I’m writing at the new Son of Carey site now. Feel free to stop by.
The Man Responsible
Planting churches with the Baptist Confession in one hand and Tolkien in the other.
What I’m Reading
Take this brief quiz to see where you stand on what may be the world’s most common version of Christianity.
The Prosperity Gospel is ubiquitous. No religion, denomination, or culture is exempt. Here are twenty questions to test how much the Health and Wealth message has affected you.
The answers are at the end of the article. I will elaborate on each question in forthcoming posts.
1a. “I can do all things through Christ” means there is no limit to what I can do.
1b. “I can do all things through Christ” means it is possible to be content in all circumstances.
2a. “Death and life are in the power of the tongue” means our tongue has the power to destroy or build up others.
2b. “Death and life are in the power of the tongue” means our words have the power to speak into existence that which I desire.
3a. In Scripture, the pastor is described as God’s anointed.
3b. In Scripture, the pastor is described as a servant…
View original post 563 more words
Notice the bolded comments in this classic letter.
We bless God that He has graciously yoked our family with like-minded churches and pastors. With nine supporting churches and about a dozen families, we have been able to spend around a week with each church. I don’t think this is ideal. Probably, 2-3 supporting churches and a month at each one would be the best, but that is an argument for another series of posts.
This post follows the previous one introducing in brief a philosophy of missions regarding furlough. Knowing the way people scroll through blog posts reading just a few sentences of each, I feared this illustration may get lost unless it was published separately.
So, here is a step in the right direction—a brief illustration of the way a great church made a great week for an average missionary.
In Iowa, we arrived at Grace Baptist Church on Saturday afternoon where we were to stay until the next Friday morning. They had a missionary house near the church where we stayed which gave us a little privacy while also keeping us accessible to the church.
Sunday morning, our family went to Sunday school as normal students. Many of the people in a church of 250 or so greeted us before the morning service. The pastor graciously allowed me to preach in the morning and show my slides in the evening. For the evening service I was given 45 minutes to show pictures and talk about our ministry and philosophy.
Sign up lists were placed—at the pastor’s initiative—on the back table so that we could have dinners with the church members throughout the week. There was no spot for lunch so that we could eat by ourselves without exhausting our kids too much. Tuesday-Thursday, I had four chances to speak to the young people at junior camp. They also closed camp with a question answer time between the missionary and the kids. After they asked me questions, the pastor even gave me a chance to ask them questions!
Before arriving, I had asked the pastor if I could meet with him and the church leadership for a time of accountability and prayer. Rather than have a meeting behind closed doors, he asked me to address the entire congregation again on Wednesday night where he set up a little panel of question and answer time for nearly an hour. He also thought to ask Amy to answer questions as well.
The pastor took the initiative to talk and pray with me even though I know he was busy. He was humble enough to listen, but bold enough to say at least once, “You’re wrong. That is sin.” Such friends are rare indeed.
By the end of the week, we felt sad to leave. We had answered (and asked) so many questions about family, homeschool, ministry, and Africa that conversations had naturally and repeatedly been spawned. At the end of time we may see that heartfelt conversations were the greatest tools to engender prayer for missionaries. I certainly doubt that eternity will reveal classy prayer cards, brilliant DVD’s, or a well-polished missionary sermon vying for first place as the greatest impetus to praying for missionaries.
The week was invested in eternity because relationships were built to the glory of God. The only problem was that seven days was too short.
The last two verses in Acts 14 record the first furlough visit by the first two foreign missionaries of the church. If they are good examples and worthy of imitation (which I believe they are in their missions philosophy) then missionaries should return at intervals to “rehearse all that God has done with them.”
But the last verse of the chapter reads, “And they remained no little time with the disciples.” (Acts 14:28) Why would they do this? Was Paul wasting time? And when it comes to application, how could missionaries today do this when many of them have 30+ churches supporting them, and many churches have just as many missionaries?
Why did they stay a long time?
At least two factors seem to be logical answers to that question even though the text is not explicit. They may have been looking for the next place to minister as they planted churches. Logistical questions like this are valid reasons to spend time on furlough at a supporting church.
Perhaps Paul also saw the need to strengthen the relationships with his brothers and sisters that were so close to him at Antioch. The last chapter of Romans is an extended list of people with whom Paul had formed friendships. Throughout his epistles we read of around 30 other people who at one point or another labored together with Paul in his missionary travels. Could the man who wrote the “love chapter” in 1 Corinthians be disinterested in relationships with those who were holding the ropes for him?
At certain levels, time alone can join hearts. Though all believers enjoy the unity of the Spirit whereby they have a closer bond because their deepest loves are the same, David-and-Jonathan friendships require years of melded experiences and conversations. Thus, the “no little time” of Acts 14:28 provided for Paul and Barnabas to live, minister, grow, and refresh themselves among their friends and peers who could more effectively pray for them not only because the church now knew the missionaries better but also because they now had a more significant heart investment.
How could modern missionaries follow their example?
At this point, let’s try to apply this aspect of missions philosophy. Suppose a missionary wants to spend “no little time” at a supporting church, so he sets his sights at merely a week-long visit with each of his supporters. With over 30 churches, he’ll be on furlough for somewhere around a year. That’s something close to the time frame of the average furlough now, with one key exception: most missionaries do not stay at a church longer than one service. Maybe they’re traveling; maybe they’re not welcome; maybe they’re exhausted from traveling; maybe they don’t agree with the church and if they stayed longer, their disagreements would be brought to light potentially threatening further support; maybe they’ve simply never thought to ask.
Of the pastors who support our family, most of them said it is rare to have missionaries who stay for more than one service and definitely unusual for missionaries to stay longer for accountability and in order to form friendships with the people.
As a missionary, I can only imagine how stressful and tiring it would be to pack and unpack the van for 37 different churches. And with nearly two score independent churches how could you hope to agree with them all? Pragmatically, a lot of missionaries would be afraid to open up if it lengthens their time on deputation, and so the downward spiral continues where both parties kind of quietly agree to work together in a very modern and business-like state. And all the while, relationships wither along with any healthy fruit that could spring from such useful plants.
From the missionary’s standpoint it would be difficult with a plethora of churches, but from the church’s standpoint, it would be a huge weight. If each missionary on furlough plus those coming in for support all wanted to stay for a week or more of meaningful relationships, how could the church get anything done? The pastor would have a week’s schedule interrupted once a month or so from another one of his missionaries hoping to pray with him and talk with him about accountability. The people would wear out of cooking extra meals, cleaning their oft-used guest rooms, signing up yet again after church, and trying to seriously remember how many kids “this one” has now.
I once visited a church of several hundred with nearly one hundred missionaries. How could they possibly allow each of them to spend “no little time” with them? Down the road was a church of less than 50 with about a dozen or so missionaries. Those 12 would probably wear on that little assembly just like 100 wears on an assembly of 450.
If missionaries and churches tried to follow Paul and Barnabas’ example in Acts 14, the week would probably include a public presentation, question and answer times, meals with families, and discussions before and after regular meeting times. However, difficult that may be for churches with a lot of missionaries or for missionaries with the reverse problem, if furloughs are worth doing, then missionaries should find time to forge and strengthen friendships with (and within) their supporting churches.
Not only would I like to hear their answers to these questions, I’d like to hear their best dozen or so questions fired back at our side.
Of these points, which form the chapters for his book, the ones bolded are those I found most persuasive.
Why did I post this list?
I am to some degree taken with the gospel-centered movement represented by T4G and the Gospel Coalition. There is strong Scriptural support for a gospel-centered kind of ministry. (Gal. 6:14, et. al.) Yet, I’m also uneasy with the theological ambivalence that can surround “non-essential” issues such as baptism, speaking in tongues, women in ministry, old-earth theories of creation, and views of the millennium. Maybe these are all second tier doctrines because none of them in part or in full is the gospel. Or, maybe they each have one foot in the secondary and one in the primary category.
Is it possible that non-gospel doctrines can actually have a direct and logically necessary effect on God’s plan of salvation? Are all secondary doctrines exclusively secondary? This list might serve to call attention to the important aspect of “unimportant” teachings of Scripture.
As I listened to a debate between Doug Wilson and Andrew Sullivan on the question, “Is Civil Marriage for Gay Couples Good for Society?” I began to participate at several levels myself. Already I was evaluating their individual arguments and trying to construct my own answer to the question from a social perspective. We are justified for reaching some conclusions even if we are not able to assemble an air-tight argument (otherwise young children couldn’t justifiably believe anything), but how much better it is if we are able to move step by step to an irrefutable resting place.
Sullivan opened the debate with the argument that:
Wilson argued against the proposition with something like the following:
I could see Sullivan’s reasoning being persuasive with an important voting bloc because of the love affair that the post-modern has with all things purportedly fair. And while I think Wilson’s argument was valid, my hunch is that it would not be compelling outside that group that was already on his side.
So, what is a good answer to the proposition?
A good answer will necessarily be a Christian answer because Jesus Christ is wisdom. (1 Cor. 1:24, 30) Furthermore, in Christ “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” (Col. 2:3) If there is a thorny question to be answered, the right way to think about the puzzle is the way Jesus would think. In order to deny this, you must first deny the basic premise that Jesus Christ’s thoughts represent the highest pinnacle of right reasoning.
Now, of course there are those who will debate that very point, and then we can begin to discuss what is really the dividing line between the two sides in the spiritual war: the Lordship of Christ. But if that point is established between two who profess to be Christians, or even granted for sake of discussion, then the debate takes on a new tone. So, I don’t expect this argument to be persuasive to anyone who does not agree with me on the fundamental cornerstone of all right thinking, namely absolute surrender to King Jesus. However, if they don’t agree with that principle, then do we really think they will accept any other reasons we could offer in opposition to any moral claim?
At what points does the contemporary issue of homosexual marriage touch the nature and mission of Jesus Christ? One way to view the gospel is through the lens of marriage. That is, marriage was designed to illustrate who Jesus is and what He came to do. This was not always clear at certain points in redemptive history which is why the Apostle Paul calls marriage a “great mystery.” (Eph. 5:32)
Built into the sexes by their Creator is a message that is only communicated when one man and one woman make a covenant together. The union of Christ with His (singular) people whereby they are loved supremely and unchangeably is pictured beautifully in monogamous, heterosexual marriage. Polygamy breaks the picture as if Aslan really would accept followers of Tash. Divorce breaks the picture as if something actually could separate us from our unconquerable Lover. However, homosexual marriage also breaks the picture because a homosexual marriage cannot fulfill christian roles.
In Ephesians 5, the husband loves his wife in the same way that Christ loves the Church. He is the leader and initiator. Jesus pays for His bride with His blood (5:25-27) in a way that implies the breadwinning responsibility of the man.
In a distinctly different way, the wife fulfills her covenant duty in this great parable of the gospel by obeying her husband. By responding to the husband’s mission and following his guidance, the wife thereby pictures the church’s submission to the Lordship of Christ. (5:22-23) In this sense, the debate between egalitarianism and complementarianism carries the potential to affect the gospel.
Are there homosexual complementarians? That’s an impossibility. Their whole position is built on the idea that we should all be free to live in mutual equality regardless of physiological, neurological, or spiritual differences. Several times during the debate, Sullivan played the “That’s-not-fair” card to explain why he should be allowed to follow his desires. What could be more unfair than having the role of one partner in the marriage characterized as constant submission? That’s about as fair as grace.
When Paul teaches that the gospel is embedded in our collective conscience through the mystery of marriage, he assumes a distinction between the roles of male and female. But what if, for sake of argument, two men could work out between themselves who is going to submit and who is going to lead, would that solve the problem? Could these two men enter a covenant that could do what Paul says marriage is designed to do?
No, for two reasons.
First, the grammar of Eph. 5 is specifically masculine and feminine. The gender-specific words for wife and husband are used throughout the passage, and indeed throughout the whole Bible. The Song of Songs employs terms for male and female. (Not to mention that a contrasting pair is required as part of the poetic beauty.) Genesis 1 shows that God created two kinds of human, and gave them to each other. Jesus quotes Moses and affirms the same thing. (Matt. 19:4-5) Scripture repeatedly uses precise terms to affirm heterosexual relationships, not homosexual.
Two homosexuals do not picture the gospel secondly because Paul’s words in Eph. 5 are freighted with centuries of meaning dating back to Genesis 2. The purpose of femininity is clearly defined when God creates Eve. Her unique complementary role starts from her first appearance on the scene. If that role can effectively be handled by a man, then women really are devalued. The great earthly end for which God created 50% of the human race—so argues the homosexual position—is really a piece of cake. Anybody can do it. Even a man. May all feminists join me in righteous anger at yet another degrading attack on women.
Only marriage between one man and one woman pictures the union of Christ and His people whereby He purchases, loves, and leads them, and whereby they joyfully obey Him. This is the central message of the gospel. This statement leans on many other support beams such as the deity of Christ and the inerrancy of Scripture, but at the core of Christianity is submission to the Lordship of Jesus. Traditional marriage alone pictures these glorious realities leading us to the conclusion that if Christianity is right, then homosexual unions must be wrong.
Or, to cast the argument into a stylistically comfortable syllogism:
Tim Keller’s praise for D. A. Carson’s new book on culture demonstrates the importance of the term in question:
“There is no more crucial issue facing us today than the relationship of the church and the gospel to contemporary culture.”
Defining culture is like defining love. It’s an abstract term that can potentially cover so many aspects of life that it nearly loses its meaning by referring to everything. Carson confirms that on page one with a “fairly plastic” definition that could be paraphrased as the likes and dislikes of any group.
Many conservative evangelicals agree with Carson’s plasticity. A few weeks back I had the privilege of eating lunch with a president of a conservative evangelical seminary, and he agreed that culture should be defined by default as a neutral term for an ethnic group’s basic actions.
But then another group of observers would prefer to define culture something like, an ethnic group’s highest ideals; a collective expression of transcendent beauty. These glasses would be worn by writers such as Roger Kimball, Roger Scruton, and Kevin Bauder. Recently, David de Bruyn has written a helpful book for pastors arguing implicitly for this definition of culture.
The difference between the two definitions is that one categorizes and the other cuts. One is sterile and the other is loaded. The first is like a neutral zone in the culture wars, “No weapons here.” The second takes a definite stand by claiming that a group’s basic actions and beliefs are either moving us nearer to orthopathy, inhibiting us from reaching orthopathy, or even prohibiting any concourse with the category of orthopathy.
If culture is whatever a group likes then it is not necessarily always positive or negative. Cultural expressions could in theory be neutral. The post-modern mood then steps in swaying us to think that any given aesthetic choice is actually positive simply because it is not immediately clear that it is negative. Based on and at the same time supporting this conclusion, evangelicals may now cling to a kind of Sola Scriptura that practically has little authority over cultural forms.
The first definition has the inherent problem of allowing for a denuded principle of the authority of Scripture whereby cultural forms such as music, art, and architecture are given nearly free passes. I say “free” because, from this perspective, any artistic expression can at least be a statement about man’s depravity and thus become a worthy cultural demonstration.
But the second definition raises problems too since it leaves us with no word to describe the daily practices of any given group. Does the song “Happy Birthday” really communicate transcendent beauty? We need terms to talk about the day-to-day activities of life, and “culture” seems like a pretty good word. Ken Myers used high, low, and folk culture as three categories in his excellent book, All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes. Those categories allow us to still keep the edge on the blade of “culture” so that it may cut into musical style, etc. What may not be allowed is a definition of culture that removes an objective basis for critiquing cultural forms.
If culture is a positive term—an expression of transcendent beauty—then it is also rooted in the character of God which means our artistic demonstrations (as expressions of our highest ideals) should be evaluated in terms of the relationship to the divine attributes.
So, I agree with Keller that the relationship of the church to culture is one of vital importance. Vital because our culture is the most visible illustration of our conception of God.
From the perspective of Covenant Theology (CT), the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit including all the unique ministries He executes on behalf of new covenant believers was a very nice, yet non-essential addition to an already-functioning old covenant church. That line is not intended to be incendiary, yet it must follow from two theological premises that CT holds dear.
As a disclaimer, theological language must be chosen here with care and I welcome others to sharpen my chosen words in this discussion. Yet even amidst the mine field of tricky terms like people of God, church, change, new [covenant], fulfill, complete, replace, etc. there still lies certain differences and similarities between the realities displayed in the first 39 books and those of the latter 27. But if we emphasize difference, or discontinuity, then we are within the purview of one general system; if we opt for continuity as a guiding motif, then we have landed on the other side of the continental divide ultimately to be shed into distinct theological oceans.
Previously, I introduced this issue as one of CT’s inconsistencies, and in the future, a few more installments will follow (DV) treating other concerns in this category. But immediately, the significance of Pentecost carries serious ramifications for the question of unity of the covenants. The line of thought in this article will deal with the nature of the church in the OT, the arrival of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and a conclusion that logical consistency requires of these two premises.
Premise 1: The church began in the Old Testament.
According to CT the church must have existed in the OT because of the overall unity of God’s plan expressed as a single people throughout redemptive history. So then, Abraham was most certainly a Christian since the gospel was preached to him (Gal. 3:8). But why stop with Father Abraham? What about Noah, Seth, and Adam? They were all in the covenant as well since they found favor in the eyes of the Lord (Gen. 6:8). If they were in the covenant, then they were members of God’s people. If they were God’s people, then they were church members albeit under a slightly different “administration of the covenant.”
If the church is an entirely new entity in the NT, then CT has lost its most critical distinctive: the unity of the covenant of grace and the singularity of the people of God throughout redemptive history. However, there are ample references to demonstrate that, in fact, theologians of this persuasion do see the church as an OT body. It would surprise me if anyone denied this premise, but if it was doubted, it would not be hard to supply quotations from numerous theologians with impeccable credentials affirming that historically CT has held to an organically unified church finding its genesis in Genesis.
Premise 2: Pentecost represents a vital change.
I will be surprised if anyone questions the first proposition, but also if they denied the second. After the ascension, Christ sent His Spirit to animate the church and permanently dwell within believers in a unique way. The uniqueness of this ministry was owing to the Spirit’s universal coming to all believers, His permanent residency with each of Christ’s sheep, His special gifts of virtue and miracles, and the overwhelming nature of His presence resulting in unprecedented church growth. Furthermore, He testifies to the risen Christ (John 16:13-14) in a way that He previously had not done. The content of His ministry and its goals were thus distinct from a more general God-centered ministry under the OT.
In each of these five areas, the Holy Spirit was given at Pentecost in an essentially different role from that which He had ever occupied in the history of redemption to that point. In other words, the narrative of Acts 2 reveals an essential change in the manner with which God was dealing with those who were in covenant with Him.
To change something essentially is to change it in its foundational attribute. That which is the essence of an idea is the idea in its most basic form. Yet, it is precisely the most basic, foundational, vital attribute of God’s new covenant people that they are all permanently indwelt by His Spirit and specially taught by Him to love the second person of the Godhead. Is this not what it means to enjoy union with Christ? Union with Christ may be helpfully described in other ways, but those descriptions must amount to the same meaning as that which has been presented above.
Whatever the Holy Spirit was doing in the OT, it had to be different from the NT because that is the point of Pentecost: a new era of the Spirit’s ministry began.
Conclusion: Those two premises cannot both be consistently maintained.
If the church began in the OT, then Pentecost had to be something other than essential to its makeup. If it could exist and even thrive (at times) for millennia without the graces ministered so efficiently by the Holy Spirit, then Pentecost was something other than vital. Or, to come in the back door, if the Holy Spirit’s special coming was absolutely critical for the people of God and their union with Christ, then average believers under the old “administration” (we daren’t say dispensation) were lacking something critical for their religion.
Apparently, Pentecost was not the drive train, transmission, engine, or even fuel pump of the vehicle, but something like the air conditioner, a nice, added benefit that really increases the value while not substantially differing from other automobiles in the industry.
If this argument is air-tight, then the classic Covenantal position does not honor the Holy Spirit’s present ministry among the people of God, or if they do, they do so in the face of a necessary contradiction, borrowing capital from another theological system in order to support a high regard for Pentecost and its ongoing effects. CT in debt to dispensationalism? Now, that’s an amusing piece of irony.