situation as to discern what happened after his baptism.
c) One should never take one example (of which we do not have all the surrounding information) and a make a universal principle out of it when the entire rest of the New Testament demonstrates to practice of baptism into the local body.

The decisions like we made in the situation described above are not always easy. But at the end of the day we felt (and I was thankful) that the best thing for that new believer was to find a Bible-teaching congregation in her community, profess her identification with Christ to that body, and submit herself that covenantal community of faith. That, in our opinion, was the best favor we could do for her.

Pastor Wes

Jesus, say what? Why the free gift of eternal life will cost you.

2009-07-01T15:43:00.001-07:00
Jesus was walking down the dusty path, as He did most everyday of His life on earth, only to encounter another interruption, another question, another person on their knees, another real life situation to handle, another need to meet. The question He was asked this time did not surprise Him, for He was asked this question time and time again…What must I do to have eternal life? Such is the question everyone wants to ask; yet no one wants to hear the answer because Jesus always makes it personal and it always comes at a cost.
As was the case for this man on this particular day for he was a good man, one who had not murdered, committed adultery, stolen from others, or dishonored his parents. Yet for Jesus, this wasn’t enough. It wasn’t the answer to the ultimate question. Jesus, looking at him with loving eyes, knew that because of this man’s riches, his treasure wasn’t heaven, it was his own possessions.

How disheartened this young man must have been, he had lived a good life, done well for himself, and yet it seems it was all for not. Maybe he wanted to hear, “I’m proud of you for living a good life” or “Just keep doing what you are doing and you’ll be just fine.” Whatever the case, what he heard ripped his heart out. The very idea that he had to give up everything he had worked so hard to gain was a thought he could not bear. This man heard the very thing he hoped he would not hear, namely “If you want to have eternal life…give it all away!” You see the answer to the ultimate question is ultimate sacrifice. You don’t want to hear the answer to eternal life if you are in love with this one.

I’m remind of this passage in Isaiah…

Bel has bowed down, Nebo stoops over; their images are consigned to the beasts and the cattle. The things that you carry are burdensome, a load for the weary beast. They stooped over, they have bowed down together, they could not rescue the burden, but have themselves gone into captivity.

Listen to Me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, You who have been borne by Me from birth. And have been carried from the womb; Even to your old age will be the same, And even to your graying years I will bear you! I have done it, and I will carry you; and I will bear you and I will deliver you. (Isa 46:1-4)

As in the case of the rich young ruler, we have the option of carrying our own burdens or letting the Lord carry them for us. For many of us the thought of letting go is too hard, too much sacrifice, too much of a cost. We have deceived ourselves into thinking we are okay on our own; after all we’ve come this far without help. After all, “we’ve got it all together, just leave us alone.” It is a wonder our backs don’t break with the load we carry.

We can complain about how hard life can be; yet we are unwilling to give up the weight. We keep trying to do the best we can, although our best will never be good enough. We keep wondering what it will take one day to have eternal life, even though we may not really want the answer!

Pastor Wes