Eternal Perspectives

From the first Sunday our church gathered to worship, we were six to eight months behind.

Perhaps caution and prudence would have counseled going slow and waiting, but those of us who left the church to begin another did so out of a sense of obedience - although who knows the true motivation of one’s own heart? Regardless, none of us was willing to stay even one week longer: we - others far more than me - had invested heavily in the previous church only to be, well, what felt like, betrayed. But for whatever reasons, we left.

One of the first unofficial acts of the new church (called “A Church” for long time due to lack of a name) was to appoint five of us to be a formation committee. We were charged with doing whatever was necessary to establish the church on a solid, biblical foundation: Christ Himself and the teachings of the apostles being that foundation.

We followed Malphurs’ instruction, structure, and forms closely. As recommended, we began by identifying the core values of the people: what was it about our group that was essential, if not unique, to us. These were the core values of the church; these would serve as the guides for us now and in the future.

In the end, we identified eight core values:

The Authority of Scripture
The Supremacy and Centrality of Christ
Discipleship
Loving God and Loving Others
Ministry Excellence
Prayer
Stewardship
Family Affirmation

As Malphurs says, the core values are the DNA of the local church: they determine what the church will and will not be, will and will not do. The five of us polled the congregation - with forms provided by Malphurs - and did the best we could in coming up with values that were true to and reflective of the group. Even so, we were the ones who chose the core values: we knew and admitted to one another that the group was likely to go along with whatever we put before them. To a man, each of us in the group were committed to establishing a biblical church.

It was about this time that we (the formation committee) began to feel a great sense of responsibility and humility. Perhaps without realizing it, the congregation had put the future of and nature of their new church in our hands: they had entrusted us with an authority and power much greater than they realized - or than we had initially realized. We went back to them more than once to explain this to them but, truthfully, I don’t think they understood what we were doing. This was new territory for them - as it was for us - and their focus was on the constitution, which they believed to be the critical document.

The next step was the mission statement, which was supposed to be memorable as well as able to fit on a T-shirt. The five of us brainstormed and finally settled on an eight-word sentence that encapsulated what we were about:

“Presenting Christ as Savior; Pursuing Him as Lord“.

The vision statement came quickly and relatively easy: we described what our church would look like if we were faithful to the core values and the mission statement. Seven characteristics were incorporated into our vision:

We envision a body of believers rooted in Scripture and knowledgeable of the truths and principles of the Bible. We see believers in whom the word of God dwells richly and to which they are submitted.

We envision a church filled with people committed to seeking the LORD and desiring to know Him more intimately every day. We see each believer loving Jesus Christ with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength.

We envision Christians living their lives from an eternal perspective, always seeking to glorify God and to approach life with His priorities in mind.

We envision every believer involved in discipleship, desiring to grow in the knowledge of God and to live a life worthy of their calling. We see men and women of all ages walking in the Spirit and pleasing God in their lives.

We envision a loving, committed, and intimate fellowship and communion of Christians. We see a body of believers striving for unity, seeking the good of one another, and dedicating themselves to the spiritual growth of the body which is Faith Bible Church.

We envision a church filled with believers who preach the gospel to the world through the lives they live. We see people committed to doing good to all people, and especially those of the household of faith.

We envision a church that will reproduce itself by establishing like-minded churches in towns and communities throughout the county, state, nation, and even the world. We see a body committed to reaching out to all people through church planting.

The fourth step, according to Malphurs, is to develop a strategy for building on the core values, accomplishing the mission, and achieving the vision. Realizing that we were but an ad hoc committee, we chose to leave such strategizing to the future elders, whoever they might be.

We spent hundreds of hours on the work. We were a committee that none of us would have put together but, we quickly realized, God had pulled together for this single purpose. We grew together not just as a team responsible for a task, but as a group of men committed to Christ but only loosely committed to one another. By the end of our work, our commitment to one another grew to a genuine love in Christ.

Nothing in my previous 33 years of ministry compares with the work I was involved in with Faith Bible Church (the congregation chose a name after two months or so of being “A Church”). The result is an infant church that will need to be shepherded into maturity over the coming years. There are many who are individually mature, but as a body we are quite immature: we don’t know how we fit together and are still in the “exploring my body” stage of neonatal development.

The work has only begun, as many of you know. As our work began drawing to a close, I said to one of the other men that I felt like we had just arrived at Rivendell: an important accomplishment, to be sure, but only the beginning of an adventure that will hopefully continue for years and decades to come.

Thanks for letting me share a little of this journey with you.

Before any motorcycle came along, major changes transpired in the church of which I was a member. The vote on the new constitution, about which I have written elsewhere, finally took place in mid-January. Lacking the two-thirds majority required for adoption, the constitution was defeated.

What the vote was ultimately about, however, was not the constitution; constitutions are necessary but relatively unimportant documents in a church. The vote was a referendum and conclusion to something that began before I ever arrived at the church.

The referendum involved the path that some of us sought to follow and, hopefully, lead others down. Our path was one of believing in the authority of Scripture and submission to it; one of the elders of the church, in contrast, said that he was not going to be bothered by what the Bible says, that he had his tradition and religion, and that was enough for him. Others referred to the Old Testament as “sharia,” a disparaging dismissal of the OT and a misappropriation of a term used for the code of law derived from the Koran. The things Paul wrote were true for Paul, another said, but were not God’s word to us. It goes on and on.

In short, the philosophy apparently subscribed to by the dominant group in the church was a mixture of Catholicism - wherein the church has greater authority than Scripture - and humanism, which winds up practicing the tragedy of the Book of Judges: “In those days Israel had no king. Each man did what he considered to be right” (Jdg 21.25, NET). Without an absolute authority, people are left to their own morality - a dangerous path that winds up wandering - or sprinting - away from God.

The vote was also the final act of a purge that had begun a year before and six months before I arrived on the scene. A popular pastor who taught the Bible from the pulpit had been removed by many of the same people who were instrumental in defeating the new constitution. Whether or not the pastor needed to be removed or not is moot; what resulted following his dismissal was the departure of many of the people who had begun attending the church when the pastor had come to the church. Some of those desirous of biblical teaching and submitting to the authority of the Bible remained, however, and it was these who were finally purged with the vote. The schism in the church was not about personalities but authority, the Bible, and the raison d’être of the church.

One night after the vote a group of us, representing a dozen families or so, met and decided to leave the church and start a new one. Thanks to diligent work by a few, we were able to meet the following Sunday for our first church service. We were roughly organized and it showed in our service - but it was a beginning.

Shortly thereafter, a decision was made to select a formation committee who would do the work necessary for pulling the church together and pointing it in a biblical direction. I was named to the group along with four other men, tasked with doing something none of us had done before: found a church.

Towards the end of last year I had run across a book by Aubrey Malphurs entitled Ministry Nuts & Bolts, which provided a general overview of what he had been teaching (at Dallas Theological Seminary) and practicing for over twenty years. Impressed by what I read there, I quickly ordered seven or eight of his more specific, more detailed books and began reading and studying them. These books became our guide for the work we were about to undertake.

That work, which (I think) was one of the most important things I’ve done in thirty-plus years of being a believer, and which (I know) was one of the most enjoyable things I’ve done in ministry, will be the subject of my next post.

This blog, along with Lord of the Kingdom, has been quiet for the last several months. Given that silence, I thought I’d let the few of you who might stop by or still have me on an RSS feed know what I’ve been up to.

There are basically two things that have occupied my time and energy during this time; I’ll tell you about the more temporal and frivolous first before moving on to the (ahem) spiritual and godly thing I’ve been about.

It all started with this one. One of my good friends - also a colleague - has a Harley- Davidson Fat Boy and has been after me to get one so we could ride. Early February of this year I found this ‘96 Vulcan 800 Classic for $3150 (4400 miles) and decided to go for it. I hadn’t ridden in 35+ years so I took a basic motorcycle safety class that was worth every penny I paid for it. I was licensed shortly after that and took off. That, happily, led to this:

My wife absolutely loves to ride with me on the motorcycle. It’s nothing for us to put three or four hundred miles on the bike during a good weekend (weather permitting, of course). We’ve discovered a lot of excellent country roads here in south central Texas - or wherever we are - and my wife, who is a very good photographer, has me stop whenever there’s a picture to be taken. In our 28 years of marriage there has never been anything we’ve so thoroughly enjoyed doing together - well, you know what I mean. We’ve also discovered some great places to eat, like:

Being Yankees ourselves, we love the idea of going to a biker bar in the heart of Texas named “Yankees Tavern.” Now, I’m no longer stupid enough* to drink, let alone drink and hop on a motorcycle. But the food at these kind of places is usually remarkably good, although it may just be that after swallowing bugs for the last 100 miles anything taste better. It was a little daunting, I must confess, to roll into one of these places with so many bikers: I’ve seen the shows documenting all the violence associated with biker gangs. After awhile, though, I came to realize that most of the riders there were just like me: fathers and professionals. There are no “gangs” at the places we frequent: if there were, we wouldn’t be there!

Inevitably (I suppose), the Vulcan 800 gave way to this:

I got this last Friday. It’s a 2006 Vulcan 1600 Classic; I was able to buy it (with just 1680 miles) for $7K. I didn’t feel completely safe when my wife and I were on the 800 and had to accelerate rapidly at higher speeds, so I knew I had to get a bigger bike. I never anticipated anything like this, though, and am still getting use to it. It’s all the bike I’ll ever need and is far safer than the other. Plus, it’s black. All motorcycles should be solid colors and dark. Pretty motorcycles are an oxymoron. I’m surprised at how differently it handles - especially at slow speeds - than the 800 and am also surprised at how much heavier it feels, although it’s only 150 pounds more. It weighs in at about 700 without passengers; with passengers it’s . . . more.

Here’s a couple of other views:

That’s another of my good friends - a local physician and former tennis adversary - on the back. I took him and his wife for rides - not at the same time! - last Sunday. Not being totally adjusted to the bike, I’m sure I scared the crap out of them, which was OK in his case but completely unintentional in hers. I’ll take them again in a few weeks when I’m better on the 1600.

This photo was taken in Montgomery, TX, last weekend. This time of year is great for riding.

I’m going to Ruidoso, NM, at the end of May: four of us are going to make the 650-mile trip and stay at one of the guys’ summer home in the mountains nearby. We’re planning on taking two days each way and then taking some day trips while we’re there. Sadly, my wife won’t be able to go; happily, I will! But I’d rather have her go, too.

Oh, the other thing? I’ll post about it very soon.

*I drank enough before I was a believer to last me until the age 78 years, 7 months, and 18 days.

I have a question:

If a Christian organization (school, parachurch, or even church) has a staff person in an authoritative position who lies, gossips, and slanders about other staff people, and the same staff person bullies the weak and vulnerable, and the primary shepherd looks the other way and does not want to hear about it - when all this happens, when does that organization stop being a Christian organization?

This is not just an academic question but one which we encounter and sometimes have to answer in the process of making a decision. We have all, I sadly suspect, run into such a situation and have puzzled over what to do. Rarely are we in a position to do much about it, lacking the authority to address either the bully or the permissive boss; usually we are only indirectly involved, although sometimes we are on the receiving end of the bullying, lies, etc.

Yet no church, school, ministry, or parachurch organization is without sin: even on its best day it is falling short because it consists of fallen, redeemed people. If God were to adopt a zero-tolerance policy, i.e., if he were to stop looking at Christ’s blood and instead evaluate us directly, there would be no Christian organizations. It is his grace and the purifying work of the Holy Spirit that makes any of our efforts acceptable.

Nevertheless, there is a limit, is there not? Christ warned the church of Ephesus,

Do the deeds you did at the first; if not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place – that is, if you do not repent.” - Rev 2.5b, (NET)

If we must make decisions in such situations - whether to attend, support, etc. - how do we know when the line has been crossed? Do we stay with an organization even though it is engaged in chronic, willful sin? Do we leave or pull our support until they repent?

What’s a brother to do?

I was browsing at a Christian bookstore earlier today and picked up a book that looked interesting. I flipped it over to look at the back and noticed endorsements from R.C. Sproul and John Armstrong, plus the following:

The crying need of the church today is for discernment - the ability to recognize truth and distinguish it from error. [This book] reminds us that truth is important, and (contrary to the spirit of our age) real truth is not merely a matter of subjective individual opinion. - John MacArthur, endorsing Who Are You to Judge? by Erwin Lutzer, Senior Pastor of Moody Church

I bought the book and began reading it. I’m also in the process of reading David E. Garland’s commentary on 1 Corinthians (see below) but will also try to present some gleanings on Lutzer’s book, too. His opening chapter discusses the cultural quagmire in which the church today finds itself, as well as the effect of postmodernism on the church.

Appetizers:

The church is to be in the world as a ship is in the ocean; but when the ocean seeps into the ship, the ship is in trouble. I fear that the evangelical ship is taking on water.

There are churches and individuals that are making a great impact for the gospel, and for that we are thankful. But for the most part, we as Christians have settled down to a comfortable kind of Christianity that demands very little and therefore, in turn, makes very little difference in the wider culture. . . .

Officially, we believe that without trusting Jesus as Savior people are lost; unofficially, we act as if what people believe and the way they behave really does not matter.

Garland translates and comments on 1 Cor 1.17:

‘For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, not with rhetorically sophisticated speech, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied [of its effect].’

Eloquence that elevates the status of the preacher cancels the power of the cross . . .

To preach the gospel intending to charm and captivate the crowds with clever wordsmithery in order to enhance one’s own prestige only empties (kenoo) the cross of its effect. . . .

One does not preach the cross to win the admiration of the audience. The goal is to have them look up in awe at the cross, which implants new ideas and uproots the old ways of interpreting divine and earthly reality.

From David E. Garland’s comments on 1 Cor 1.10 in the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament:

To be ‘in the same mind’ (en to auto noï) refers to a Christian mind-set that may include being able to judge ‘what distinguishes good and right from what is evil and wrong’ (Edwards 1885:17). To be ‘in the same purpose’ (en te aute gnome) refers to having the same goals and opinion about the truth.

As Garland notes, it is instructive that Paul, in addressing the factions that had arisen in the Corinthian church, argues theologically and does not rely on his apostolic authority.

Would that all of us might be in the same mind regarding what is right and what is wrong, and that we would all have the same goals - submission and obedience - as well as the same opinion - that the Bible is God’s revelation and is true as he is true - about it.

Someone else has said it better than I ever could. Ever think or feel this way about your own church?

[S]tatus was tied to a variety of factors: ‘occupational prestige, income or wealth, education and knowledge, religious purity, family and ethnic group position, and local-community status . . .’

‘Most individuals tend to measure themselves by the standards of some group that is very important to them - their reference group, whether or not they belong to it - rather than by the standards of the whole society.’ One could possess high status according to certain markers but low status when it came to others, creating a status dissonance that fed an internal restlessness and a greater desire to achieve the dignitas that one believed was one’s due’

[It involves] schmoozing, massaging a superior’s ego, rubbing shoulders with the powerful, pulling strings, scratching each other’s back, and dragging rivals’ names through the mud . . .

Most, if not all, of the problems . . . were hatched from the influence of this setting. Values that were antithetical to the message of the cross - particularly those related to honor and status . . . in which power manifesting itself in ruthlessness and self-advancement is thought to be the only sensible course - percolated into the church, destroying its fellowship and its Christian witness as some members sought to balance civic norms with Christian norms . . . Socially pretentious and self-important individuals appear to have dominated the church. It is likely that they flaunted their symbols of status, wisdom, influence, and family pedigree and looked down on others of lesser status. They appear to have wanted to preserve the social barriers of class and status that permeated their social world but were nullified in the cross of Christ.”

Apparently, they have no religious scruples about being well integrated into a pagan society that is inherently hostile to the wisdom of the cross. . . . Their faith appears not to have created any significant social and moral realignment of their lives. They face little or no social ostracism, and the lack of external pressure contributes to their internal dissension.

‘The church is not a cohesive community but a club, whose meetings provide important moments of spiritual insight and exaltation, but do not have global implications of moral and social change.’

This is not a description of any present-day church but of the church in Corinth to which Paul wrote his letters. It is taken from David Garland’s introduction to 1 Corinthians in the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; he quotes from Meeks, Stansbury, and Barclay in the sections above.

In a sense, however, it is a present-day and any-day church: what was true of people then is true of people now and in the future. The struggles of sinful people then remain the struggles for all of us in our own lives and churches, and the solutions proffered by Paul remain the solutions that we need to implement today.

You have to love the irony and justice found within the pages of our holy Scriptures.

Consider the following: In the account found in 2 Samuel, David has been forced to flee the city of Jerusalem because of the insurrection led by his son Absalom. The writer says,

Then King David reached Bahurim. There a man from Saul’s extended family named Shimei son of Gera came out, yelling curses as he approached. He threw stones at David and all of King David’s servants, as well as all the people and the soldiers who were on his right and on his left.

As he yelled curses, Shimei said, “Leave! Leave! You man of bloodshed, you wicked man! The Lord has punished you for all the spilled blood of the house of Saul, in whose place you rule. Now the Lord has given the kingdom into the hand of your son Absalom. Disaster has overtaken you, for you are a man of bloodshed!”

Then Abishai son of Zeruiah said to the king, “Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over and cut off his head!”

But the king said, “What do we have in common, you sons of Zeruiah? If he curses because the Lord has said to him, ‘Curse David!’, who can say to him, ‘Why have you done this?’” Then David said to Abishai and to all his servants, “My own son, my very own flesh and blood, is trying to take my life. So also now this Benjaminite! Leave him alone so that he can curse, for the Lord has spoken to him. Perhaps the Lord will notice my affliction and this day grant me good in place of his curse.” - 2 Sam 16.5-12 (NET)

David’s sensitivity to God and his restraint in not presuming to know the purposes of God are a reflection of both his humility and his patience. It is too easy for many of us to react or respond inappropriately when we feel we have been attacked unjustly. Like David, we do not feel we have done anything wrong; perhaps, unlike David, we too often defend ourselves or rebuke the other person for their words or deeds.

Not so with David. He knew his limitations and did not jump to any conclusions about the work of God in his life. This was not easy for, as the text continues, the assault was on-going:

So David and his men went on their way. But Shimei kept going along the side of the hill opposite him, yelling curses as he threw stones and dirt at them. The king and all the people who were with him arrived exhausted at their destination, where David refreshed himself.” - 2 Sam 16.13-14

It is hard to miss David’s humility and patience.

It might, however, be easy to miss the conclusion to the matter. That comes years later when David is near death and is passing the scepter of the kingdom to his son, Solomon. In giving advice and instruction to his son, David says,

Note well, you still have to contend with Shimei son of Gera, the Benjaminite from Bahurim, who tried to call down upon me a horrible judgment when I went to Mahanaim. He came down and met me at the Jordan, and I solemnly promised him by the Lord, ‘I will not strike you down with the sword.’ But now don’t treat him as if he were innocent. You are a wise man and you know how to handle him; make sure he has a bloody death.”

“Make sure he has a bloody death.” Forgive me, but I cannot help but smile at David’s words. There is a sweetness to the justice of God that is sometimes overlooked as we read the stories of the Old Testament. David was careful not to think he knew the mind of God in the matter of Shimei. Once he had seen God’s activity and recognized his vindication of his rule, however, David did not allow the sin to go unpunished.

David had an awareness of the special position he occupied in God’s purposes for Israel: he knew he, like Saul before him, was God’s anointed. As such, he was to be respected and treated with honor. His actions against Shimei were not those of a personal vendetta - if that were the case, he would have done something earlier when Abishai sought permission to separate Shimei’s head from his body. No, David’s action was because of Shimei’s offense towards God’s anointed leader of his people.

Personal insults should and must be overlooked, but would that we all had the passion and zeal of David for the institutions, words, and things of God.

Dr Albert Mohler has an interesting piece on Richard Dawkins and his defense of cultural Christianity. Dawkins says,

This [England] is historically a Christian country. I’m a cultural Christian in the same way many of my friends call themselves cultural Jews or cultural Muslims.

“So, yes, I like singing carols along with everybody else. I’m not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history.

“If there’s any threat these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists.”

Mohler’s article continues:

Dawkins expanded on those comments in an article published December 13, 2007 by The New Statesman. In this article Dawkins explains that Christmas is a part of his nation’s history and culture, and thus to be acknowledged, if not celebrated, by all.

He even threw some barbs toward the United States, suggesting that political correctness and a fear of offending anyone’s sensitivities was leading to a denial of the cultural significance of Christmas. All this is unnecessary, he insists:

For better or worse, ours is historically a Christian culture, and children who grow up ignorant of biblical literature are diminished, unable to take literary allusions, actually impoverished. I am no lover of Christianity, and I loathe the annual orgy of waste and reckless reciprocal spending, but I must say I’d rather wish you “Happy Christmas” than “Happy Holiday Season”.

It is a good post and it must be read in its entirety to be fully appreciate, so please go read it.

The reason for my own post stems from a comment Mohler makes. He says, “The thought of Richard Dawkins singing any carols with explicit Christian content is difficult to hold — unless the Oxford professor intends to sing of a faith he does not profess.”

My first thought was that Professor Dawkins ought to feel right at home in a lot of churches: he will be standing with many others who sing the words and, perhaps, speak the Christian jargon necessary for membership in evangelicalism. These tares in the pews are practical atheists and have more in common with Dawkins than Christ. As Jesus said, quoting Isaiah,

‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me.

“‘They worship me in vain,
teaching as doctrine the commandments of men.’”

Truth be told, I suspect I would enjoy talking and spending time with Dawkins far more than I would many of the pew-dwelling weeds on a typical Sunday at most churches. Certainly the professor’s heart is far from God but, unlike the practical atheists in the pews, he doesn’t worship in vain or cause trouble in the church by teaching his own perverted beliefs as though they were biblical.

On judgment day, when unbelievers appear before God before being sent to their final, torturous destination, I believe it will go much easy for the Richard Dawkinses of the world than for those who sought to lead the elect down the wrong path. God takes a dim view of those who endeavor to deceive His own.

This is a thoughtful and well-done piece on what Christmas was, what it has become, and what it could be once again. What if . . .

[HT DashHouse]