faith for faith

As emotions have flared and tensions have tightened between Christians and Christians and between Christians and non-Christians over the political issues that have branded our time, I hope and believe that there is growing an understanding that, at least between Christian and Christian, much grace must be given on differences of opinion on these matters. And for some of us (myself included), we have had to show grace and patience to ourselves, finding that one day our hearts and minds would lead us one way, and on another day the other.

And as these differences of opinion between Christians have arisen on these political matters, some of us might be (or have been) tempted to simply chalk these disagreements up to the typical culprits of divisions in Church in other matters, such as biblical ignorance or theological subterfuge. In these non-political cases, we would make our claims based on our biblical arguments and theological understandings and be quick to dismiss as wrong anyone who has a differing opinion. We would then view these political issues in the same manner that we view those other issues that are contained within the Church and its theology, and we would readily divide ourselves further with the same power of conviction.

Read more…

Forget the projection polls for a moment and imagine with me that, after all of the dust settles and all of the votes are tallied, it is found that Amendment One to the North Carolina State Constitution has failed to garner enough support to be ratified.

What are the ramifications of the outcome? The immediate secular ramifications seem small, but the outcome has the potential to have much larger ones in the future. For while the failure of the amendment to be ratified does not change the fact that homosexual unions are still illegal in the state of North Carolina, it does leave open the possibility that the state’s courts could rule the present law unconstitutional and effectively repeal it.

Read more…

I have long debated with myself as to whether or not I was going to throw in my thoughts with the rest of the masses regarding the vote for Amendment One of the North Carolina State Constitution, and that debate has hinged chiefly in my own indecision rather than upon any fear of backlash from whomever. For the issue as it regards Christians and the Church is far from black and white, and the very fact that this is a state issue through and through further muddies the issue.

For though it is more than evident that the institution of marriage is far older than any secular government and was instituted by no one other than God himself, the fact remains that as a society today, marriage is chiefly a secular institution. While others have said that marriage is an institution created by God and recognized by the state, it is not that simple. For if that were true, no one could bypass the church and be married in a courthouse by a magistrate, and there would be no secular ramifications for being married, except for perhaps the changing of one’s legal name. Yet, these things do exist and so demonstrate that the once religious institution of marriage has evolved into something that can elude religion entirely.

Read more…

After hurdling down this road as a nation for some years, it is drawing nigh to the time when North Carolina will cast in its lot with others on the legal nature of marriage (well, reiterate or contradict its present legal nature) with the proposed Ammendment One seeking to modify the state constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. While there are numerous angles to view and to evaluate this legislation, I’m presently interested in what should be the response of the church to it. As a member of the Church in North Carolina, what questions should I ask, and what actions should I take for or against it, or should I act in neutrality? Here a my thoughts:
Read more…

A name is a loaded thing. It gives one description, a moniker, categories, and a sense of belonging. It also permits social interaction, structure, and order. Names are a fundamental element of human existence. But what does one do if a name no longer correctly describes him, or if the meaning the name portrays has changed over time, or if that name has become so broad that it encompasses those with whom one would never associate?

These are some of the questions I have been asking myself for years regarding the “Baptist” title. Baptist is one of those names that has become so broad and has developed so many connotations that it is hardly helpful as a name any more. Generally, the Baptist name encompasses almost anyone who professes Christ who does not hold to infant baptism. Apart from that, one can be Calvinistic or Arminian in his soteriology, covenantal, dispensational, etc., in his view of the New Covenant, charismatic or cessationist with regard to the gifts of the Spirit, congregational or elder-ruled with regard to ecclesiology, etc., etc., etc. In other words, the only thing that holds Baptists together is the dryness of their infants.

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…

It is difficult to pinpoint its source, but there is something about Sundays that causes to me to be discontent with the state of the church in our country. And its effects upon me are such that I have to almost force myself to go to the building that we call, “the church,” on Sunday mornings though I scarcely doubt that God’s saints do indeed gather there. And if this discontentment with Sundays were coupled with a disdain for fellowship with the saints, I would necessarily conclude that my own heart was to blame for it. Yet, I find that despite my discontentment with “church” on Sunday mornings I do in fact enjoy and indeed yearn for fellowship with God’s people. Therefore the question that rests heavy upon my heart is, “If I am indeed in Christ and if I truly long for the company of the saints, why is then that I have such reluctance toward “church” on Sunday mornings?”

Assuming that I am not wholly wicked (which is sometimes a shaky assumption), what is it about "church” on Sunday mornings that causes my heart at times to shy away from it rather than be drawn to it? What merit (if any) is there for this disposition of my heart?

Read more…

I have heard it said, “The one thing that we can learn from history is that no one learns from history.” It does not take much to validate this statement. We see it in politics where present governments repeat the mistakes of past governments, we see it in families where children repeat the mistakes of their parents, and we see it in religion where traditionalists misapply the truth behind practices of the past. We all return like dogs to the vomit of our predecessors, and we like them all reject the nourishment of those who by wisdom rejected the viscous cycle of willful obstinacy.

And in the case of religion whereas this traditionalism against truth reared its fleshly head in the Jews who were thus blinded to the Messiah for whom they were looking, and in the Catholic church whose papal decrees and councils blinded it to the Gospel of our Lord, so too now many Baptists have taken up with great zealotry the doctrines of believer’s baptism and baptism by immersion without regard for the foundation upon which it was built. These have perpetuated divisions in God’s church by holding onto the spoils of a battle long past, and these have cherished the spoils and yet have forgotten and even contradicted those who fought the battle that produced the spoils.

Read more…

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit–just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call–one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift (Eph. 4:1-7).

When we think upon the writings of Paul compared to our own context, it is interesting to think about those whom he is addressing. He is not writing to the First Baptist Church of Ephesus or to the Ephesus Presbyterian Church or to the Reformed Church of Ephesus, but he is writing to the church at Ephesus. And what exactly does the apostle mean when he says that he is writing to the church at Ephesus? He explains this at the beginning of his letter: “To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus” (v. 1:1). Therefore, his letter (shockingly) is intended for all who are in Christ in Ephesus–who have been bought with his blood and who share in the Blessing of his Spirit.

Read more…

I realize that the subject I am addressing is an extremely weighty and relevant one, and I have been blessed to have received wise counsel on my addressing it. I could not tell you the exact reasons for my dealing with the subject now apart from it being placed upon my heart the other day and the change of opinion that I have had on it over the years. My former position was a common one among conservative theologians, and it was in short that there is no biblical foundation for divorce, and that if anyone seeks for divorce for any reason at all, they are dishonoring God and his Word. And since my opinion has since changed from that, I will essentially be rebutting myself and my own former arguments. If you wish to read my former written arguments, they can be found here.

Covenants: Unconditional or Conditional?
One matter that greatly shaped my former opinion on the practice of divorce was that of marriage being a covenant and a former professor’s teaching on the nature of covenants. And while I still highly esteem this teacher, I must say that I absolutely disagree with his view of the covenant, namely that a covenant is an unconditional agreement between two parties. His opinion on all covenants being unconditional is founded upon the New Covenant where the promises of God are not able to be thwarted by human design or transgression. We Christians often call this the “unconditional” love of God, whereby he saves sinners and continues to love them in spite of their constant failings.

Read more…