If you don’t immediately see a problem with this, then you might be in a cult.

Chuck Baldwin spoke about this a few weeks ago. His take?

Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God’s principle of submission to authority?

[I]n America the “higher powers” are not the men who occupy elected office, they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Americans:

Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.]….

And I completely agree with Mr. Baldwin.

Ask your pastor what he would do in a situation such as that presented in this video clip. If he would comply with the government in such a case, leave that church now. You are being led by a wolf, and he has no concern for your well-being. Only harm can come from remaining under such a man.

You see, I’ve been in discussions with the pastors (regarding tithing) since our pre-membership interview with Jason Reyes (soon to be the new senior pastor of Covenant of Grace Church in Akron, OH). Sadly, they didn’t bother to even try to answer my questions until they found out that I had posted my thoughts on the tithe here at my blog. Even then, I was met with a general unwillingness to discuss my questions and concerns; rather, the conversation was continually focused on challenging my lack of trust in and respect for them. They couldn’t understand how my trust was largely dependent on their actions and approaches to my questions. You see, I did trust them when I joined Chesapeake in November of 2005. It was only after months of evading and ignoring my questions that I began to get exasperated with them. In the meantime, other things appeared on the radar that only added to my unease and distrust:

• The pastors paid themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in 2006 (according to their own financial statement), while giving roughly $18,000 as “benevolence.” When asked about this, their response was that the issued Statement was not an accurate reflection of their financial activity.
• The pastors refused to support from the general fund–or even to collect a “special offering” for–a family in the congregation with known serious financial needs. Meanwhile, they collected a special offering to cover moving expenses for two pastors.
• Jim Cannon (the senior pastor) personally told me in front of Jason Reyes and a Care Group leader that his preference was for my membership status to be reevaluated should I choose not to tithe to him. Later, to illustrate his rationale for this, he drew parallels with a wife not trusting her husband to handle their money. But when I pointed out that I wouldn’t/shouldn’t/couldn’t Biblically divorce my wife over such a matter, his response was that a church membership wasn’t like a marriage.
• Jim also told me that in his study of the tithe, he had considered no extra-biblical writings on the subject of tithing penned before the Protestant Reformation. Thus, all early “Church Fathers” epistles, the Didache, Josephus’ writings, and any other works which could have shed first-hand light on how the early church viewed tithing… were ignored.
• Jim’s response was to call me a “freeloader” and claim that I had “integrity issues” when I told the pastors that not giving to Chesapeake was a matter of conscience: they had collected over $850,000 last year with, as I said before, only $18,000 (2.5%) going to those in need. (I took the money I would have given them, and instead gave it to organizations like Compassion International and Blood:Water Mission.)

And in the midst of all this, the pastors tried to shut down an evangelistic effort from a Godly man in the congregation—to spend time with some other Christian men in a pub, where they could interact with people on “neutral territory” and begin to develop relationships with them. The pastors also forbade this man to pass out copies of a Mark Driscoll book to his Christian friends until Jim had approved it, and they almost banned the men in our Care Group from going on a camping trip they were organizing. Why? Because they wouldn’t get back in time for the Sunday morning service.

From what I’ve seen, Sovereign Grace Church in Joppa, MD (their new name, as of September 12th) isn’t a local church. It really bears far more resemblance to a cult:

• The leaders are domineering and in some areas tyrannical;
• they have tried in numerous ways to psychologically manipulate the congregation;
• they demand trust rather than desiring to show themselves worthy of it;
• they are frightened of “their” people being exposed to “non-approved” books and ideas.

So that’s why I left. I tried to reason with them for nearly two years, but it has proven fruitless. The pastors are content to continue as they have, and it’s just become too heavy a burden. It’s kind of depressing, because I love the people I know at Chesapeake, but with the mindset that many people seem to have (that “we must attend the same church or else we can’t be friends”) it seems it’ll be extremely difficult to maintain our relationships.

So where is the Seitler family headed? I don’t know, but I’m definitely scarred from (and scared of) this overbearing leadership, and so we’re probably looking more toward a house church than toward any other “model.” In the meantime, we’ve actually enjoyed greater fellowship with other believers in the past few weeks than we had when we were in “the club”–and it was mostly due to opportunities that wouldn’t have been available to us if we were attending Sunday morning meetings and Wednesday night meetings and…

UPDATE #2: The post I linked “moving expenses” to (on a blog written by Jason Reyes’ wife Laurie) has been removed since my post appeared here this morning. Just to show you there really *was* a post there (and to let you still read it), here’s a screenshot of Laurie’s Delete Post from within Google Reader. It was the only place with a copy still available.

And here’s larger versions of the six pictures from that post (including the last one, which Jason’s actually in): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

I guess this is just another example of their tendency to cover things up instead of dealing with them.

UPDATE #2: Laurie now has a video on YouTube showing the house.

UPDATE #3: What do I mean by “cult”? Find out here.

But then, he starts verbally ripping on my wife like she’s not even standing there. She’s right there! He thinks my wife, who has been the love of my life and a partner in ministry for 25 years, is a drain on my ability to influence others. He says she’s obsolete and that the “old girl is a little faded.”

I’m in shock.

Suddenly, the cheesy Christian motto of the 1990s flashes through my mind: What would Jesus do? Turn the other cheek? Pray for His enemy? Hand this guy His cloak?

I’m about to go Jack Bauer on him.

…but Stetzer wouldn’t “go Jack Bauer on” his own wife if she were the one doing the ripping, right?
…so he’s not angry about Christians ripping on the Church, right?
…because it’s not just pastors who make up the Bride, right?

Nope. According to Stetzer, verbal criticism of what’s being done wrong in the Church is “abus[ing Jesus'] wife.” As in, “abusing another person.” As in, “this [organization that I and others administer] is his wife, and you’re other.”

Sounds like just another repackaging of the ol’ knee-slapper, “touch not the LORD’s anointed!” Because this article isn’t about Christians en masse (the Biblical definition of “the Bride of Christ”) being criticized; it’s about criticizing structures and organizations–or more to the point, the pastors behind them.

See, in many pastors’ minds, they are the church. You just attend and give them money (and occasionally trouble).

Alarmingly there is a significant group of men and women leaving the church but holding to a form of Christian devotion. Wrong answer!

We’re not leaving the Church, Mr. Stetzer. We’re leaving the artificial power structure that men like you have dedicated your lives to propping up. We’re leaving the State-sponsored clubs that you and other “pastors” insist we join. We’re leaving modern Pharisaism. But we’re not leaving the Church.

If anything, the Church abandons us because few Christians care about “fellowship” outside of structured meetings (and this includes small groups). We stop showing up at the clubhouse on Sunday morning, and strangely we stop getting invited to people’s houses, too (if we were ever invited in the first place). We stop attending a “Care Group” and all of a sudden the other people there get the impression that they aren’t under any obligation to care for us anymore.

And why is that? Because what you call “the church” isn’t the Bride of Christ–not in any meaningful sense. No, what you call “the church” is just a man-made system that the forces of Hades certainly could stand against–if they had any such inclination.

None of this is to say we shouldn’t test what we’ve been taught, talk it out, use the community as the context for “field testing” theology, work at iron sharpening iron, hold our teachers accountable, etc. It is only to say that the worship gathering is not the right forum for the discussion. — Jared Wilson, Further Thoughts on Sermon-centric Worship

“When you come together… Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. [...] If there is anything [the women] desire to learn, let them ask their [men] at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” — The Apostle Paul, 1 Corinthians 14:26,29,35 (ESV)

I wish Jared would go the whole way and require the non-preaching men of his church to wear dresses!

It seems to me that the “local church” and “universal church” distinctions adds very little to our biblical understanding of God or of the church. Instead, it seems to divide the church into little groups that feel that they are maintaining unity in the body of Christ as long as they are united withing their “local church”. Meanwhile, it also allows believers to ignore the “one-anothers” of Scripture if the “one-another” does not “belong” to their “local church”.

This is one of the big reasons behind a project I have in the works. I don’t know when it’ll be announced, because I just finished a client’s redesign and I have some family obligations to attend to. But one of these days, I’ll let you know what’s under the hood…

"The hallmark of an authentic evangelicalism is not the uncritical repetition of old traditions, but the willingness to submit every tradition, however ancient, to fresh Biblical scrutiny and, if necessary, reform" (John Stott, "Basic Stott," Christianity Today, Jan.8, 1996)

This quote was cited in The Problem With Preaching, a year-old article I just discovered. The author says this:

"Preaching" as it is practiced in churches today (& in the past) has little biblical basis—the "preaching" that occurs is extra-biblical (outside the bible). In the New Testament, preaching was always linked to preaching of the gospel or kingdom to those that are outside or on the edge of the kingdom—the Greek verbs used in the NT to portray preaching are found overwhelmingly in situations which are outside church meetings and evangelistic in nature. In contrast, in our churches today we "preach to the choir"—most people sitting in churches listening to sermons are Christians, and most have been there listening to sermons for many years—our preaching is actually teaching about Christianity to a predominantly Christian audience, week after week for the rest of their lives.

He lays out a pretty strong case for his stance, and I’d recommend y’all read this article—if for nothing else than to get a fresh perspective on something we typically take for granted in the Church.

“Pastoral authority” is invoked in support of all kinds of actions, events, and propositions. In more mundane uses, “pastoral authority” becomes a catchphrase signaling the need to acquire permission from the pastor to take action or make a public statement. Along these lines, you might hear someone say, “I disagree with Pastor Tom about this issue, but I don’t want to undermine his pastoral authority.” More extreme applications, of course, include the forceful silencing of dissent and the legitimization of unfortunate personality worship. In this vein, something like this is more likely: “Don’t you know our pastor has authority over you?”

To be clear, in my criticism I do not take away from the responsibility of our local church pastors to shepherd our congregations. The apostles left us careful instructions regarding the need for us to recognize, honor, imitate, and submit to our leaders (1 Thess 5:12-13; 1 Tim 5:17; Heb 13:7, 17), as well as details regarding the characteristics that qualify and disqualify leaders from service (1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9).

Yet, if you survey the teaching of the NT epistles on the matter of elders, overseers, leaders, or shepherds, you will find no mention of “authority” or “exercising authority over” anyone. In fact, 1 Peter 5:3 contains explicit instruction for shepherds to oversee the people “not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.”

Source: SBCOutpost.com (HT: Alan Knox)

It is a severe violation of the adult conscience to treat the saints as children under the over-lordship of elders. The ultimate effect of treating the saints as children is that they will either remain children in their understanding as they submit to bondage, or they will rebel. Elders exercise appropriate authority as fathers within their own households, but their role in the assembly is not as fathers and lords over children and servants, but as elder brothers in the faith and humble servants to the whole.

Source: Steve Atkerson, New Testament Church Leadership

Then the Elder continued, “What if a truly strong leader is one who is un-threatened enough to actually, honestly listen to the input of those around them, precisely because (a) they are secure in their identity in Christ, and (b) they know they need the voices of others to adequately hear what God is saying to the whole group? What if the ‘weak’ leader is really the one who insists on his or her own personal vision, and is too threatened to consider the voices of anyone else?”

“Maybe it takes more cajones to NOT insist on the leader’s ‘vision’, or ’strategy’, and to trust that the Spirit speaks through the Body, hmm?”, he asked, gesturing with open hands.

Source: Robby Mac, Through The Looking-Glass

What I mock is exactly the same thing that we find mocked in the pages of the New Testament—ecclesiastical stuffed-shirt pretentiousness, and an inability to maintain a sense of godly proportion. You know, camels and gnats, gold and altars, and justice and mercy and tithing from the spice rack.

(Source: Douglas Wilson, Reformed Catholicity)

Personally, I think all the secrecy about stuff like this is silly and more than a little melodramatic. Reminds me of something someone recently said about Vice President Cheney….

Why all the spectacle? Why do things like this have to be kept hush-hush until we can make some big “event” out of it? It just feels so disingenuous and showy.

How is it then, brethren? When ye come together, the pastor hath a doctrine, and the minister of music hath psalms. Let all things be done unto edifying. If anyone besides the pastor hath a doctrine, let him not speak; let him hold his peace. Let him sit in the pew, and face the back of the neck of the person which sitteth ahead of him. Let the people keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith church tradition. But if they will learn anything, let them ask their pastor after the service, for it is a shame for a layman to speak in the church. For the pastor, he hath a seminary degree, and the layman, he hath not so lofty a degree. If any man desire to remain a church member in good standing, let him acknowledge that what I write to you is the command of the denominational headquarters. But if any man ignore this, he shall be promptly escorted out the door by the ushers. Wherefore brothers, covet not to speak in the church. Let all things be done decently and in the order in which it hath been written in the church bulletin.

How to Have a New Testament Church Meeting

We had a really nice Mother’s Day weekend this year! On Saturday, we bundled up the kids and a picnic lunch and moseyed on over to Spring Lake Park. We’d only ever been to the “lake” side of it before, so the open grass and the quiet creek were wonderful. (More photos at Flickr.)

On Sunday we decided to pass on message #2 of Chesapeake’s building fund series and instead visit a nearby congregation. (See, we’re really bad about driving 30 miles to attend Sunday services and not having a clue who the believers are within a 2-mile radius of our apartment.) Timonium UMC got the short straw, so we went over there and checked things out.

Wow.

It’s one thing for a church to think it’s okay for women to serve in pastoral roles… but I saw a number of appointed leaders in there yesterday morning, and not a single one was a man. (The men were either in deacon roles or just not there.) If that wasn’t enough of a shocker for me, they had the kids come up for a kiddie sermonette on Acts 16 where they were told that Lydia had her husband and kids baptized and pastored a church in her home. Needless to say, Katie got some of Papa Bear’s personal commentary on that passage at lunchtime. Maybe I’ll post my thoughts on it later, but suffice it to say, I think there was no small part of eisegesis in what was told to the kids.

The really nice part about visiting that church, though, is that we were back home by 11am (where we usually get back after 1pm). We couldn’t get over how much longer the day felt because of that, so we went driving around later, looking at houses for sale.

Now that I look at ‘em together like that, I can’t believe I never saw it before!

There is much in this book that is edifying. It helped me understand Mark Driscoll and showed how he grew a megachurch in a largely unchurched city in only eight years. He is clearly a passionate, focused man who is genuinely seeking hard after God. He has much to offer the church. I wonder, though, how long his message will be heard as long as it is wrapped in a sometimes vulgar, always sarcastic, package. It may endear him to some, but it will surely alienate him from far more. —Tim Challies @ Challies.com

Driscoll seems very reflective on the way his church runs. He writes about his epiphanies he has and how things in the church needs to change. He certainly is dynamic, not in his writing, probably in his speech, but more so in the way he kicks the church into movement. —Kevin @ Tension Treatises

After the firestorm that erupted among Godbloggers last year over some of the contents of this book, I’ve been following Mark Driscoll (and listening to his sermons via podcast). The guy who I used to know only as “Mark the Cussing Pastor” (thanks to Blue Like Jazz) is quite a character, but this book showed me just how much he’s gone through. This ain’t no spring chicken on the church growth scene; he’s perhaps been through fiercer battles than most small-town preachers will ever see. In and through all of that, he’s being forged into a pillar of the Church, mark my words.

And that’s what this book is all about: it’s an autobiographical take on Mark’s work with Mars Hill Church in Seattle, WA. He walks us through the good an bad times he’s experienced during his tenure there. I’d say not only is this book great for pastors looking for some inspiration or encouragement, but church members would do well to read this and understand just how rough it can be to pastor a church.

Some people have complained about how Driscoll talks about some things in the book, but honestly? I consider the transparency in here a breath of fresh air—it’s a level of authenticity rarely reached by clergy, who all too often seem to prefer erring on the side of hypocrisy. I mean, the way I see it discretion is just plain way overdone among pastors these days. (It’s worse than the upper management in large corporations, where every little statement has to be scrutinized by a team of lawyers before it’s released to the public.) Driscoll just isn’t afraid of the potential backlash for telling it like it really is, and I respect him for that.

So this weekend, let’s take a look at the race we’re running, and consider what may need to be laid aside so that we can run the race marked out for us. (Lay Aside Every Weight)

Of course, I said this before a weekend in which Nicole had two birthday parties and I got hit with hay fever of flu-like proportions. Benadryl didn’t work. Claritin didn’t work. Sudafed didn’t work.

After we got back from her Saturday party, I went to bed around Midnight. An itchy throat woke me up at 2:20am, and from that point until I gave up trying (around 8:30am) I could only doze off for 5-10 minutes every half-hour.

Then we assisted in the 3-year-olds’ Sunday School class.

Then there was the impromptu Care Group picnic/party that afternoon. (Not only were we treated to free meatball subs for lunch, but our CG leader’s wife got Nicole a cake and everything!)

I don’t know whether it was due to sheer exhaustion or liquid Benadryl actually soothing my throat better than caplets, but when I laid down on the couch at around 4pm on Sunday I was finally able to get some rest. Then I woke up for a late supper, and I couldn’t get back to sleep again until about 1:30am.

So I hope you don’t get the wrong idea from posts like Friday’s: just because I set lofty goals doesn’t necessarily mean I’ve actually met them. I wasn’t able to do much thinking at all over the weekend, let alone deep thinking over weighty spiritual matters. But you know what I was able to do? Ironically, I was able to run the race set before me—at least, the race set before in those moments. When I’m going on two hours’ sleep and I’ve got to corral ten preschoolers for ninety minutes, extraneous things fall by the wayside. When I’m desperate for any little bit of sleep I can grab, I’m not going to be puttering around on the internet. I’m far more likely to be praying desperately for some heavenly Unisom! (And shouldn’t I be praying when I’m sick anyway?)

And even though I wasn’t able to put much effort into considering my race, I think God decided he didn’t need my help—that he was perfectly capable of revealing things to me on his own schedule. You see, Saturday evening we watched The Pursuit of Happyness with my family, and my heart was broken. Here was a man who was facing tough times. At one point he’s in a homeless shelter run by a church. Sounds great, a church helping the poor… but this man had a small boy to take care of, and nobody in that church offered anything more than a chance for a cot for the night. Where was the invitation for something a bit more accommodating—at least for the boy’s sake?*

And here I am, sitting almost in the middle of the Baltimore metro area. How many Chris Gardners are nearby? Are they even attending services at my local church, but I haven’t bothered to get involved in their lives?

poverty is so hard to see
when it’s only on your tv and twenty miles across town
where we’re all living so good
that we moved out of Jesus’ neighborhood
where he’s hungry and not feeling so good
from going through our trash
he says, more than just your cash and coin
i want your time, i want your voice
i want the things you just can’t give me (Derek Webb, Rich Young Ruler)

The problem is that I’m just like the church folk in that movie: I may mean well, but I fall far short of what’s needed—even when it’s in my power. I may not have a lot, but I have enough for 1 John 3:16-18 to apply to me:

By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.

“We ought to lay down our lives for the brothers” “looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross.” Talk is cheap. Even prayers and blessings—when not accompanied by actions—are worthless (no, really, it’s in the Bible). Now is the time to act: to do anything else would be a denial of the Faith.

* As I was writing this post, I became aware of a number of differences between events as they were portrayed in the film and events as they actually happened. So in all honesty, I have no idea what the people at Glide actually did and didn’t do in regard to Mr. Gardner. Thus, this isn’t intended to be a slight on them, but I’m sadly certain there’s many congregations that fit the bill.

For instance, one thing that constantly trips up modern-day Christians is that we fail to remember that the Law given to Moses did not merely outline a religious system… it was a constitution establishing a nation’s government. Thus, we need not only to discern which laws were sacrificial in nature (as Christians, we hold that Jesus Christ is our atonement and makes all other sacrifices—and thus all laws requiring sacrifices—moot), but also whether certain laws were governmental or sacramental in nature. While this may be a simple process with the laws of a “secular” nation, it can get difficult when you’re dealing with a theocracy.

My studies keep drawing me to the same conclusion: God’s eternal Law of Love compels us to serve the poor, but the tithe laws were a form of taxation, and served as the welfare system for Ancient Israel. Thus, these laws only apply to those under the Old Covenant living in geographical Israel.

Deuteronomy 15:7-11 (which I wrote about recently) provides the framework for all God-glorifying giving, and serves as the “spirit of the law” regarding money, possessions and neighbors:

If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, ‘The seventh year, the year of release is near,’ and your eye [be evil toward] your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the LORD against you, and you be guilty of sin. You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be [evil] when you give to him, because for this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’

The tithes, while a sacrifice to the LORD, were arranged in such a way as to serve as the particular fulfillment of this command with regards to the Levites (as God forbade them from owning land, cf. Deut. 18:1-8), as well as other poor in the Israelites’ midst (Deut. 14:22-29). Additionally, not only here but also in Nehemiah’s time (after two months of working daily with wood, stone, etc. to rebuild the wall around Jerusalem), the reinstated tithe consisted solely of agricultural produce (Neh. 10:35-39).

Now when you begin to question the tithe, the knee-jerk response you often get is a quote from The Most Overused Tithe Verse In The Bible: “Will man rob God? Yet you are robbing me. But you say, ‘How have we robbed you?’ In your tithes and contributions.” Congratulations, you have now been labeled a God-robber! However, this is neither faithful exegesis nor Biblical correction. It’s simply propaganda and browbeating. To show you that this is the case, let me share the entire passage with you, and pay attention to what I emphasize:

Will man rob God? Yet you are robbing me. But you say, ‘How have we robbed you?’ In your tithes and contributions. You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing me, the whole nation of you. Bring the full tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. And thereby put me to the test, says the LORD of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need. I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it will not destroy the fruits of your soil, and your vine in the field shall not fail to bear, says the LORD of hosts. Then all nations will call you blessed, for you will be a land of delight, says the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 3:8-12, ESV)

Let me make it perfectly clear: the tithes were never about collecting money for the Temple. Tithing was the means by which a food bank was kept for the poor and needy in Israel.

There is only one passage in all of Scripture which speaks of money in relation to the tithe: Deuteronomy 14:22-29. However, the money is never actually given to the Levite. Rather, it is used only as a convenient form of transport for those who must travel a long distance. Once the tither arrives at Jerusalem, he is commanded to convert the money back into food, strong drink (beer), etc. and to consume these items with the Levite, sojourner, fatherless and widow (that is, those without such provision). And you know what? Jesus mentioned something much like this in Luke’s gospel:

[Jesus] said also to the man who had invited him, “When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.” (Luke 14:12-14, ESV)

Never, all in Scripture, is a tithe used to pay building and maintenance expenses for a meeting-house or clergy. The tithe is food, and it’s used to feed people—period. Freewill offerings (and/or perhaps a modern-day equivalent to Nehemiah’s “temple tax”) are the only Biblically-approved source of income from which such things as Equipment Upgrades, Insurance, Janitorial Services, Payroll Expenses, Repairs and Maintenance, Utilities, Mortgages, etc. are to be paid.

In contrast to the Old Covenant system, Paul set aside any pastoral “right” to live off the ministry and instead worked additional jobs to provide for his own expenses. He reasoned that he stood to gain no heavenly reward from “simply” preaching the Gospel (1 Cor. 9:15) and must go out of his way to make it a completely free gift if he were to receive anything from the Father because of his work. However, if Paul were simply a “New Covenant priest” he would have been leading the churches into sin by causing them to break God’s Law which required a community to feed its Levites (again, Deut. 18:1-8). Thus, we can infer that Paul did not believe these laws were binding for ministers of the Gospel.

That being the case, a Christian pastor ought not presume to live off of the tithes of his people. If a tithe is requested of the congregation, then Biblically it needs to be food, and it needs to be distributed to people who need food. (Which is to say, faithful application of the tithe laws requires the establishment of a congregational food bank.) Beyond that, there is no Biblical requirement to “lay [any] money at the [pastors'] feet.” (It is certainly encouraged as the decent thing to do for a chap who has given his whole lives to serving you and yours spiritually… but it’s not required.) In and 4, the money laid at the apostles’ feet was “distributed to each as any had need” (Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32-35). Likewise, the money collected on Paul’s behalf from the Church in Macedonia, Achaia, and Corinth was going directly to feed the Christians in Jerusalem who were suffering through a famine—not to line his personal “chariot fund.” And of course a meeting-house is nice, but depleting a collected tithe to fund it—or even to keep it lit and climate-controlled—is unbiblical.

So if I don’t think the tithe applies to us today, does that mean I can get away with not giving anything? God forbid! On the contrary, I believe Christians are to “sell [their] possessions, and give to the needy” (Luke 12:33), but are not bound by a 10-33% annual tithe to modern-day Levites per se. The sacrificial system is no longer binding, but I am still bound by the perfect Law of Love: specifically, to “love [my] neighbor as [myself],” (Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 19:19, etc.) and thus to “remember the poor” (Gal. 2:10), “open wide [my] hand to [my] brother, to the needy and to the poor, in [my] land” (Deut. 15:11), “bear with the failings of the weak, and not… please [myself]“ (Rom. 15:1-3, cf. vv. 25-27), and to “contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality” (Rom. 12:13) “that there may be fairness” (2 Corinthians 8:13-15). Sometimes fairness means giving 1%, sometimes 99%.

But the most ironic thing about my tithe law studies is that some of those who are being commanded to “tithe” (give 10% of your gross income) to “the church” (really meaning “the pastors”) are actually poor enough that the pastors are required by God’s Word to be tithing to them.

So in conclusion: Christians are commanded to give to the poor and needy in our midst, but we are not bound by tithe laws. However, even if one were convinced that Christians must tithe, a faithful reading of Scripture insists the tithe be used to feed the poor. It is wholly foreign to the Word of God to use a tithe on buildings, utilities, vacations, insurance or even clothing.

If you have iTunes (and a broadband connection), subscribe to the Mars Hill Church vodcast. Then watch Missional Ministry.

Rinse, repeat.

(If you don’t have iTunes, here’s the direct link to the file.)

Missional Ministry

1 Corinthians 9:19-27
Pastor Mark Driscoll
(PDF Notes)

Paul provides one of the most succinct summaries of the gospel in all of Scripture. He also speaks of our need to contend for its accuracy and contextualize for its availability, while being continually changed by its transforming power.

“If you believe that the holy appointment to preach is the most important function of the leader, Paul has let you down so far. He has not just let you down, but he has left you swinging in the breeze! Of the first two chapters, only in two places has he even vaguely called for doctrine, much less preaching. In verse 1:9-11, Paul has recommended that doctrine be used to shut up gainsayers – hardly what I would call a Sunday sermon. In 2:15, Paul calls Titus to speak ‘these things,’ but ‘those things’ were that people should live with high character and sound works.

“Paul has yet to lay ‘feed Christ’s sheep’ on Titus. He keeps talking about caring for people, and teaching them to care for each other.”

Thus we are introduced to the final post in Codepoke’s study on Church Leadership based on Paul’s Epistle to Titus. Here’s a quick summary of the posts, if you haven’t read them already:

1. Titus and the things that matter in a leader (Titus 1) />“First, Paul was willing to leave Crete without appointing elders. …second, a church should not live without elders for long. …third, Paul has a term for leaders in the church – old men.”
2. Titus and responsibilities (Titus 2) />“Paul does not tell Titus to give the Cretans sound doctrine. Titus is to teach what is appropriate to sound doctrine. The Cretans appear to have enough sound doctrine. They need no more. Now, they need to know the things that spring from sound doctrine.”
3. Intermission (Titus 3:12-15) />“No time last night to write on Titus 3, but I had enough time to put together a quick word about the last 4 verses of the book.”
4. Titus and the tone of the church (Titus 3:9-11) />“In the proportion that Paul gives it in his letter to Titus, preaching is a glorious and wonderful thing. Preaching should be a wonderfully important 1/46th of our total Christian experience in the church. And preaching should lead to people devoting themselves to doing what is good.”

For an ecclesiastical egalitarian, Kevin’s alright.

I’m subscribed to an e-mail list run by Revival School, and I just received a great one from them! This is quoted from Chapter 5 of A.W. Tozer’s Paths to Power. It was published in 1911… but it seems just as applicable almost a century later!

To any casual observer of the religious scene today, two things will at once be evident: one, that there is very little sense of sin among the unsaved, and two, that the average professed Christian lives a life so worldly and careless that it is difficult to distinguish him from the unconverted man. The power that brings conviction to the sinner and enables the Christian to overcome in daily living is being hindered somewhere. It would be oversimplification to name any one thing as the alone cause, for many things stand in the way of the full realization of our New Testament privileges. There is one class of hindrances, however, which tends out so conspicuously that we are safe in attributing to it a very large part of our trouble. I mean wrong doctrines or overemphasis on right ones. I want to paint out some of these doctrines, and I do it with the earnest hope that it may not excite controversy, but bring us rather to a reverent examination of our position.

Fundamental Christianity in our times is deeply influenced by that ancient enemy of righteousness, antinomianism. The creed of the antinomian is easily stated:

• “We are saved by faith alone;
• Works have no place in salvation;
• Conduct is works, and is therefore of no importance.
• What we do cannot matter as long as we believe rightly.
• The divorce between creed and conduct is absolute and final.
• The question of sin is settled by the Cross; conduct is outside the circle of faith and cannot come between the believer and God.”

Such, in brief, is the teaching of the antinomian, And so fully has it permeated the Fundamental element in modern Christianity that it is accepted by the religious masses as the very truth of God.

Antinomianism is the doctrine of grace carried by uncorrected logic to the point of absurdity. It takes the teaching of justification by faith and twists it into deformity. It plagued the Apostle Paul in the early Church and called out some of his most picturesque denunciations. When the question is asked, “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” he answers no with that terrific argument in the sixth chapter of Romans.

The advocates of antinomianism in our times deserve our respect for at least one thing: their motive is good. Their error springs from their very eagerness to magnify grace and exalt the freedom of the gospel. They start right, but allow themselves to be carried beyond what is written by a slavish adherence to undisciplined logic. It is always dangerous to isolate a truth and then press it to its limit without regard to other truths. It is not the teaching of the Scriptures that grace makes us free to do evil. Rather, it sets us free to do good. Between these two conceptions of grace there is a great gulf fixed. It may be stated as an axiom of the Christian system that whatever makes sin permissible is a foe of God and an enemy of the souls of men.

Right after the first World War there broke out an epidemic of popular (NEW or NEO) evangelism with the emphasis upon what was called the “positive” gospel. The catch-words were “believe,” “program,” “vision.” The outlook was wholly objective. Men fulminated against duty, commandments and what they called scornfully “a decalogue of don’ts.” They talked about a “big,” “lovely” Jesus who had come to help us poor but well-meaning sinners to get the victory. Christ was presented as a powerful but not too particular Answerer of prayer.

The message was so presented as to encourage a loaves-and fishes attitude toward Christ. That part of the New Testament which acts as an incentive toward holy living was carefully edited out. It was said to be “negative” and was not tolerated. Thousands sought help who had no desire to leave all and follow the Lord. The will of God was interpreted as “Come and get it.” Christ thus became a useful convenience, but His indisputable claim to Lordship Over the believer was tacitly canceled out.

Much of the stream of gospel thought has been fouled, and its waters are still muddy. One thing that remains as a dangerous hangover is the comfortable habit of blaming everything on the devil. No one was supposed to feel any personal guilt; the devil had done it, so why blame the sinner for the devil’s misdeeds? He became the universal scapegoat, to take the blame for every bit of human devilry from Adam to the present day. One gathered that we genial and lovable sinners are not really bad; we are merely led astray by the blandishments of that mischievous old Puck of the heavenly places. Our sins are not the expression of our rebellious wills; they are only bruises where the devil has been kicking us around. Of course sinners can feel no guilt, seeing they are merely the victims of another’s wickedness.

Under that kind of teaching there can be no self-condemnation, but there can be, and is, plenty of self-pity over the raw deal we innocent sinners got at the hand of the devil. Now, no Bible student will underestimate the sinister work of Satan, but to make him responsible for our sins is to practice deadly deception upon ourselves. And the hardest deception to cure is that which is self-imposed.

Another doctrine which hinders God’s work, and one which is heard almost everywhere, is that sinners are not lost because they have sinned, but because they have not accepted Jesus. “Men are not lost because they murder; they are not sent to hell because they lie and steal and blaspheme; they are sent to hell because they reject a Saviour.” This short-sighted preachment is thundered at us constantly, and is seldom challenged by the hearers. A parallel argument would be hooted down as silly, but apparently no one notices it: “That man with a cancer is dying, but it is not the cancer that is killing him; it is his failure to accept a cure.” Is it not plain that the only reason the man would need a cure is that he is already marked for death by the cancer? The only reason I need a Saviour, in His capacity as Saviour, is that I am already marked for hell by the sins I have committed. Refusing to believe in Christ is a symptom of deeper evil in the life, of sins unconfessed and wicked ways unforsaken. The guilt lies in acts of sin; the proof of that guilt is seen in the rejection of the Saviour.

If anyone should feel like brushing this aside as mere verbal sparring, let him first pause: the doctrine that the only damning sin is the rejection of Jesus is definitely a contributing cause of our present weakness and lack of moral grip. It is nothing but a neat theological sophism which has become identified with orthodoxy in the mind of the modern Christian and is for that reason very difficult to correct. It is, for all its harmless seeming, a most injurious belief, for it destroys our sense of responsibility for our moral conduct. It robs all sin of its frightfulness and makes evil to consist in a mere technicality. And where sin is not cured power cannot flow.

Another doctrinal hindrance is the teaching that men are so weak by nature that they are unable to keep the law of God. Our moral helplessness is hammered into us in sermon and song until we wilt under it and give up in despair. And on top of this we are told that we must accept Jesus in order that we may be saved from the wrath of the broken law! No matter what the intellect may say, the human heart can never accept the idea that we are to be held responsible for breaking a law that we cannot keep. Would a father lay upon the back of his three year-old son a sack of grain weighing five-hundred pounds and then beat the child because he could not carry it? Either men can or they cannot please God. If they cannot, they are not morally responsible, and have nothing to fear. If they can, and will not, then they are guilty, and as guilty sinners they will be sent to hell at last. The latter is undoubtedly the fact. If the Bible is allowed to speak for itself it will teach loudly the doctrine of man’s personal responsibility for sins committed. Men sin because they want to sin. God’s quarrel with men is that they will not do even that part of the will of God which they understand and could do if they would.

From Paul’s testimony in the seventh chapter of Romans some teachers have drawn the doctrine of moral inability. But however Paul’s inner struggle may be interpreted, it is contrary to the whole known truth to believe that he had been a consistent law-breaker and violator of the Ten Commandments. He specifically testified that he had lived in all good conscience before God, which to a Jew could only mean that he had observed the legal requirements of the law. Paul’s cry in Romans is not after power to fulfill the simple morality of the Ten Commandments, but after inward holiness which the law could not impart.

It is time we get straightened out in our thinking about the law. The weakness of the law was three-fold: (1) It could not cancel past sins – that is, it could not justify; (2) it could not make dead men live – that is, it could not regenerate; (3)it could not make bad hearts good – that is, it could not sanctify. To teach that the insufficiency of the law lay in man’s moral inability to meet its simple demands on human behaviour is to err most radically. If the law could not be kept, God is in the position of laying upon mankind an impossible moral burden and then punishing them for failure to do the impossible. I will believe anything I find in the Bible, but I do not feel under obligation to believe a teaching which is obviously a mistaken inference and one, furthermore, which both contradicts the Scriptures and outrages human reason.

The Bible everywhere takes for granted Israel’s ability to obey the law. Condemnation fell because Israel, having that ability, refused to obey. They sinned not out of amiable weakness, but out of deliberate rebellion against the will of God. That is the inner nature of sin always, willful refusal to obey God. But still men go on trying to get conviction upon sinners by telling them they sinned because they could not help it.

The vogue of excusing sin, of seeking theological justification for it instead of treating it as an affront to God, is having its terrible effect among us. Deep searching of heart and a resolute turning from evil will go far to bring back power to the Church of Christ. Tender, tear-stained preaching on this subject must be heard again before revival can come.

The contradictions observed in the teachings which we have examined here are another cause of weakness. Christians do not, as a rule, enjoy great power until they begin to think straight. Whether or not the Methodists were right on every point they held is an open question; but their leaders had thought things out so clearly that they were not leading the people around in circles. As far as they could see there were no contradictions in their philosophy of faith, and this was a source of real strength to them. The same was true in the Finney revivals. God used Finney to get people thinking straight about religion. He may not have been correct in all his conclusions, but he did remove the doctrinal stalemates and start the people moving toward God. He placed before his hearers a moral either/or, so they could always know just where they stood. The inner confusion caused by hidden contradictions was absent from his preaching. We could use another Finney today.

If you would like to subscribe to the list, send an e-mail with just “subscribe” in the subject line to prophetic@revivalschool.com.

“A U.S. Senate subcommittee report estimated that if every Christian family would only take care of its own, the federal dole would decrease a full 30 percent. If every church would then take care of its own, the dole would decrease another 12 percent. And then, if each of those churches would provide a sponsoring family to exercise charity to a single outsider, the federal dole could be eliminated completely. Just like that.”

Chad Degenhart, If We Only Took Care Of Our Own

“You know what they say: follow the money. And there’s lots of it coming from churches trying to match audio/video wits with MTV, concerts and TV. So the big guys have gotten involved. Here’s proof…”

Mike Atkinson (at Church Marketing Sucks), Is Jesus the Next Killer App?

I’m subscribed to feeds at both sites cited above, and I read both of these entries this morning, one right after the other. I was surprised by the sharp contrast between the two, and it’s got me thinking (again) about how congregations spend their money, and what that tells the people around us about Jesus. Which is your congregation putting more effort (and money) into becoming: the church that takes care of their own, or the local entertainment pavilion?

“So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

“What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.”

(ESV)

It’s easy to lay the blame on the congregation as a whole… but God won’t let us get away with that. Which of the two paths am I walking down: sacrifice and service, or fame and flash and spectacle? Which is master of my heart: Jesus Christ or money and possessions?

Or put another way: when I find myself with some extra money in hand, what do I immediately want to do with it? What “wishes” do I think of fulfilling? And since good intentions are only part of the picture, what do I end up doing with my newfound wealth? I’m not sure many of us could honestly answer these questions without showing just how un-Christlike we are.

Now I’m about half Dan’s age, so I’ll bold the congregations where I spent at least one and a half years (as opposed to Dan’s three):

• Clearfield Bible Church (Westminster, MD)
• Church of the Open Door (Westminster, MD)
• Faith Community Bible Church (Westminster, MD)
• Gettysburg Baptist Church (Gettysburg, PA)
• Carroll Community Church (Eldersburg, MD)
• Littlestown Chapel – Outreach for Christ (Littlestown, PA)
• Calvary Bible Church (Hanover, PA)
• Cornerstone Church of Knoxville (Knoxville, TN)
• Hanover Valley Presbyterian Church [PCA] (Hanover, PA)
• Chesapeake Community Church (Joppa, MD)

Huh. And I thought for sure I had spent more time at some of those!

Thanks for the new meme, Dan!

“All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God. They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as an expiation, through faith, by his blood, to prove his righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins previously committed, through the forbearance of God — to prove his righteousness in the present time, that he might be righteous and justify the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:23-26).

Nothing of this text can be understood, even to the point that it could inspire fear more than consolation (as occurred for centuries), if the term “righteousness of God” is interpreted incorrectly. It was Luther who rediscovered that “righteousness of God” does not indicate here chastisement, or worse, his revenge, toward man, but rather it indicates, on the contrary, the act through which God “makes” man “just.” (He really said “declares,” not “makes,” just, because he was thinking of an extrinsic or legal justification, in an imputation of justice, more than a real being made just.)

I said “rediscovered,” because much earlier than him St. Augustine had written: “The ‘righteousness of God’ is used in the sense of our being made righteous by his gift (‘iustitia Dei, qua iusti eius munere efficimur’), and ‘the salvation of the Lord’ (Psalm 3:9), in that we are saved by him.”[2]

The concept of “righteousness of God” was explained in the Letter to Titus: “But when the kindness and generous love of God our savior appeared, not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy” (Titus 3:4-5). Saying “The righteousness of God appeared,” is the same as saying: The goodness of God, his love and his mercy appeared. It was not man who, all of a sudden, changed life and tradition and put himself to the task of doing good; the novelty is that God acted, he was the first to extend his hand out to sinful man, and his action fulfilled time.

Here is the novelty that distinguishes the Christian religion from any other. Any other religion draws out for man a path to salvation by means of practical observations and intellectual speculations, promising him, as a final prize, salvation and illumination, but leaving him substantially alone in achieving the task. Christianity does not begin with what man must do to save himself, but rather with what God has done to save him. The order is reversed.

It is true that to love God with all your heart is “the first and greatest of the commandments,” but the commandments are not primary, they are secondary. Before the order of commandments comes the order of gift and of grace. Christianity is the religion of grace! If this is not taken into consideration in interreligious dialogue, the dialogue would be able to do no more than generate confusion and doubts in the hearts of many Christians.

Dave is currently running for Harford County (MD) Sheriff… as I’m a Baltimore County resident, it’s not looking like he’ll be able to get a vote from me. I figure maybe if I can at least get his site to show up on Google or something, that’ll make up for it. If not, I guess I’ll just have to move to Harford County in time to update my voter registration…

But can they really be called Puritans? Yes, they eschew certain pleasures; yes, they want others to do so as well… but the article is clearly playing off of the modern Puritanical stereotype, rather than what the Puritans really were.

In fact, just yesterday I passed along to David Gerstein a page about John Winthrop, which summarizes the “Puritan Distinctives” this way:

The Puritans’ devotion manifested itself in three important ways.

First, they believed that man should be in the world but not of the world. The believer’s true home is not on earth but in heaven, so he must be careful not to lose his heart to the all the things that this world has to offer–pleasures, material wealth, achievement, human love, and so on. On the other hand, the goodness of the things that God created should not be denied. There is nothing wrong with enjoying good food, music, love for your spouse, sports or recreation–as long as you don’t become frivolous and crowd God out your heart.

Second, they believed that man has a duty to use to the fullest extent all of the talents and abilities that God has given him. They were strong supporters of education. They worked hard in their professions and became doctors, lawyers, scholars, businessmen, and statesmen. They didn’t believe in doing anything halfheartedly. If something was worth doing, then the man should do it with his best effort for the glory of God.

The third conviction that made the Puritans unique was their belief that God’s covenant promises in the Old Testament did not just apply to ancient Israel, but to every society and every generation. These promises are well summarized in Exodus 19:5-6: “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” If any nation observed God’s laws and commands, God would give protection, prosperity, and the spiritual blessings of knowing him and living as his people. On the other hand, if a people rejected God’s decrees and turned to idolatry and sin, God would eventually reject them. The Puritans of seventeenth-century England were greatly concerned about the future of their nation; they saw the corruption of government and church officials, growing immorality, materialism, and lack of concern for the poor as signs that their nation would either have to repent or experience the cleansing fire of God’s wrath.

Why do the Puritans have such a bad reputation in modern times? [...] I believe the fundamental reason why the twentieth century looks down on the Puritans is that the secular mind cannot understand the satisfaction and joy that comes from serving God wholeheartedly. [...] Much of the modern criticism of Puritans stems from the American appetite for over-indulgence. It also stems from the fact that to those who have no hope in heaven, this world is all there is.

First and foremost, being a Puritan is about the supremacy of God. God is the “chief end,” the “be all and end all” of life. Thus, a Puritan will pass on things like getting drunk, sleeping around, cheating on his tax return, etc., because he knows those actions to be at odds with living a life dedicated to savoring and trumpeting the glory and majesty of Jesus Christ. No other motive leads to Puritanism.

I have some good news, though: there is a new generation of Puritans rising up. You won’t find them slashing SUV tires, though. You’ll find them here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.

You can see what I think about this Supreme Court ruling over in my LiveJournal account.

What I want to know is, will your pastor be brave enough to speak on this from the pulpit? Will he love his congregation enough to tell them the $10 million spent on their brand new building was likely all for nought? Or will he be too scared that the Feds will take away his coveted tax-exempt status for speaking about political issues?

We always knew these buildings were only temporary, and destined to perish — but few would have guessed just how temporary they might be…

Ye who think of sin but lightly
Nor suppose the evil great
Here may view its nature rightly,
Here its guilt may estimate.
Mark the Sacrifice appointed,
See who bears the awful load;
‘Tis the Word, the Lord’s Anointed,
Son of Man and Son of God.

(full lyrics
| midi)

The main reason that men are not in church is that they simply are not seeing the Holy Spirit move in power. At the risk of alienating the many women who read Cerulean Sanctum, I want to make a bold point: even if the Holy Spirit were not present in a supernatural way in our churches, I still believe women would still show up on Sundays. The Church has no problem attracting women because women are naturally drawn to the community and relationships that a church provides. However, this attractor does not work for many men. Men need a profound experience of God in order to get them to sit up and take notice. If the Holy Spirit doesn’t fall on them in power, then the positives a church can provide outside of the supernatural make little difference. A church can hypermasculinize itself to death and still not break that three women to every two men ratio if the Spirit is barely discernible on Sundays. Men have a better built-in B.S. detector than women do and function more out of the rationale of “prove it to me.” Without the manifest presence of the Holy Spirit in our gatherings, we have little to combat a set of crossed arms and a raised eyebrow.

[...]

I believe that the reason the message of Eldredge and Morrow resonates with many men is that those men can’t put a finger on what they are truly missing. If you’ve never tasted champagne, why would you miss it? In this way, if our churches gatherings are not filled with the Holy Spirit and our churches are not speaking to the one thing we still use to define a man, then the loss of both cannot be fully appreciated by the man who feels empty after the church service is over. All he knows is “Well, that wasn’t it.” So he goes off to hunt bear with a pointy stick or to climb mountains like Eldredge says. And while that might captivate him for a while, it does not fill the vacuum in his soul. His expectation then becomes that of simply muddling through the day.

And to that, I give a hearty, “AMEN!” Drop the fluffy crap and gimme the real stuff!

EDIT: Dan Edelen graciously (and almost too subtly) pointed out in his comment that I didn’t give search-engine-friendly credit for the quote from his post “Another Look at the Church’s Missing Men” on his blog Cerulean Sanctum. I’ve been an RSS subscriber to CS for six months now, and I’ve been greatly edified by his thoughtful posts. The last thing I want is for people to not be able to track him down! Dan, this edit’s for you!

We had a wonderful time… there was a slide show running in the background during communion, and with each successive slide showing another scene in the Gethsemane-to-Golgotha story, Katie would point to the projection screen and whisper, “Jesus?” She was a little confused, though: there was a picture of Jesus on the cross, being raised into the vertical position, but Katie must’ve thought there was a strong wind or something… when that slide came up, she asked, “Jesus fall down?”

Another funny moment was after I told her one of the slides was of “a lamb; a baby sheep.” Next time around, she looks at me and (as loud as she can) goes, “MOOOO.” Yeah. We’re still working on our animal sounds.

It was great catching up with old friends! Which reminds me, I’d better e-mail Josh…

The more loving thing would be to say, “There is grace, but there is also responsibility. Christ’s atonement covers all your sins if you repent, but the ultimate purpose of that forgiveness is to free you to live a God-glorifying life. You absolutely cannot use the Cross as a ‘get-out-of-Hell-free card’—that would be a mockery of God, and ‘Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.’¹ If you would come to God, you must come on His terms: you must lay down your sinful rebellion, be washed of not only your sins, but your sinfulness, and be reborn by him as a new man—that is, a Christian (‘mini-Christ’); one who lives as a son of God and desires nothing so much as God’s being honored and glorified in all his creation.”

The world does not hear that if our corporate worship looks and sounds like a rock concert followed by an episode of Dr. Phil.

Dr. R.C. Sproul Jr. is a graduate of Reformed Theological Seminary, and Grove City College, did graduate studies in English at Ole Miss (“did graduate studies” is code for investing two years and coming out with nothing), and received his D.Min. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. R.C. is the editor of Tabletalk magazine, associate pastor of teaching of Saint Peter Presbyterian Church, and the director of the Highlands Study Center. He has written or edited nine books, and contributed to several others. He once wrote for World magazine, and for the Covenant Syndicate. The important thing is that he is the husband of Denise, and the father of Darby, Campbell, Shannon, Delaney, Erin Claire, and Maili. At the Highlands Study Center, R.C. teaches the Tuesday Night Bible study for the community, most of the Highlands Academy classes, the resident students, and serves as senior editor of Every Thought Captive. When not busy teaching, or playing with the children, or tending to the chickens, he is making homebrew. (Bold emphasis added)