Time was when I rarely prayed for my pastors. After all, they were such learned, godly and experienced men they seemed to least need it! Ha ha.
Now, my (co-)pastor is the person I pray for in the church most (other than my own family). The spiritual life of the church depends more on him (and myself) more than anyone else, under God. If I want the church to be blessed, then the main means by which God brings a blessing to a church is through its pastors. If I want the church to go off the rails, drift along aimlessly, etc., then the number one way that can happen is through spiritual decline in the pastor's life. And when I became a pastor I learnt that what I might appear to be to the people who see me only on Sundays and other on-best-behaviour meetings and what I actually am before God are two things that can have a yawning chasm between them.
Saturday, 27 March 2010
Thursday, 25 March 2010
How to revolutionise your Christian life...
How to revolutionise one's Christian life. It's easy. Really...
Easy to understand, that is.
It's not to get some great liberating experience at a special meeting. Not to be specially "anointed" by a specially blessed "man of God" as many think in Kenya. And so on and so forth. What is it?
It's to believe and apply the gospel to yourself, day in and day out.
You're a rotten sinner. Trust me, I know, because we all have the same fallen Adamic nature. Perverse, selfish, rebellious and revolting. But if you're a Christian, then that means you're a repenting rotten sinner. But did you know what the Bible says about repenting rotten sinners?
It says that God's mercies are new every morning (Lamentations 3:22-23).
It says that if we claim to not be sinners, we're lying.... but if we confess our sins then God is both faithful and just to wash away all our sins through the blood of Jesus Christ (1 John 1:8-10).
It says that as Christians, we can forget those things that are behind us, and press on towards the goal in Christ (Philippians 3:13-14).
This is the gospel, and it is tremendously liberating. It is grace - free and boundless. Hard to believe, because it is so counter-intuitive, and so unlike how we relate to others. But it is, feel it or not, the way that God actually does relate to us. As we believe this good news day after day, repent day after day and re-commit to pressing forwards day after day, God forgives us day after day and leads us on. This is a freedom from bondage that the world knows nothing about. The comfort of it comes only if we believe, repent and look anew towards Jesus Christ. Simple.... but wonderful. A revolution for every Christian life, and hiding in broad daylight under our very noses....
Easy to understand, that is.
It's not to get some great liberating experience at a special meeting. Not to be specially "anointed" by a specially blessed "man of God" as many think in Kenya. And so on and so forth. What is it?
It's to believe and apply the gospel to yourself, day in and day out.
You're a rotten sinner. Trust me, I know, because we all have the same fallen Adamic nature. Perverse, selfish, rebellious and revolting. But if you're a Christian, then that means you're a repenting rotten sinner. But did you know what the Bible says about repenting rotten sinners?
It says that God's mercies are new every morning (Lamentations 3:22-23).
It says that if we claim to not be sinners, we're lying.... but if we confess our sins then God is both faithful and just to wash away all our sins through the blood of Jesus Christ (1 John 1:8-10).
It says that as Christians, we can forget those things that are behind us, and press on towards the goal in Christ (Philippians 3:13-14).
This is the gospel, and it is tremendously liberating. It is grace - free and boundless. Hard to believe, because it is so counter-intuitive, and so unlike how we relate to others. But it is, feel it or not, the way that God actually does relate to us. As we believe this good news day after day, repent day after day and re-commit to pressing forwards day after day, God forgives us day after day and leads us on. This is a freedom from bondage that the world knows nothing about. The comfort of it comes only if we believe, repent and look anew towards Jesus Christ. Simple.... but wonderful. A revolution for every Christian life, and hiding in broad daylight under our very noses....
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Church planting
A church that has no plan to church-plant is a disobedient church - disobedient to Christ and the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-21), that is.
This needs clarifying - what counts as a "plan"? I do not necessarily mean a formal, written plan, or even an unwritten one where that means we have already identified places and dates.
What I mean is that:
What we need to be at war against is the conservative mindset that is forever saying, "we can't spare anyone, we're busy here, there's a lot to do, we have many problems to attend to, planting would be problematic, we're not experienced in that, etcetera etcetera." No doubt there may be a seed of truth in all of these things. So what? The aim is to please Jesus, and he's made his will clear. The actual step of sending out some members with a commission to begin a new work is just one (final) step in the chain, and the question is not if we know which date that will take place on (in Eldoret, we have no idea!). The question is if we actually are heading towards the goal at all in a meaningful way, or just paying lip-service to it. Are we traversing the other links that come earlier on, or just treading water and enjoying the comfort? Every worthwhile new church in the world was the result of someone taking these costly, time-consuming and difficult steps. Without them, the church will eventually die; churches are closing all the time - there need to be more opening so that the advance continues. Whose work is this meant to be? Not ultimately the work of missionary agencies, whatever their place may be.... but the work of individual local churches, working alone or in partnership as the opportunity arises. A church that has no plan to church-plant is a disobedient church.
This needs clarifying - what counts as a "plan"? I do not necessarily mean a formal, written plan, or even an unwritten one where that means we have already identified places and dates.
What I mean is that:
- The clearly revealed will of Christ is for his gospel to spread through all nations, amongst every people, language and cultural group (Revelation 7:9-10, Genesis 12:1-3, Matthew 28:18-21).
- It is also clearly revealed that wherever the gospel spreads, believers are intended (commanded) to gather together in churches for worship, encouragement, instruction and discipline (e.g. Acts 14:21-23, Matthew 16:18, Titus 1:4ff, Philippians 1:1).
- Self-governing: Every church should work towards managing its own affairs without being dependent on outside leadership.
- Self-supporting: Each church should be looking to finance its own activities without depending long-term on outside money.
- Self-propagating: Every church should itself be seeking to do what it can to fulfil the Great Commission in particular in its own region, not looking to outside agencies to do or even lead the work for it.
What we need to be at war against is the conservative mindset that is forever saying, "we can't spare anyone, we're busy here, there's a lot to do, we have many problems to attend to, planting would be problematic, we're not experienced in that, etcetera etcetera." No doubt there may be a seed of truth in all of these things. So what? The aim is to please Jesus, and he's made his will clear. The actual step of sending out some members with a commission to begin a new work is just one (final) step in the chain, and the question is not if we know which date that will take place on (in Eldoret, we have no idea!). The question is if we actually are heading towards the goal at all in a meaningful way, or just paying lip-service to it. Are we traversing the other links that come earlier on, or just treading water and enjoying the comfort? Every worthwhile new church in the world was the result of someone taking these costly, time-consuming and difficult steps. Without them, the church will eventually die; churches are closing all the time - there need to be more opening so that the advance continues. Whose work is this meant to be? Not ultimately the work of missionary agencies, whatever their place may be.... but the work of individual local churches, working alone or in partnership as the opportunity arises. A church that has no plan to church-plant is a disobedient church.
Saturday, 20 March 2010
Debates
Public debates, when run properly, are a good way of really getting to grips with two different positions and the points on which the argument turns.
One church in America has just run its third "debate summit" between Christians and atheists, with these three debates, with each participant being highly experienced in their field:
One church in America has just run its third "debate summit" between Christians and atheists, with these three debates, with each participant being highly experienced in their field:
Debate #001 : Dr. Ed Buckner vs. Jay LucasThey're now selling the DVDs (all 3 debates for $10) and CDs ($5). Follow the links given and choose "Debate Series #3".
Topic: Moral Foundations: "Which makes more sense, Christianity or Atheism?"
Debate #002 : Dr. Will Provine vs. Dr. Andy McIntosh
Topic: "Flight in birds and bats: Is evolution or creation the best guide?"
Debate #003 : Dr. Dennis Sullivan vs. Dr. Will Provine
Topic: "Free Will: Does it exist? Does it matter?"
Wednesday, 17 March 2010
Protecting your teenage daughter
Here's a news story suggesting that teenage daughters need protection. Ha! What kind of time warp is this? What chauvinistic woman-oppressors are saying that teenage girls need protection in this day and age?
Oh, it's the teenage daughters themselves....
The other way that the teenagers quoted in this news story failed to benefit from their parents was in receiving the instruction in discernment that would have given them the self-confidence to tell their boyfriends, in a godly way of course, that they're jerks who should take a hike...
Oh, it's the teenage daughters themselves....
The other way that the teenagers quoted in this news story failed to benefit from their parents was in receiving the instruction in discernment that would have given them the self-confidence to tell their boyfriends, in a godly way of course, that they're jerks who should take a hike...
Galatians, circumcision and infant baptism again
I want to further elaborate on what I said last week about Galatians, circumcision and infant baptism. Consider these near-closing verses of the book:
I judge that the whole tenor and direction of Galatians has been to make this insistence. I find it incomprehensible, from a paedobaptist assumption, that Paul could have omitted in the entire argument to explain the role that baptism allegedly has as the New Covenant equivalent of circumcision, when the whole problem in Galatia was Judaisers wrongly insisting that Christians need to be circumcised. But I think Paul actually spells out what he believes quite clearly. There are no outward marks that have significance for delimiting who is a true Christian or not (and here I'm particularly contradicting Douglas Wilson et al's "Federal Vision" theology which especially insists on Trinitarian baptism as the delimiter of those who should be considered Christians, in the same way that wedding rings mark those who are married). What counts, as the mark of the New Covenant, I read in verse 15, is the new creation - that you have become a new person. i.e. reality, fulfillment.
These people, Paul calls the "Israel of God" - i.e. the true Israel, the Israel that really counts. A paedobaptist can point out that Paul does not explicitly say, "of course, I am hereby excluding believers' infants, where they are not yet actually a new creation by conversion." But such a statement would be redundant - Paul has just said that being a new creation is what counts to get you into the authentic Israel. He no more needs to explain that this is also required of infants than he needs to explain that it is required of Gentiles, slaves or circus clowns.
I find verse 17 even more telling. In it Paul is saying, "Well, if you are going to absolutely insist on some outward mark to prove your Christianity - then I have it here: I am persecuted and beaten". (That Paul is speaking in context about marks of persecution, not about "stigmata" or some other mark is made clear by the context - see 5:11 and 6:12). The Judaisers gloried in their circumcision as the bodily mark showing their covenant status; Paul said that no outward mark mattered, only the cross of Christ (6:14) and we should glory only in that - but if you must have one, it is persecution for the gospel's sake which proves that we belong to Christ.
Again, Paul does not add "and of course, it is not baptism that is the covenant marker!" But why would he need to? Once he's told us what the marker is not, and what it is then what more explanation is needed? Why should he be forced to explicitly address debates that had not arisen in his day?
In my opinion, these kind of considerations are conclusive once you allow Paul to speak for himself, instead of trying to read him against the backdrop of paedobaptism as an assumed theological system.
15 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. 16 And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. 17 From now on let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus. (6:15-17, ESV)The evangelical paedobaptist insists that the "sign and seal" of the New Covenant is baptism. As a Reformed Baptist, I assert to the contrary, that it is conversion and the receiving of the Holy Spirit - that circumcision has been fulfilled in heart circumcision and sealing with the Spirit not in another outward sign.
I judge that the whole tenor and direction of Galatians has been to make this insistence. I find it incomprehensible, from a paedobaptist assumption, that Paul could have omitted in the entire argument to explain the role that baptism allegedly has as the New Covenant equivalent of circumcision, when the whole problem in Galatia was Judaisers wrongly insisting that Christians need to be circumcised. But I think Paul actually spells out what he believes quite clearly. There are no outward marks that have significance for delimiting who is a true Christian or not (and here I'm particularly contradicting Douglas Wilson et al's "Federal Vision" theology which especially insists on Trinitarian baptism as the delimiter of those who should be considered Christians, in the same way that wedding rings mark those who are married). What counts, as the mark of the New Covenant, I read in verse 15, is the new creation - that you have become a new person. i.e. reality, fulfillment.
These people, Paul calls the "Israel of God" - i.e. the true Israel, the Israel that really counts. A paedobaptist can point out that Paul does not explicitly say, "of course, I am hereby excluding believers' infants, where they are not yet actually a new creation by conversion." But such a statement would be redundant - Paul has just said that being a new creation is what counts to get you into the authentic Israel. He no more needs to explain that this is also required of infants than he needs to explain that it is required of Gentiles, slaves or circus clowns.
I find verse 17 even more telling. In it Paul is saying, "Well, if you are going to absolutely insist on some outward mark to prove your Christianity - then I have it here: I am persecuted and beaten". (That Paul is speaking in context about marks of persecution, not about "stigmata" or some other mark is made clear by the context - see 5:11 and 6:12). The Judaisers gloried in their circumcision as the bodily mark showing their covenant status; Paul said that no outward mark mattered, only the cross of Christ (6:14) and we should glory only in that - but if you must have one, it is persecution for the gospel's sake which proves that we belong to Christ.
Again, Paul does not add "and of course, it is not baptism that is the covenant marker!" But why would he need to? Once he's told us what the marker is not, and what it is then what more explanation is needed? Why should he be forced to explicitly address debates that had not arisen in his day?
In my opinion, these kind of considerations are conclusive once you allow Paul to speak for himself, instead of trying to read him against the backdrop of paedobaptism as an assumed theological system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
