Reflecting on His Word: 2015

Sunday, November 29, 2015

What's In a Name?

What’s In a Name?

First of all I think it’s important to point out that changing a label doesn’t change what’s inside. I know a couple who, when they went on their honeymoon, their “friends” got into their place and removed and switched all of the labels on their canned goods. This is a swell prank, but it does nothing for what’s in the cans. In the case of the switched label, the label only serves to disappoint. Of course, if the contents of the can have changed, a label change would be in order. But in the case of a church, the contents wander the town Monday through Saturday revealing for all to see, just what the contents of that church are. So why the need for a label change when it’s plain to all what’s inside?

If there has been a change and it’s a change for the better, I’m truly happy for you. You may call me a pessimist for saying so, but true change is rare. Perhaps it’s not a name change to tell us that you’ve changed, but a name change to hide the change. If you call yourself “Baptist”, it brings with it a whole slew of expectations. Perhaps you feel that you can no longer live up to such a “rigid” and “intolerant” set of standards as found in Scripture. It is, after all, quite stylish, even intellectual, to set aside “archaic” guidelines and chart your own course. That all sounds good when chatting up lost folk in the marketplace, but casting off the “stuffiness” of Scripture is folly. Additionally, the new and vague label of non-denominational leaves your church in a category all alone thereby depriving you of the help of neighboring churches who are confessionally the same, holding you accountable for doctrine and practice. Dr. Albert Mohler rightly points out: “…theological disaster usually comes by means of drift and evasion, shading and equivocation.” Losing accountability by “avoiding the labels” can put you on a slippery slope. If you have truly changed, changed so much that a label change is in order, perhaps a safety check is in order too. After all, not all change is good. If it’s your desire to become one of those casual Friday, rock concert, “don’t talk of commands, I’m under Grace” kind of churches, please let me spare you some trouble. “Seeker friendly” has been tried and found to be a silly mistake. John 2:15-17 If what people want would draw them to Jesus, churches and the Holy Spirit would be out of work. John Piper said: “The world doesn’t need more cool, hip, culturally savvy, irrelevant copies of itself.” John 12:32 Perhaps the best way to draw people to Him would be to tell them of His sacrifice and how it can be their redemption. In other words, maybe we should simply share the Gospel with them. Yes, I’m sure I read that somewhere. You see we are to be transformed so that we can prove (to the world) what God’s deal is. Romans 12:2

I have a feeling that there is another factor at work here. The more blogs, books, and essays I read, the more I detect an undercurrent of misunderstanding. Apparently, it’s a common mistake, but it seems many want to change everything that reminds them of church from their childhood. I’m sure it seemed dreadful and boring to them, but their mistake is that they assume that the “fault” was the church. What they fail to realize is that, to a child without understanding, even exciting churches will seem dull. So all the stuff that they hated about church, all the stuff they’ve longed to fix, weren’t necessarily broken after all. Their approach to rectifying these perceived errors makes about as much sense as attempting to salve the sting of getting dumped by a girlfriend by finding a girl who looks just like her, getting her to be your girlfriend, then dumping her. I suppose that this could make you feel better, but it would actually accomplish nothing positive. In order to refine gold, we must adhere to a certain process. One cannot simply decide to “do something else” to refine gold. Well, you can decide that, but it won’t work! The same principle holds true with the refining of the church. The formula for the process is simple: much preaching, teaching, and reading of the Word, add much prayer, and then apply the fire of life and its hurts etc., and Voila! Refining takes place. The gold will be refined and the dross will be consumed.

Finally, advertising geniuses will tell you that the name of a business or product is very important. It can be a bad choice to try to say too much in the name, but worse to say too little. The problem with new names is that they don’t really tell us anything because there is little to no history to add meaning. In spite of some bad examples, the name Baptist informs of several doctrinal stands. It speaks of fierce independence, the importance of Scripture, and of course, the importance of and proper application of baptism. Our name is a chance to preach to our society. Martin Luther said we should be a “mouth house”. Romans 1:16 If we truly are not ashamed of the Gospel, shall we not avail ourselves of the opportunity to preach that Gospel through our name?

Saturday, August 29, 2015

Dressing for Church

Nearly everybody in America has heard of the Tony Award® winning musical Fiddler on the Roof. The major theme in the book by Joseph Stein is Tevye’s attempt to maintain his family and Jewish traditions while modern ideas lure those around him away.

This theme works well because of its universal appeal. This is the age-old battle between generations. Life in the Church is not immune to the pull of this battle. However, we owe it to ourselves, our progeny, and The Lord to make sure we break from the cycle and make our decisions based on a proper, Biblical perspective. Remember, “We’ve always done it that way” is no reason to do something, and no reason to not do something either!

The following is the first installment of an open-ended series of topics that follow this vein.

There is a movement well underway to reverse the historical custom of “dressing up” for church. Many cite comfort for their bent while others insist that being “too formal” could drive away prospects by making them feel uncomfortable. Still others say that this habit is outmoded and irrelevant. Let’s take a brief look into the matter.

You may be too young to remember that in “olden times” we called the place that we gathered for worship the “Sanctuary”. Obviously, it was understood that the individual Christians gathered together were “the Church” but the term, obviously, bears the idea of sanctification. Sanctification is the carrying on to perfection the work begun in regeneration, and it extends to the whole man.² Romans 6:13 To sanctify is “to make holy, to set apart as sacred, consecrate”.¹ Consecration is the devoting or setting apart of anything to the worship or service of God. In the New Testament, Christians are regarded as consecrated to the Lord.² 1Pet 2:9 “As we dedicate our church buildings, we set them apart for sacred uses, the service and worship of God. As the vessels of the Temple were dedicated or sanctified for special and sacred purposes, so of God’s people.³ Naturally, with the idea of sanctification, the concept of quality follows closely behind. Weren’t the Children of Israel chided for making a practice of bringing blind, halted, and diseased sacrifices before Him? Are we not instructed to present ourselves “…holy, and acceptable unto God…”? Rom 12:1 Perhaps I have missed something, but I can’t find the passage in Scripture that says: “Oh, don’t make a fuss!”

Many folks will say: “I’m just not comfortable dressed up.” Well, I would point out that, if worship is about your comfort, then it really isn’t worship at all. I remember very clearly when I got myself to a church because God had revealed Himself to me through the wonder of creation. I got my appearance together as best I could, but I would not be dissuaded from surrendering to God. I didn’t know what to do and had never seen a Baptist service or any invitation before. None the less, when the pastor extended the invitation, I immediately, and almost running, got down that aisle and, in spite of my lack of knowing the “lingo” indicated what I had come for. I didn’t know or care what anyone thought. Furthermore, it’s plain to see to anyone that if a seeker is at all serious, he will not be intimidated by anybody’s dress. If we’re kind, and winsome, any awkwardness that they might have felt will be instantly dispelled in the face of our welcoming spirit.

When The Lord commanded the building of the tabernacle and later the temple, He was painting an elaborate picture of His plan to be with His people. Everything in the temple had meaning and pointed to and honored the Lamb to come, The Christ. The varying substances and materials speak of his purity, holiness, etc.. Likewise, the priests made elaborate preparation following complex instructions to the letter. However, at Jesus’ death, the veil was torn signifying our access to the Holy of Holies eliminating the need for an intermediary. The “priesthood of the believer” that resulted allowed for direct and personal access to the very throne room of God. However, there was no corresponding incident indicating that what would take place as we met God would be any less important than it had been in the past. The gold did not turn to rusty iron, nor the bronze to clay. The veil was the only “casual-ty” that day.

Finally, for all of you students of culture, intellect and understanding who mistakenly take the phenomenon of dressing up as purely western or American, I would like you to consider that every people group that has ever existed on this planet either dressed up or did something special with their appearance for important occasions. It is deep within who we are to honor what is important with how we dress. Even if somehow one has escaped the bonds of his humanity (which he cannot), and no longer need to dress for what’s important, he remains a witness of Christ, and, as such has an obligation of a clear testimony regardless of the happenings within popular culture. You see, the rest of humanity may fight that inner voice, the urge, to honor the important and not want to dress up for anything, but our testimony must still point to a Holy God, worthy of honor. Our Lord still desires our sanctification.

Thomas Aquinas provides one more model for engaging clothing. He believed we have a moral obligation to compose our outward manners—including our dress—in light of the person we are addressing, the company we are with, the business we are pursuing, and the place we are in. He claimed that a truly virtuous life includes the art of savoir faire—“a sense of occasion discerning differences of situation”—and that this should inform the clothing we wear.⁴

He still desires to be glorified in the Temple. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 To defy this represents an agenda outside of what we are, focused on self, juxtaposed to scripture and, therefore dishonoring to God.

So, in this case, at least, the problem seems to have been that we forgot why “…we did it that way”. The tradition wasn’t wrong at all, we just forgot to keep teaching the “why” of it.

1 Dictionary.com

2 Easton’s Bible Dictionary

3 What Baptists Believe and Why They Believe It JG Bow, D.D.

4 “The Biblical Meaning of Clothing” In Christianity Today Robert Covolo/ August 28, 2015

Saturday, August 22, 2015

The Ultimate Proof

The other day a friend posted, on Facebook, a couple of Graphics that illustrated the vastness of the universe. This reminded me of two things: how I came to know Jesus, and how most scientists cite their science for why they don’t believe in God. I respect people who live by their convictions. To be able to hypothesize, experiment, conclude, repeat and prove is very slick. It removes all doubt and leaves the scientist with every reason to believe these things until the day he dies. However, this requires (especially if these are important, life and death matters.) a very strict adherence to the scientific method, yes? The quest for truth must be pure and honest and the scientist must accept the findings. Agreed? Well do I have an experiment for you!

Assuming that we all agree that if there is a God out there, and we discover Him we would naturally want to relate to Him; even follow Him, right? The thesis question is: Is there a God?. The theory is that God does exist. So, the task is to set up an accurate and reproducible experiment to prove the existence of God. Don’t get antsy on me. Obviously we cannot prove that something does not exist. That wouldn’t be scientific.

Here is the experiment. With that open, very scientific mind, determined to relate to God if you find Him, simply say silently in your heart: “God, if you exist, show yourself to me, and I will give myself to you.” I can almost hear people saying aloud: That’s a rip off! That’s not scientific! Perhaps the method is, after all the posturing not scientific. However, to declare it faulty without a test would also be unscientific. I submit, for those doubtful of the experiment, the easiest way to prove that I am a religious idiot is to go ahead and conduct the experiment. Conduct the experiment exactly as stated. If you fail to do so, you forever will have ignored the assertion based on prejudice rather than scientific proof rendering you a poor scientist and forever without a conclusive answer on the topic. Of course, if you are a good scientist, you must test it or make no declaration. However, most will never do this because, like those who thought the earth was flat, you can’t deal with the truth, and what it might do to your little world, but choose to skew your findings to fulfill your “science”. Are you a good scientist? Do the experiment. I dare you.

I know that this experiment works because I conducted it myself in 1973. I did it just that way. I figured if there is a God, I would want to serve Him, but if there is not, it would not hurt to conduct the test. I had a limited understanding of prayer and knew of silent prayer and figured, if this God was indeed God, He could surely hear my silent prayers. So, silently, secretly, and with solemn intent, I made Him the offer. Soon everything in my world began to change. I beheld the stars and did not see a big bang. I saw a child and did not see an evolutionary step. I saw in nature around me an unmistakable harmony, and rhythmic pattern that was undoubtedly God’s doing! Now, since he now lives in me, He manifests Himself to me and gives me peace and assurance that He does indeed exist.

Sunday, May 3, 2015

Oh Infamous Day!

My heart is filled with an exceptional sadness today. Today the SCOTUS will promote homosexuality and so called same-sex marriage as something normal that is an unabridgable right

Obviously, lost folks are going to do what lost folks do. Obviously, homosexuality is perverse and/or maladaptive behavior. These are the facts and there is no disputing them. This does make me sad, but it’s not the cause for me to write.

The reason that I am writing, the reason that I am so inconsolably sad is the “Christian” response to all of this. It’s not like it’s a tough subject to encapsulate. I was able to do it in two sentences. And it’s not like there is some deep, dark mystery within God’s Word that must be plumbed meticulously for years to determine God’s answer on the matter. It’s a one-word answer: sin. . (Genesis 19:4-9; Leviticus 18:22; Proverbs 3:32; 11:20; et al)

There is a commonly accepted principle for dealing with Scripture: “We must not speak where Scripture is silent.” I would like to propose the converse: “We must not be silent where Scripture is specific and clear”.

To be certain, no one is being silent on this matter. Pundits and churchmen are waxing, oh so eloquently on the topic. And here is where my heart is being hurt. You see, to the man, all are talking around the subject, but none are saying (and certainly not so plainly as Scripture does) that it is sin. In fact some are implying that while “homosexuality is a sin, but being gay is not”. (Matthew 5:27-28) Yes, you heard right! Apparently, what they are trying to say is “God made me this way so it’s OK as long as I behave myself”. (James 1:13-14) Many are taking to this lie that came straight from the pits of hell and placing it in front of the pulpit still smelling of smoke and remarking: “Oh how beautiful are the flowers!”.

Now as to why someone would or could do such a thing, I can only venture to guess. Perhaps they feel that by placating the voices of the lost culture and repeating this lie, they can do more for the Kingdom than they could if they were to dare utter the truth as found in Scripture. Perhaps they are attempting to demonstrate their superior theological “muscles” by straining for things that are not there. Or maybe they think that they are being kind and showing that they are loving, warm, and fuzzy by talking all around the subject. Regardless of what they think that they are accomplishing, what they are really doing is failing to condemn it as sin and possibly confusing those who, quite obviously, are easily confused. Don’t get me wrong, I truly believe that we should love those overtaken in such. We should love all men regardless of their sin or condition. However, they cannot be saved from sin until we stop excusing the behavior for them and call it sin. (Isaiah 5:20)

Here is the bottom line. Regardless of what you may believe or intend, when you shilly shally about something that Scripture makes so abundantly clear, you make the Kingdom suspect by your sin. If you cannot come to grips with the fact that homosexuality, being gay, having same-sex attraction, or whatever the “euphemism de jour” is, then perhaps you should return to the basics of your relationship with the Savior.

Monday, January 19, 2015

Lent

Lent

This is the “long awaited” third installment on the topic of Lent.

Some folks put way too much stock in tradition and others too readily dismiss it.

This is not intended to be a scholarly rendition on the observance of Lent. Rather, my intent is to shed a bit of light so that folks can relax about it and gain from some version of its observance.

It seems to me that Baptists and Protestants get a little too worked up attempting to distance themselves from things that Catholics do, things that are not necessarily on the list of things that Catholics “do” that are wrong. Additionally, Baptists tend to lean away from liturgical practices such as observance of the church calendar, and even the teaching of church history that appear “too Catholic”. John Calvin labeled Lenten practices as superstitious. Of course, any practice can become superstitious, so let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. In spite of objections, some quite notable, I would say that there is something to be gained in an observance of Lent. Naturally, some of the traditional aspects such as mandatory alms, a sin-indulgent pre-observance “sin holiday” such as is usually called “fat Tuesday” and penance will need to be combed out. Let’s just call it “Lent light”.

Though some of the usual practices are undesirable, I think that we can agree about the benefits of fasting, prayer, self-discipline, practicing solemnity, and contemplating Christ’s sacrifice. Am I interested in promoting rituals and practices that pass as spirituality? No. However, I am interested in promoting customs that stir introspection and solemn meditation upon all that the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ mean to us as Christians.

Lent is observed for forty days, plus Sundays, before Easter. The 40 days is said to be a reflection of Jesus’ forty day fast in the wilderness. There are other examples of the number forty being associated with God’s redemptive plan such as Noah’s forty days and nights of rain and the Israelites’ forty year trek in the desert. God has often used symbolism in His Word and when dealing with His people. I like symbolism. Among the beneficial practices of Lent, there is usually some sort of mild self-discipline and self-sacrifice involved. Many will abstain from meat, or sweets, or something else by which they are tempted to indulge. Some will give up TV or other entertainment, or distraction so as to more thoroughly focus on Lent. The main things that I am interested in are: prayer, devotion, fasting and sacrifice.

Before I go further, I think that I should make it clear that I am not advocating anything so extreme as to threaten health or well-being, and am certainly not advocating prescribed or imposed measures. Each Christian should decide for himself what he shall do. While resisting the overly drastic, I would also shy away from sacrifices that are “too easy”. For example, I don’t think that there is much to be gained by children “giving up” their veggies, or dads giving up watching football that is now over. Also, giving up wrong behaviors or sins cannot count because that is called obedience and should not wait for Lent to be given up and certainly should not be taken up again at the conclusion of Lent. And, although there is nothing wrong with talking about how you are observing Lent with friends, lost or otherwise, I think it’s important to avoid drawing undue attention to what you are doing or being overly dramatic about how greatly you are sacrificing. The important thing is to choose something that will take some effort without being such a distraction that meditation and devotion are hindered.

Don’t worry too much about how others observe Lent. Simply observe the season in such a way as to heighten your awareness of and meditation upon what Easter means to you, and to us all.

This year, we will be using a devotional guide by Paul Wesley Chilcote, The Song Forever New. It is available in hard copy and e-version. We used his devotional guide for advent and enjoyed it.

http://www.amazon.com/Song-Forever-New-Easter-Charles-ebook/dp/B00C1QVCKS/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1421686208&sr=1-1&keywords=the+song+forever+new