faith for faith

Limping around more awkward than a toddler with disproportionate legs is the post-Reformation, American church living under its self-inflicted delusion of democracy. When Rome was in charge, times were simpler, at least regarding the state, the church, the law, and morality, because the church was the state, and morality (at least that which was said to be moral) was the law. Yet even now, though for centuries all of these things have been separated in America, the church still has no clue on how to address them. Some try to do it with signs, others with bumper stickers, some at the polls, and others, like Tim Keller, just say that everyone else is doing it wrong and then suffer amnesia.

From all the confusion, there is a total absence of consensus on how to deal with homosexual marriage, abortion, etc., spanning from the liberal “churches” and their “come as you are and stay that way forever” message to the super-political, super-conservative, Rush Limbaugh-listening churches who cry themselves to sleep over prayer being taken out of public schools and the thought of a Pledge without “under God” scribbled in for added religiosity. And then there’s everyone else.

Read more…

Having been exposed to Southern Baptist “life” far more than I have ever desired by attending a Southern Baptist seminary for near countless years, I have become well-acquainted with the controversies that have plagued churches throughout the country. In that, the one controversy that seems to creep upon the stoop of every church at one time or another is the “contemporary” music controversy. To put it briefly for those who are fortunate enough to be unaware of it, it is the struggle between generations in a church over the type of music that is played in Sunday morning services, whether it be the type that is labeled “traditional” or that which is labeled “contemporary,” i.e. that which is more in tune with the types of music popular in the secular world.

And having attended a school and through it becoming familiar with it, I have to say that the presentation of the controversy has been typically one-sided, namely coming from those who are younger who have a general animosity toward those who are older. And though this is not always the case, it is typically the case. Those who are in the seminaries are usually those who are younger, and therefore they reside in a different generation and in a different understanding of the world around them. Therefore, when they hear that the “old folks” in the church do not like the new music, they immediately conclude that they are old fogies who are set in their ways and who are not as “spiritual” and spiritually discerning as they are.

Read more…

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings (1Cor. 9:19-23).

It can be said of Christian history that one generation’s cultural adaptation is the following generation’s tradition-entrapped religion. It was true of the Jews who were in previous generations faithful to Yahweh in their cultural adaptation, but who were in a subsequent generation in Christ’s day so ensnared by the cultural adaptation of previous generations that they were unable to recognize Yahweh incarnate and crucified him. And the same it is true of American Christianity where previous generations adapted to the culture of their time, and subsequent generations were then ensnared by the cultural adaptations of the previous generation.

Read more…

Many times (if not most times) when I speak to someone who is shopping around for a church, when I ask him his opinion of a particular church, his first impressions revolve around the type of music of the church. Seldom do I hear about the Christ-centeredness of the service or the disposition of the members or their desire to reach their community and the Nations with the Gospel. And if that person shows any inclination to visiting a church a second time, it is oftentimes contingent on whether or not he was entertained by that church the first time around.

While it is of little surprise that American Christians are more concerned about worshipping themselves than God by the churches they attend, it is saddening nonetheless. For it is clear that we have been deceived into thinking that true joy rests in self-satisfaction, and we rob ourselves of our Joy by seeking it in entertainment rather than in Christ and him glorified.

Read more…

For those who follow the Lord, the commands of the Lord may seem counter-intuitive. For those who marched around Jericho under the leadership of Joshua, the command by the Lord to march around Jericho and to shout on the last day to overcome the city likely did not happen without a few raised eyebrows. Nevertheless, the Israelites, in one of their rare moments of complete obedience, did not grumble but trusted the Lord without hesitance. For this reason, the Israelites prevailed over Jericho and moved onward to obtain the Promised Land which the Lord had already given into their hands.

Though today, the people of God will not be called to march around a city to accomplish its ruin, they are called to live a life that is as counter-intuitive as was the battle plan against Jericho. For many of the great commands of our Lord: “Lose your life that you might gain it” (Lk. 17:33), “Sell your possessions so that you might have treasure in heaven” (Mt. 19:21; cf. Mt. 13:44), “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” (Lk. 20:25), and “Seek to live peaceably with all men” (Rm. 12:18), etc.–all these go against what is preached by the world and what is ingrained in our natural minds and instincts. For the world tells us to seek for our life in this age, to hoard up for ourselves treasures in this world, to fight against paying taxes to the governing authorities, and to stir up discord for the sake of our rights. And if we are found living as Christ commanded rather than as the world commands, many eyebrows will be raised in the process.

Read more…

By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward (Heb. 11:24-26).

“Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also,” was the declaration of our Lord to those who would listen on the Sermon on the Mount, and it is the testimony of countless lives of men and women who have looked upon the offerings of this world and upon the suffering that comes with Christ and forsook the former for the latter.

Read more…

Though there is no explicit declaration in the narrative of Joseph as to the impact that Joseph’s fathers had on his short-upbringing, there can be little doubt that their teachings on God and his Promise had a great impact on his life. For we see in the story of Joseph such trust in God that he does not waver in faith when he is sold into slavery, he refuses, for the sake of the glory of his God alone, to lay down with Potiphar’s wife, he remains unshaken when he is thrown into prison for his stance for God’s glory, and he does not grumble when he is forgotten for two years by the cupbearer for whom he interpreted his favorable dream. Furthermore, when Joseph is entrusted with all power and authority in the land of Egypt, he does not seek the revenge on his brothers that would be so simple for him, but he loves his brothers and declares, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive” (Gen. 50:20). Joseph did all these things in faith, because he had been taught from his youth of the greatness of the God of his fathers. For a God like the God of Abraham, of whom Abraham believed “gives life to the dead, and calls into existence the things that do not exist” (Rm. 4:17) is able to and does cause all things to work together for good for those who love him, insofar as their greatest delight is in him and in his glory (cf. Rm. 8:28; Rm. 5:2). Therefore, Joseph was able to stand fast in his sufferings, for his delight was the delight of his fathers, who were “looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God” (Heb. 11:10). The questions that we must all ask ourselves are, “Is our hope in this age the glory of God, and are looking forward to that day when his glory will be fully revealed to us?” Fathers, are you instilling this hope into your children so that they might have the same faith that Joseph had? Just a thought.

John Piper caused quite a stir among Baptists a few years ago when he declared his intentions to make it possible for non-Baptist persons (viz. those who come from other orthodox denominations that practice infant baptism rather than believer’s baptism) to join his church without being baptized as an adult by immersion. I, at that time along with the majority of Baptists, openly ridiculed Piper for what I said was his “pansy stance on Baptism” and his apparent capitulation of doctrine for the sake of church membership. I, however (never to be one to put my foot in my mouth) since that time have reversed my former position and have found myself, for the most part, agreeing with the stance that Piper has made in his church. Though I am sure that I will receive much flak for siding with Piper on this issue, I am convinced that it is the best stance that Baptists can take for the sake of the health of the Body and for its testimony of Christ to the world.

Though I find myself agreeing with Piper on his stance on baptism and church membership, it is not because I have wavered in what I believe is biblical concerning baptism (see Why I am a Baptist). I have, however, since concluded that the issue is not one on the validity of believer’s baptism over other teachings on baptism, but it is one concerning the doctrine of the Church and how the Church is to be gathered together and comprised. The question that must be raised is not, “Is believer’s baptism biblical?” but it is, “Should fellowship be severed because of one’s stance on baptism?” Should we as Baptists deny membership to one who is clearly in Christ and desires membership in a Baptist church but disagrees on the nature of the doctrine of baptism?

Read more…

For those of you who find yourselves outside the inner-workings of Southern Baptist Convention, you are likely unaware of what is being called the “Great Commission Resurgence” that is being headed up by Dr. Daniel Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina. The premise of this aim at sparking a movement is this, that the “Conservative Resurgence,” that occurred within the SBC some decades ago against the liberalism that had taken over the denomination, stopped short of what it should have been–that the claiming back of conservative, evangelical doctrine in the hierarchy of the SBC and in its seminaries was not enough to remedy the woes of the SBC and therefore a good portion of the American Church.

These claims have caused a great stir in a denomination that is finding itself moving closer and closer to irrelevancy with each passing generation. There is now essentially a great divide within the denomination, between the older, graying members who are content with leaving things as they are and the younger members who seem to care less and less about the conglomerate which is the SBC. Dr. Akin’s proposal as to the reason for this problem is that the SBC has focused too much upon itself and the American Church and that, for this reason, the SBC has lost its vision and vitality about the great mission of the Church–to be about the business of preaching the Gospel in all the world. This loss of focus is the source of a great deal of the problems within in the SBC, and if the SBC were only to reclaim that focus, it would reclaim its relevancy in the church.

Read more…

There is little doubt that when the Holy Spirit through the prophet Moses penned the narrative of the life of Joseph that Joseph was portrayed in such a way to make him a pre-figuring of the coming Messiah promised in Genesis 3:15 and realized in Jesus Christ. We see this in the narrative sinlessness and blamelessness of Joseph (though we know he was a sinner, yet there is never any mention of his failings), and how, through the person of Joseph and his unmerited sufferings, that he saved God’s people from starvation and extinction and thereby fulfilled the Promise of God given to Abraham. In Sunday School yesterday, our teacher made an excellent observation concerning the narrative of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife found in Genesis 39. The observation was in the similarity between the Joseph’s temptation in the house of Potiphar and Adam’s temptation in the Garden. Both, though low in rank compared to their masters’, were given charge of their masters’ estate and were permitted to enjoy all things save one–in the case of Adam, eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and in the case of Joseph, Potiphar’s wife. Both were tempted to take both, yet unlike Adam, Joseph did not fail. Where Adam did not succeed, Joseph did, thereby demonstrating the coming Messiah’s position as the Second Adam, the second head of the human race, who, rather than imputing his sin to his subjects as did Adam, imputes to his subjects his righteousness (cf. Rm. 5:12-21). Just as through Joseph’s righteousness and obedience, God saved Israel from physical annihilation, so too now through Christ’s righteousness and obedience, God has saved spiritual Israel from eternal destruction (cf. Gal. 6:16). Just a thought.