Pre-New Year's Ramblings

As this gets posted on mid-morning New Year's Eve, I will spare you any resolutions about being a more regular blogger. My life right now simply doesn't provide the time and space for daily, or even sometimes weekly, posts.

Usually, I'll put up a simple "Happy New Year," sometimes with a spiritual application, sometimes not. And why would I be doing a post on an Evangelical Free Church blog with Martin Luther's picture? Bear with me, and you'll see why. 

This New Year's Eve, I want to end 2013 with a passage from Dr. Harold Lindsell's timeless "The Battle for the Bible." We will see the battle for the Bible continuing into 2014, and until Jesus comes to gather His own. But as I've been rereading Lindsell for the umpteenth time, a particular passage leapt out at me because Lindsell addresses an issue that's always bugged me enormously. And that is the lack of integrity involved when people sign on to a doctrinal statement that they don't really believe, and seduce the church or theological school of which they are a part.

In "The Battle for the Bible," Dr. Lindsell documents numerous places within denominations and theological schools where drift has begun and the battle has been enjoined. Keep in mind, this book was written in the mid-1970s, and Dr. Lindsell has gone on to glory. In this passage, Lindsell discusses the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod—long a stalwart for holding on to essential truth on the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. More specifically, he addresses a statement by Lutheran Paul Bretscher about inerrancy. Read closely . . .

Since Luther and the Synod both agree on the principle sola Scriptura, are not the opponents of biblical inerrancy wrong when they refuse to believe what Scripture teaches about itself? What the Missouri Synod has done in its Brief Statement of 1932 is not something new; it has been part and parcel of the Synod's views since it was founded in the United States. Bretscher was raised in this environment. If he personally believes that the Synod has erred in demanding adherence to an infallible Scripture, and he cannot convince the Synod that it is wrong, he is free to remove to another Lutheran group more to his liking. So long as he wishes to remain within the Synod, he is bound by his ordination oath to believe, teach, and propagate what the Synod is committed to. He has every right to change his views and depart from synodal teachings. He has NO right to remain within the church when he does this.

We need to explore what it means to be a Lutheran, keeping in mind what Martin E. Marty said about who Lutherans are. If a man denies what a Lutheran church teaches, is he truly a Lutheran? Let me illustrate this. Suppose Bretscher denies the deity of Christ, the vicarious atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and His Second Coming. Does he then have any claim to the title "Lutheran?" Does he have any right to remain with a church that calls itself "Lutheran?" More than that, does a Lutheran church not have the right to exclude from its fellowship those who deny truths that their confession says a Lutheran church believes? Does a church have a right to permit those who disbelieve Lutheran teaching to remain in its fellowship? Does not the presence of those who disbelieve Lutheran teachings almost surely guarantee further infection in the church and at last the loss of the church to historic Lutheranism in all except name? Since any church has the right to determine what its own confessional standards shall be, men like Bretscher have no right to deny those teachings, or to defy the authority of the church that has set up those standards. This is an ethical issue that cannot be avoided.

Dr. Lindsell is right. And this is a serious issue that goes way beyond Lutheranism. It impacts any Bible-preaching, Bible-teaching, conservative evangelical church body. When you have seminary professors who sign doctrinal statements to belong to a faculty in good standing, or pastors who sign a doctrinal statement to have their ordination renewed, but in reality DENY the doctrine onto which they are signing, it is an ENORMOUS ethical issue. Let's call it what it is. It's lying. Deceptive lying. And it is right in keeping with the warning of the Apostle Peter in Scripture:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned, and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep (2 Peter 2:1-3).

We've been warned in advance. Before the Lord returns, we who hold to biblical truth will be facing quite a battle. Will we be ready and able to stand when called on? Or will we fold and cave in to the "innovative and trendy?" Will we throw biblical doctrine out the window for expediency, or to maintain "peace and harmony?"

God forbid!

Popes Change, but God Does Not!

The world is abuzz today with Pope Francis' recent interview, where he in essence says the Catholic Church needs to re-assess how it handles homosexuality and other issues. Needless to say, political and theological liberals are ebullient, while those of us who are biblical (and political) conservatives are not.

It all depends on precisely what Francis means. As a non-Catholic evangelical Protestant, of course I do not recognize his spiritual authority. But conservative Catholics and conservative Protestants are in agreement on many moral issues, and I would join those conservative Catholics in alarm if this signals a liberalizing of theology. Because in the end, it all boils down to the authority of God and His revealed, written Word—the Bible. And as we know, the authority of the Bible in relation to the authority of the church has always been a bone of contention since the Reformation.

God's Word says what means and means what it says. What the Bible calls sin and evil is—and remains—sin and evil. God does not change and His Word does not change, even though human spiritual leaders do change over time. Human spiritual leaders have no right whatsoever to alter the Word of God. Whoever does so will pay a very severe price in eternity.

If Francis means only that the truth must be communicated in love, and not in legalistic, heartless coldness, I would agree with him. After all, we are all sinners saved by grace—assuming we really ARE saved. But Jesus said, "If you love Me, keep my commandments." Our obedience to His Word and moral behavior is a sign that we truly are His children, and confirms such to the world. We are Christ's ambassadors. If we try to justify sinful behavior and say that it doesn't matter, we have only become antinomian and are ultimately deniers of the Lord, because we make Him a liar. The same Jesus who forgave the woman in adultery also told her very clearly, "Go, and sin no more." The Lord did not excuse her sin, and commanded her to repent of it.

The Gospel holds out hope of salvation and deliverance from the power of sin. Note the Apostle Paul's words on that subject . . . Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effiminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, not the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Paul, in the authority of the Lord Himself and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, laid out quite a laundry list of sins, and then said, "such WERE some of you." Christ came to free us from the power of sin. Romans 6:2 - will we who died to sin still live in it? God forbid!

I hope Francis believes the above, and will uphold it. But if he means to sweep these sins under the rug and water down the truth of the Gospel, that cannot go unchallenged. And it won't. Time will tell.where he in essence says the Catholic Church needs to re-assess how it handles homosexuality and other issues. Needless to say, political and theological liberals are ebullient, while those of us who are biblical (and political) conservatives are not.

It all depends on precisely what Francis means. As a non-Catholic evangelical Protestant, of course I do not recognize his spiritual authority. But conservative Catholics and conservative Protestants are in agreement on many moral issues, and I would join those conservative Catholics in alarm if this signals a liberalizing of theology. Because in the end, it all boils down to the authority of God and His revealed, written Word—the Bible. And as we know, the authority of the Bible in relation to the authority of the church has always been a bone of contention since the Reformation.

God's Word says what means and means what it says. What the Bible calls sin and evil is—and remains—sin and evil. God does not change and His Word does not change, even though human spiritual leaders do change over time. Human spiritual leaders have no right whatsoever to alter the Word of God. Whoever does so will pay a very severe price in eternity.

If Francis means only that the truth must be communicated in love, and not in legalistic, heartless coldness, I would agree with him. After all, we are all sinners saved by grace—assuming we really ARE saved. But Jesus said, "If you love Me, keep my commandments." Our obedience to His Word and moral behavior is a sign that we truly are His children, and confirms such to the world. We are Christ's ambassadors. If we try to justify sinful behavior and say that it doesn't matter, we have only become antinomian and are ultimately deniers of the Lord, because we make Him a liar. The same Jesus who forgave the woman in adultery also told her very clearly, "Go, and sin no more." The Lord did not excuse her sin, and commanded her to repent of it.

The Gospel holds out hope of salvation and deliverance from the power of sin. Note the Apostle Paul's words on that subject . . . Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effiminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, not the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Paul, in the authority of the Lord Himself and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, laid out quite a laundry list of sins, and then said, "such WERE some of you." Christ came to free us from the power of sin. Romans 6:2 - will we who died to sin still live in it? God forbid!

I hope Francis believes the above, and will uphold it. But if he means to sweep these sins under the rug and water down the truth of the Gospel, that cannot go unchallenged. And it won't. Time will tell.

Celebrity Culture in the Church

I’d like to weigh in on something that’s been on my mind a lot of late as I observe “Christian culture” at large, and going back even into the 1980s when we had the televangelist scandals.

I really believe we have too much of a celebrity culture in the church. I say that as someone who has been in the public eye for a long time, and as someone who’s had the chance to be around people who are considered really, really “high profile.” My late stepfather told me of an incident when he was out in California working as a custodian at a popular ministry often featured on TBN — and this particular ministry is now defunct after the leader was caught up in a scandal. My stepfather personally witnessed high profile speakers coming in, and after events, briefcases with thousands of dollars would be put into the trunks of limousines when the speakers would depart. And many of these guys off camera would be some of the most arrogant people you could imagine.

I would watch the same speakers in public appearances or on television/radio, and they would typically be on the receiving end of effusive praise. “Oh, you’re such a gift from the Lord. Oh, what a powerful message from a powerful man of God. Oh, you’re so talented and gifted. Oh, you’ve changed my life . . . “ and so on. Once in a great while, someone might actually give a little credit to the Lord, for which He could have said, “Thanks for the crumbs from your table, Mrs. Dives.”

I’ve seen the same thing myself over the years up close and personal, and not just on media. I’ve seen it in churches with pastors and speakers/teachers. It really gets nauseating after a while, and all the more so because it is such a trap to the human ego. People love being stroked and praised. At first, it starts out with no doubt genuine pleasure that someone has been blessed through their ministry. But after a while, the praise and hero worship becomes like an addictive drug. And the One being robbed of His glory is God. In the end, He ends up having to kick the slats out from under the one doing the robbing, because He will not give His glory to another.

I am discussing a broad generality of a problem to which we all can be susceptible, even if we are not in a high profile role. So much of this could be solved and resolved if we would just hold our praise and give it to Whom it really belongs. If you’ve ever been blessed by anything I’ve done, taught, written or said, wonderful. Praise God. And I do mean — PRAISE GOD. Not me. When someone begins gushing over me, the first thing I’m tempted to do is to follow the example of Barnabas and Paul in Acts 14 and “tear my robes.” Trust me, that would not be a pretty sight if I actually followed through!

Happy Independence Day!

It's been quite a while since anyone has posted on this blog, and for that, I apologize. We've all been very busy with ministry, jobs, personal situations in our families etc. My mother (age 88) is facing heart surgery this week, and at her age it's not a light matter. Prayers are appreciated.

The contributors of Evangelical Free Church Vantage Point would like to wish everyone in the U.S. a very happy, blessed Independence Day. Our hope (and I trust that I can speak for our fellow contributors) is that we will all remember our history, and be thankful for the blessing of living in a free country. A freedom, by the way, that we are in great jeopardy of losing if we don't wake up.

Our freedom ultimately stems from the Gospel, and the faithful proclamation of a biblical Gospel and the resultant regeneration by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of those who believe is ultimately the only hope for our troubled nation. It is the responsibility of the church (and believers as individuals) to proclaim that Gospel -- the unadulterated, unapologetic version of it. Let's get away from entertaining, being "seeker sensitive," groveling before the alter of postmodernism, and all the other troubles we face in our culture. As Christians, we have nothing of which to be ashamed, especially the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Some will hear and respond positively. Some will hear and respond negatively. Some will not hear at all. But that is not our worry and our responsibility. We plant the seed, and allow God to do what only He can do -- bring the growth.

Some thoughts on this Independence Day.

Warriors for Doctrine

It's been a long while since I've posted anything on this particular blog, but I want to put up a clip from Philip Schaff's "History of the Christian Church." I found it interesting reading this weekend.

Born in Switzerland, Schaff eventually came to the United States and was a professor at Union Theological Seminary until his death in 1893. In Volume 3 of his church history, he takes up the issue of the early church and the battles over doctrine. It's worth reading.

The Nicene and Chalcedonian age is the period of the formation and ecclesiastical settlement of the ecumenical orthodoxy; that is, the doctrines of the holy trinity and of the incarnation and the divine-human person of Christ, in which the Greek, Latin and evangelical churches to this day in their symbolical books agree, in opposition to the heresies of Arianism and Appolinarianism, Nestorianism and Eutychianism. Besides these trinitarian and christological doctrines, anthropology also, and soteriology, particularly the doctrines of sin and grace, in opposition to Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, were developed and brought to a relative settlement; only, however, in the Latin church, for the Greek took very little part in the Pelagian controversy.

The fundamental nature of these doctrines, the greatness of the church fathers who were occupied with them, and the importance of the result, give this period the first place after the apostolic in the history of theology. In no period, excepting the Reformation of the sixteenth century, have there been so momentous and earnest controversies in doctrine, and so lively an interest in them. The church was now in possession of the ancient philosophy and learning of the Roman empire, and applied them to the unfolding and vindication of the Christian truth. In the lead of these controversies stood church teachers of imposing talents and energetic piety, not mere book men, but venerable theological characters, men all of a piece, as great in acting and suffering as in thinking. To them, theology was a sacred business of heart and life, and upon them we may pass the judgment of Eusebius respecting Origen; "Their life was as their word, and their word was as their life."

The theological controversies absorbed the intellectual activity of that time, and shook the formation of the church and the empire. With the purest zeal for truth were mingled much of the odium and rabies theologorum, and the whole host of theological passions; which are the deepest and most bitter of passions, because religion is concerned with eternal interests.

That last line really arrested me. "Religion is concerned with eternal interests." When I consider how loosely some in today's evangelical church throw doctrine around, I have to wonder whether they really have eternity in view at all.

On another note, I think we can also see that theological controversies never go away. That's because we have an enemy of our souls whose zeal to deceive has never relented. All the more so in these last days, and that makes it all the more important to hold on to biblical truth.

The Dangers of "Hip" Christianity

We've all witnessed the piranhas in the tank pushing the church to be "cool" and "hip" and "trendy." Maybe it's time for a rethink on that issue.

Take it from this 27-year-old who writes for the WSJ. He thinks churches had best get back to biblical truth. Being markety and trendy will do nothing in the long run but push young people out the door. The new crop can see right through it.

Emergent Update

Now and then someone forwards me an email with a new website or blog to add to my list of things to check out. Today, I received this 2008 article on the Emergent Church written by Eric Barger.

The article is archived on the website of a ministry called Sharing Biblical Truth. While I haven't had time to go through the whole site, it looks interesting and worthy of bookmarking. I certainly share the concerns about the Emergent Church movement, which some are saying is crumbling. I don't think it's really crumbling at all, it's just morphing into another form. The same errors will be there and will be until Jesus returns for His own.