Working to get on track

Ok, I am well aware that I have been very next to negligent in my postings over the past couple of months. It is amazing how easy it is to get out of the habit of regular postings. It is my intention to be back on full track by the start of the new year. Obviously with the Holidays and such I may still be hit and miss but I will make every effort to record my thoughts on a more regular basis. Be patient with me - please.

A Little Virus!

Galatians 5:9
A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough.

It has been an exciting past couple of days. Exciting like a train wreck! We evidently had some kind of pesky virus find its way into the church on Sunday and now that little leaven (virus) has been making its way through the congregation. At last count, some 35 people have been affected by the bug. Hopefully in the next 24-48 hours we will be okay. Nothing like a stomach flu to start the week!

All this serves as an interesting illustration of how something so seemingly small can have such an impact. Sin has a way of creeping its way far beyond what we imagine. All the more reason to rid ourselves of sin (as best we can).

The great Puritan scholar John Owen spent much time considering and probing this matter of eliminating sin. In the 17th century, he wrote a little 86-page book called "Mortification of Sin in Believers." The word "mortify" means "kill" in 17th century English - not "embarrass" or "shame" as it is often understood today. Owen made a remarkable little statement in this issue of mortifying the flesh -

"Be killing sin or it will be killing you."

The apostle Paul said it this way in Romans 8:12-13:

12 So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh — 13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

So then, let us wary of sin in our lives and be killing it. In the meantime, I will go to the church and spray the Lysol in order to kill the virus.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Pastor Ed

Distortions of the Biblical View of Predestination - Part 2

Continued from yesterday's post - here is the Biblical view of predestination as presented by R.C. Sproul -

- - - - - - -

In sharp contrast to the caricature of double predestination seen in the positive-positive schema, is the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. In this view, predestination is double, in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather, we view predestination in terms of a positive-negative relationship.

In the Reformed view, God from all eternity decrees some to election, and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect, God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief into their lives. Even in the case of the "hardening" of the sinners' already recalcitrant hearts, God, as Luther stated, does not "work evil in us by creating fresh evil in us." That is not to say that "hardening of the sinners' hearts" is a work of evil. It is God's free choice. For if there were not lost people in the world, Christians would have no need to spread the Gospel, though Jesus commanded Christians to in Matthew 28:19. However Luther did not understand this and wrote:

When men hear us say that God works both good and evil in us, and that we are subject to God's working by mere passive necessity, they seem to imagine a man who is in himself good, and not evil, having an evil work wrought in him by God; for they do not sufficiently bear in mind how incessantly active God is in all His creatures, allowing none of them to keep holiday. He who would understand these matters, however, should think thus: God works evil in us (that is, by means of us) not through God's own fault, but by reason of our own defect. We being evil by nature, and God being good, when He impels us to act by His own acting upon us according to the nature of His omnipotence, good though He is in Himself, He cannot but do evil by our evil instrumentality; although, according to His wisdom, He makes good use of this evil for His own glory and for our salvation. (Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will (Westwood: Fleming H. Revell, 1957), p. 206)

Thus, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate. God works regeneration monergistically but never sin. Sin falls within the category of providential concurrence.

- - - - - - -

Soli Deo Gloria,

Pastor Ed

Distortions of the Biblical View of Predestination - Part 1

I was reading through the caricatures of predestination and came across this statement by R.C. Sproul. It is interesting to see how those outside the "calvinistic" circle see this biblical doctrine. Much thanks to Sproul for clearly articulating this distortion of predestination. May is stimulate some thought.

- - - -

The use of the qualifying term "double" has been somewhat confusing in discussions concerning predestination. The term apparently means one thing within the circle of Reformed theology, and quite another outside that circle, and at a popular level of theological discourse. It has been used as a synonym for a symmetrical view of predestination, which sees election and reprobation being worked out in a parallel mode of divine operation, which usage involves a serious distortion of the Reformed view of double predestination.

The distortion of double predestination looks like this: There is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation. God WORKS in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity, God decreed some to election and by divine initiative, works faith in their hearts, and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity, God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative. In the case of the elect, regeneration is the monergistic work of God. In the case of the reprobate, sin and degeneration are the monergistic work of God. Stated another way, we can establish a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry. We can call this a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.

This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin, who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism, and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.

- - - - - - -

Tomorrow I will post Sproul's statement concerning the "Reformed" view of Predestination.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Pastor Ed

An Evangelical Crisis

The evangelical church of today is in a crisis – in reality, an identity crisis. The church does not know what it is, what it is to stand for or even what it believes. I recently spoke with someone concerning a “ministry” outside the church. As this person shared with me the mission of this non-church ministry, distinctively Christian terms like “outreach”, “fellowship”, “faith-based”, “evangelistic”, and “gospel” were used. But when asked for a definition of what these terms meant and how they were biblically carried out, the answers were greatly lacking and most disturbing. For example, when I asked about the presentation of the gospel, the answer was that the gospel is simply telling individuals that God loves them and wants them to change their lives. The implication of this is that it might well be within a person’s own ability to turn his or her life around and live in the love of God - that all God wants from a person is somekind our outward personal reform. Additionally, (and most disturbing), I was told that both Catholics and Evangelicals communicate the same gospel. The last time I checked, Catholicism was not teaching salvation was through grace alone, by Christ alone, through faith alone. The problem – the evangelical church and its individual members do not know what the Church is, what faith is or even what the gospel is.

To the very disregard for the Word of God, the evangelical church has so watered down the gospel – the Biblical presentation of man’s need for salvation from sin by the work of Christ - to be nothing more than some magical therapy to help those with poor self-images and emotional hang-ups to begin to finally feel good about themselves. And this approach seems to be working. For the theory goes, that since everyone has some kind of hang-up, then everyone needs Christ, at least to some degree or another. Therefore the gospel of restoring poor self-images is appealing to the masses. But rather than the gospel being seen as redeeming us for God, the gospel is viewed as that which we might use to redeem us for ourselves. God is seen as having provided through His Son Jesus Christ a way for us pursue and sustain our own ambitions and lifestyles.

To this end then, the church has become more and more man-centered rather than God-centered. While we in our circles may initially cringe at the term man-centered, remember that there are some “good” things which a church can do being man-centered. The church is to be concerned about one another and for fellow man. The problem is that the church has come to see this as her primary motivation for ministry and therefore pursue activities and ministries that neglect God-centeredness. The emphasis of so much of the evangelical church’s ministries is focused on things like personal comfort, enjoyment, fun, and excitement. More concern is place upon the physical and emotional well being of a person than upon one's own spiritual life. True holiness and godliness is squeezed into the equation almost a "necessary evil." The problem again is that while many of the activities and ministries of a church may be “good” – being man-centered and man-driven, they will invariably succumb to the ugliness of man’s depravity, squeezing God and His Word out little by little and more and more. A man-centered gospel, promising comfort, enjoyment and personal well-being makes it acceptable to be a Christian. A gospel that forces a person to see themselves as depraved sinners in need of the mercy of God even to look to God, that forces a person to make tough choices between satisfying the flesh or serving the living God is far less appealing.

We had better make sure we know the biblcal content of the gospel and seek to present it in the fulness that God had inteneded. May our desire be the same as the Apostle Paul -

Acts 20:27
For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. (NKJV)

Soli Deo Gloria,

Pastor Ed

A High Calling!

Ephesians 4:1-3
1 Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, 3 being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

I have been meditating on these verses for the past couple of days, being impressed with the high call of the believer not only toward God but also toward one another. Consider each of the calls here. Why are these given? These are given because the human heart constantly needs reminding to pursue such things. The human heart is so prone to either forsake or at least pervert the spiritual walk, humility, gentleness, patience and truly showing tolerance for one another.

The list will continue on toward the end of the chapter exhorting and challenging our perceptions as well as our actions toward one another. May we endeavor to practice these calls of the Lord in our lives for His glory.

Ephesians 4:31-32
31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. 32 Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.

SDG,

Pastor Ed

Freedom in Christ

Ephesians 2:10
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

As I have continued to read some materials by Martin Luther, I was impressed as I read this excerpt from his work The Freedom of a Christian reminding me that I am not saved by good works but rather that good works are the fruit, the result of having been made righteous by the work of God. It is God who calls me to righteousness [command] and it is God who works in me to fulfill the call [promise]. As it is written in Philippians 2:13 -

…for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

Consider what Luther wrote –

A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all…The entire Scripture of God is divided into two parts: commandments and promises. The promises of God give what the commandments of God demand and fulfill what the law prescribes so that all things may be God’s alone, both the commandments and the fulfilling of the commandments. He alone commands, He alone fulfills…Surely we are named after Christ, not because He is absent from us, but because He dwells in us – that is, because we believe in Him and are Christ’s one to another and do to our neighbors as Christ does to us. But in our day we are taught by the doctrines of men to seek nothing but merits, rewards and the things that are ours. Of Christ we have made only a taskmaster far harsher than Moses.

We are free in Christ to give our lives to Christ so that He would live His life in us to the glory of the Father.

Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

The call of Christ demands our all – it takes our lives and yet it is the most delightful and restful work that can be engaged.

Matthew 11:28-30
28 Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. 29 "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.

May we all find our rest, our delight, our freedom, and our devoted service in Christ.

SDG,

Pastor Ed

Believers as Priests

I have always had a hard time with the term "Reverend" in reference to a pastor or minister. The term was rarely used in the circles I became a pastor in out in Southern California. I can remember how a friend of mine and I would raze each other when we received that occasional mail addressed to "Reverend Brian" or "Reverend Ed." It is my belief that there is only One to be revered and woe to the man who might leave it open to suggestion that he might be such a person. Only God is to be revered.

Martin Luther was greatly concerned in his day about inappropriate distinctions between the so-called "clergy" class (made up of popes, bishops, priest, monks) regarding them as "the church" and as the religious - and the secular class made up of all who were not clergy. The Bible knows no such distinctions in the church.

1 Peter 2:9
9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light...

According to Scripture, all believers are "religious" and have a common status in Christ. Luther held to the priesthood of all believers. For he wrote:

"To call popes, bishops, priests, monks and nuns the religious class, but princes, lords, artisans and farm workers the secular class is but a specious device invented by certain time-servers. But no one ought to be frightened by it, and for good reason. For all Christians whatsoever really and truly belong to the religious class and there is not difrerence among them except insofar as they do different work...For baptism, gospel and faith alone make men religious and create a Christian people...The fact is that our baptism consecrates us all without exception adn makes us all preists (1 Peter 2:9, Revelation 5:9-10)."

[From Luther's "Appeal ot the German Ruling Class"]

So, there is but one class of believers, all priests unto God and the Lord God alone is to be revered (feared), not some pastor or minister. As Solomon noted in Proverbs 1:7 -

"The fear [reverence] of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction."

Soli Deo Gloria!

Why?

Why was I made to hear Your voice
And enter while there's room,
When thousands make a wretched choice
And rather starve than come?
It was the same love that spread the feast
That sweetly forced me in.
Else I had still refused to taste,
And perished in my sin

--Isaac Watts

Basic Bible Study Principles

There are a few important principles that guide my understanding and application of the Word of God. I believe that these principles are the only safeguard to a consistently objective understanding of God’s Word. In other words, these principles, when properly applied, keep the interpreter of God’s Word from imposing a subjective meaning to the text, or more simply, from reading something into the text that is not there.

Before you think that this is not important, consider it this way: have you ever said or written something to someone only to have them “read” into what you were saying to such an extent that they claim you meant something you never intended? For example, I could tell someone that I don’t believe that the church should monetarily support the Shriner’s Children’s Hospital because the philosophy and theology of the Shriners, which is Freemasonry, is anti-Christian. Now someone may misinterpret that - thinking I mean I don’t believe that the Shriners are doing a “good” and “humanitarian” thing. They may even go so far as to say that I must think that children should not be helped medically. But, do you see that this is not what I said? The church’s mission is not primarily humanitarian, although it certainly includes this, but rather the church’s mission is primarily evangelist. The ultimate goal of any ministry of the church and any of the ministries supported by the church is to evangelize and disciple by means of the Word of God. Any effort that does not share this priority is not to be supported by the church. Individual Christians may choose to support it, but it is not the mission of the church (Matthew 28:19-20). Does this mean we are not to help or that we do not care about the medical needs of children? Of course not, but it does mean that the church is to look to a more Christian approach to meeting such needs.

So I want to share theses principles that govern my understanding and application of the Word of God.

The first principle is this – a consistently applied literal, grammatical, historical interpretation of the Scriptures. A very simplistic definition of this is as follows: when the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense. If we apply this to Scripture, we are to take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context or other Scriptures clearly indicate otherwise.

A second principle that governs my biblical interpretation is this – that God has a plan and a future for Israel in which they, not the Church, will literally fulfill the covenant promises He made to Israel in the Old Testament. The Abrahamic, Mosaic, Palestinian, Davidic, and New covenants all literally speak to and have eschatological reference to Israel. In other words, there is a distinction between Israel and the Church. The Church is not Israel and Israel is not the Church. The Church does participate (not fulfill) in the soteriological (salvation) side of the Abrahamic and New Covenants, but she does not replace or fulfill the literal promises made to Israel. The Abrahamic Covenant clearly speaks of Abraham and his descendents blessing all the nations of the earth, which we learn from the Scriptures refers to the coming of Jesus Christ as the Savior not only for people of Israel, but also for people of every tribe, tongue and nation. But the covenant was made with Abraham and his physical descendents, that is Israel.

The third principle that governs my biblical interpretation is the overall theme or purpose of God as revealed in the Scripture – and that is His glory. While the redemption of sinful man and the exalted person of Jesus Christ are certainly major themes of the Bible, the overriding theme is the glory of God – that is how God glorifies Himself through all His actions and dealings with humanity. The apostle Paul best summarizes this idea in Ephesians 1 where we see both the redemption of sinful man along with the exalted position of Christ – but to what end? Consider –

Ephesians 1:4-6
4 In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

Ephesians 1:11-12
11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.

Ephesians 1:13-14
13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation — having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory.

To restate these principles that govern my understanding of Scripture:

1. The consistent application of a literal or plain interpretation (as opposed to allegorical interpretation) of the Bible.

2. An understanding (that flows from this literal interpretation) of a distinction between God’s eschatological (future) plans for Israel and the Church. Note: all are saved by faith in Jesus Christ – there is one soteriological (salvation) plan for the elect of all ages.

3. God’s ultimate purpose in Scripture is to glorify Himself, freely and fully expressing His attributes and character.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Let us be truly thankful to so great a God who has granted us so great a salvation. Lord, may we never grow weary in uttering Your praise!

Psalm 95:1-7
1 O come, let us sing for joy to the LORD, Let us shout joyfully to the rock of our salvation. 2 Let us come before His presence with thanksgiving, Let us shout joyfully to Him with psalms. 3 For the LORD is a great God And a great King above all gods, 4 In whose hand are the depths of the earth, The peaks of the mountains are His also. 5 The sea is His, for it was He who made it, And His hands formed the dry land. 6 Come, let us worship and bow down, Let us kneel before the LORD our Maker. 7 For He is our God, And we are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Pastor Ed

Things are Changing

I am back! At least I hope so. Things have been busy and changing. One such change may be found at our new and improving website for the church. There are still a few bugs to work out, but check out the new church website at www.hopecbc.org.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Pastor Ed

What was "Reformed" in the Reformation?

In 1997 I was reintroduced to the doctrines of grace by means of reading a most profound book, "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" by Lorraine Boettner. While this book systematically reveals the logic (divine) of what are commonly referred to as the five points of Calvinism, I truly believe that the so-called "five points" (for they are simply accurate Biblical theology) are really just one point - the Sovereignty of God. Either God is Sovereign or He is not. Either God is reigning and ruling according to the counsel of His own will (Ephesians 1:11) or someone else (man) is in control.

As I came to grips with these truths, I came to embrace the cry of the Reformation as summed up in the five "Solas". Forgive me for not stating these in my own words but the following does a fine job so I will not reinvent the wheel but post these great reminders of so great a salvation and the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3):

What was "Reformed" in the Reformation?

by Daryl Wingerd

If one wants to know what the Protestant Reformation was all about without reading huge volumes of historical literature, it is perhaps most clarifying to look at the theological results. One should specifically note the rediscovery of five critical biblical doctrines that had been obscured from public view by the medieval version of what we now know as the Roman Catholic Church. And just so you know, Rome still either openly opposes or seriously distorts these doctrines. Using the Latin names given to each, they are:

Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone):

The Reformers were united in their belief that the Bible alone teaches all that is necessary for salvation and Christian living (cf. 2 Peter 1:1-4). They held the Word of God to be the only standard by which men's consciences may be bound. Rome, on the other hand, then and now, denies sola Scriptura by elevating Papal decrees and church tradition to what they say are equal (but are in reality greater) positions of authority than that of the Bible. Where the meaning of the Bible differs from the opinion of the Pope or official doctrine (as is very often the case) the Word of God plays a mute second fiddle.

Sola Gratia (by Grace alone):

The reformers understood that salvation is not a cooperative event carried out by God and man working in partnership. In salvation, sinners are rescued from God's wrath by His grace alone (cf. Titus 3:3-7). God's grace is His spontaneous and unmerited favor, granted to the spiritually dead and helpless sinner through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. God mercifully releases those whom He is saving from their own willful bondage to sin and thus enables them to repent and believe (cf. John 3:3; 6:44; Rom. 8:6-8; 9:16). Interestingly, this point of doctrine is disputed today, not only by Rome, but also by many evangelicals.

Sola Fide (through Faith alone):

"Justified" is the biblical term that describes a person as forgiven, not guilty, and perfectly righteous in God's sight. According to Scripture, justification is bestowed on the sinner by grace alone through faith alone, "not as a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Eph. 2:8-9; cf. Gal 2:16). According to official Roman Catholic dogma, however, using the word "alone" after the word "faith" will earn you a pronouncement of anathema (formal damnation). Rome actually forbids you to believe or repeat what the Bible plainly states! They insist that while justification begins with faith, it can only be completed through the sinner's personal effort. In Roman Catholic theology, one may not say, "Therefore, having been justified by faith," or "having now been justified by His blood" (the exact words of Paul in Romans 5:1 and 5:9, emphasis added). According to Rome, one may only believe that he is being justified—by faith plus works.

Solus Christus (because of Christ alone):

The reformers understood that the salvation of God's people was the work of Jesus Christ alone. His death was a sufficient and effective sacrifice for sin (cf. Heb. 9:12, 26, 28; 10:12, 14). He is the only mediator between God and men (cf. 1 Timothy 2:5). Only Christ's righteousness (not the sinner's personal righteousness) merits the believing sinner's justification (2 Cor. 5:21). Rome, on the other hand, commands the performance of seven essential works of merit (sacraments) for justification. Rome also insists that Mary (not Jesus) is the dispenser of grace. While Rome denies that Christ's righteousness may be imputed to the believing sinner, Mary is said to have vast amounts of excess rightousness which can be imputed to sinners. This form of blasphemy against the Son of God is bad enough, but it culminates in blasphemy against God the Father—the idolatry of Mary worship. Mary is praised as the "co-redemptress" and "co-mediatrix" with Christ. Rome even refers to her in some places as the savior of mankind, the one who commands God to save whom she will.

Soli Deo Gloria (for the glory of God alone):

It is obvious that in Roman Catholic theology Mary receives equal (if not greater) credit than God for the salvation of sinners. Rome openly glorifies her. Also, God is robbed of His glory by making the sinner the one who ultimately performs (via the sacraments) or suffers (via Purgatory) his own way into heaven. But the Bible insists, and the reformers recognized, that God saves sinners by Himself. Therefore He alone should receive all praise and glory. And the God of the Bible is a jealous God (cf. Ex. 20:5). He will not share His glory with another (cf. Isaiah 42:8; 48:11).

So what was reformed (or recovered) during the Protestant Reformation? In the final analysis, it was the gospel of God's grace. And the "church" that stole the gospel the first time will gladly do so again if Christians everywhere do not take seriously the command to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints" (Jude 3).

Soli Deo Gloria,

Pastor Ed

Sorry

I am sorry that it has been so long since I have posted. Either I have too much to say or not enough. Anyway, here goes!

Soli Deo Gloria,

Pastor Ed

Bogged Down!

There is nothing like being away from home and office for a few days. A nice, relaxing time to recoop and recover from the routine stresses of life. Being in Colorado, breathing that fresh mountain air and breaking the normalcy of my life was invigorating - that is until I came home.

Now I am not complaining. I am glad to be home and today was the first day I was able to get to my office. But the stacks of papers, the emails, the phone calls to be made - so much for refreshing. All this is simply a long way of saying that my blog has had to take a back seat for a couple of days. But I thought that some of you might appreciate some pictures of the conference. I took about 400-500 pictures, many of which made it onto the XL web site (www.xlministries.org). So, while it may be cheating a bit, if you would like to see some of the pictures of the conference, please click on the link here:(http://www.xlministries.org/conf_pics.php). I suppose that this will at least save me some formating time and space on my blog. I hope to be back to some kind of routine soon!

Soli Deo Gloria,

Pastor Ed

We're Home

We just made it back from our conference in Colorado. What a blessed time! We had the opportunity to learn, to fellowship, to lead music and I got to preach the Word! I will have more to communicate in the days ahead, but for now, let me just say, "It's good to be back home!"

Soli Deo Gloria,

Pastor Ed

Okay, just one more post - Brave New Schools

I know I am supposed to be getting ready for my trip to Colorado, however I was reading WorldNetDaily and found this startling report concerning homeschooling in Germany. I thought that there would be some of you interested in this.

Don't for get to read my "Out-of-Pocket" post for an explanation of where I'm at.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS

Court upholds Nazi-eraban on homeschooling

Decision: State must avoid dissent,'separate philosophical convictions'
Posted: September 29, 20061:00 p.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

A new ruling from the European Human Rights Court has affirmed the German nation's Nazi-era ban on homeschooling, concluding that society has a significant interest in preventing the development of dissent through "separate philosophical convictions."

The Strasburg-based court addressed the issue on appeal from a Christian family whose members alleged their human rights to educate their own children according to their own religious beliefs are being violated by the ban.

The specific case addressed in the opinion involved Fritz and Marianna Konrad, who filed the complaint in 2003 and argued that Germany's compulsory school attendance endangered their children's religious upbringing and promotes teaching inconsistent with the family's Christian faith.

The court said the Konrads belong to a "Christian community which is strongly attached to the Bible" and rejected public schooling because of the explicit sexual indoctrination programs that the courses there include.

The German court already had ruled that the parental "wish" to have their children grow up in a home without such influences "could not take priority over compulsory school attendance." The decision also said the parents do not have an "exclusive" right to lead their children's education.

The family had appealed under the European Convention on Human Rights statement that: "No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions."

But the court's ruling said, instead, that schools represent society, and "it was in the children's interest to become part of that society.

"The parents' right to education did not go as far as to deprive their children of that experience," the ruling said.

"Not only the acquisition of knowledge, but also the integration into and first experience with society are important goals in primary school education," the court said. "The German courts found that those objectives cannot be equally met by home education even if it allowed children to acquire the same standard of knowledge as provided for by primary school education.

"The (German) Federal Constitutional Court stressed the general interest of society to avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions and the importance of integrating minorities into society," the ruling said.

The court noted it was a similar argument that arose in Holland earlier, where a politician, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, sought to close down all religious schools because only the state could properly teach children "tolerance."

The U.S.-based Home School Legal Defense Association has confirmed that nearly 40 homeschooling families are embroiled in legal battles over the issue in Germany. The group, which has quickly growing influence around the globe on the issue of homeschooling, said the German families are facing persecution for trying to educate their children in a Christian atmosphere without exposing them to the state’s harmful secular values, especially sex education.

In fact, the HSLDA just recently announced a campaign to address the persecution Christians in Germany are facing from education authorities.

Ian Slatter, a spokesman for the HSLDA, said it was launched after a mother was arrested and jailed on criminal homeschooling counts.

A report in the conservative Brussels Journal said Katharina Plett was arrested and ordered to jail while her husband fled to Austria with the family's 12 children.

Slatter said just a few days into the campaign, there already has been a large response from American homeschoolers, with e-mails and telephone calls pouring in to the German embassy.

A website for the Practical Homeschool Magazine noted one of the first acts by Hitler when he moved into power was to create the governmental Ministry of Education and give it control of all schools, and school-related issues.

In 1937, the dictator said, "The Youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing."

The HSLDA said the German embassy can be reached by e-mail through its website, by telephone at 202-298-4000 or by mail at: Wolfgang Ischinger, Ambassador, German Embassy, 4645 Reservoir Road NW, Washington, DC, 20007-1998.

"It is beyond belief that Germany is still enforcing a law that was written for one reason only – to be used by Hitler to control and indoctrinate German youth. It had no other redeeming value," said Shoshona Bat-Zion on a homeschoolers' blog.

The Pletts are part of a group of seven Baptist homeschool families who have been targeted frequently by authorities. Two families have left Germany and five others have enrolled their children in a Christian school, but their court cases remain pending.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Scary stuff - how long will it be before we see this in the USA?

Soli Deo Gloria,

Pastor Ed

Out-of-Pocket

So then, here's the deal. I am going to be out-of-pocket (euphemism for out-of-town) for the next week as I attend a Bible conference in Colorado. I know, I know - it's a rough life; but somebodys got to do it! I am looking forward to the time but will also truly miss the fellowship with my local church family.

Since I will find myself at 9,500 feet without cell phone reception and no convenient access to the internet, there will be no postings. I would encourage anyone reading this to look back into the archives.

Not exclusively, but at least toward the end of October, being that it is the anniversary month of the Reformation, I intend to do some posts along that theme when I get back. I hope to start posting again on October 10 or 11.

May the Lord bless you as you seek to faithfully follow Him!

Soli Deo Gloria,

Pastor Ed

A 12 Point Cure for Complaining

As I was doing some reading I came across this little “how to” article and was made to think. I hope it makes you think as well -

A 12 Point Cure for Complaining
Complaining is unbecoming of the true Christian and yet we are proficient at it. The cure is found in these verses. In Christ we are never hopeless or forsaken. Every trial has meaning. Meditate on his cure in order to change both your language and your heart.

1. GOD COMMANDS ME NEVER TO COMPLAIN.
Do all things without complaining and disputing. Philippians 2:14(NAS)

2. GOD COMMANDS ME TO GIVE THANKS IN EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE.
In everything give thanks, for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. 1 Thessalonians 5:18

3. GOD COMMANDS ME TO REJOICE ALWAYS, AND ESPECIALLY IN TIMES OF TRIAL.
Rejoice in the Lord always. Phil. 4:4; Rejoice always. 1 Thessalonians 5:16; Count it all joy when you fall into various trials. James 1:2

4. I ALWAYS DESERVE MUCH WORSE THAN WHAT I AM SUFFERING NOW—IN FACT, I DESERVE HELL.
Why should any living mortal, or any man, offer complaint in view of his sins? Lamentations 3:39 Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Luke 13:2-3

5. IN LIGHT OF THE ETERNAL HAPPINESS AND GLORY THAT I WILL EXPERIENCE IN HEAVEN, THIS PRESENT TRIAL IS EXTREMELY BRIEF AND INSIGNIFICANT, EVEN IF IT WERE TO LAST A LIFETIME.
The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. Rom. 8:18; For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. 2 Corinthians 4:17

6. MY SUFFERING IS FAR LESS THAN THAT WHICH CHRIST SUFFERED, AND HE DID NOT COMPLAIN.
Who when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when he suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously. 1 Peter 2:23

7. TO COMPLAIN IS TO SAY GOD IS NOT JUST.
Shall not the Judge of all the Earth do right? Genesis 18:25

8. FAITH AND PRAYER EXCLUDE COMPLAINING.
I sought the Lord, and He answered me, and delivered from all my fears. Psalm 34:4

9. THIS DIFFICULTY IS BEING USED BY GOD FOR MY GOOD AND IT IS FOOLISH FOR ME TO COMPLAIN AGAINST IT.
And we know that all things work together for the good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. Romans 8:28

10. THOSE MORE FAITHFUL THAN I HAVE SUFFERED FAR WORSE THAN I, AND DID SO WITHOUT COMPLAINT.
…and others were tortured, not accepting their release, in order that they might obtain a better resurrection; and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated (men of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground. All these, having gained approval through their faith… Hebrews 11:35-39

11. COMPLAINING DENIES THAT GOD'S GRACE IS ENTIRELY SUFFICIENT.
My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness. 2 Corinthians 12:9

12. THE GREATEST SUFFERING, THE WORST TRIAL OR DIFFICULTY, CAN NEVER ROB ME OF THAT WHICH IS OF GREATEST VALUE TO ME AND MY GREATEST JOY, NAMELY THE LOVE OF CHRIST.
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Just as it is written, "For Your sake we are killed all day long; We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered." But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8:35-39
____________________________

Copyright © 2001 Bill Izard. Adapted from the original publication. Distributed by Christian Communicators Worldwide, 201 Main, Parkville, MO 64152. Permission granted for non-profit duplication. All other uses require written permission.

Oh Lord, may I always find all my joy in You!

Soli Deo Gloria,

Pastor Ed

Where Did This Gender Role Debate Come From?

As anyone can see by even a cursory reading of this blog, I have been caught up in some discussions concerning the Biblical roles of men and women in the church and in the home. As I was thinking about this I had to ask myself a question, “Why is there such a debate today regarding the Biblical roles of men and women?” I emphasize “today” because in comparison to church history, this is a very recent debate. By and large, churches that were committed to the authority of the Word of God, particularly those of the Reformed tradition, did not have such debates – that is until recently.

This made me ask another question, “Did those who have gone before us in the Church miss something in the Scriptures for all these years? Were they so influenced by their times that they failed to correctly discern the truth of God in this matter of the roles of men and women in the church and in the home? I highly doubt it. It is far more reasonable to see this current debate as nothing more than the modern feminist movement putting pressure on the Church to break from the clear authority, understanding, and practice of the Word of God that she has tradionally and righly held.

Great men of the faith have consistently addressed this issue from the Word of God. Men like Luther, Calvin, Knox, Hodge, Dabney, and Warfield as well as the most faithful of the modern teachers and preachers who hold to the absolute authority and application of Scripture all agree with that specific gender roles do exist in the Scriptures and are to be practiced. Therefore, when someone comes along trying to “rock the boat” as it were, challenging the historically, interpretively and most sincerely held views of the Church, we have great cause for concern and skepticism. We should be suspicious of anyone so bold as to question the principle of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone as the only infallible guide to faith and practice), as the modern feminist movement does regardless of how evangelical they try to sound. This is not a trivial matter. This is not a secondary issue but is one upon which our churches must be clear and teach the truth of God.

You see, there are only two options here. Either the teaching of the modern feminist movement that is seeking to redefine the role of men and women and challenge the historic teaching of the church is built upon solid biblical principles of interpretation or it is not and is merely putting pressure on the church to bend to culture and customs of the current times. Conversely, the historic teaching of the Church concerning the roles of men and women in the church and home have either been the result of years of scholarly study of the Word of God or the Church has been duped for the past 1900 years and is just now waking up and must accuse itself of being blind, pragmatic and of being willfully submissive to a male dominated culture run amuck. I am sorry, but given the options, I will take the side of the historic position of the church. To say that men like Luther, Calvin, Knox, Hodge, Warfield, Lloyd-Jones, MacArthur and Piper have had it wrong all this time is more than far-fetched. Additionally, the principles upon which men like these, as well as those before them, have come to interpret and expound the Scriptures must then be suspect and ultimately we end up with no real, objective means of understanding anything of Scripture. This is not a debate between Amillennialism and Premillennialism, a debate that has solid men of Biblical integrity on each side and has been hashed through the centuries. No, this is a debate that by and large has revealed itself and has increased in intensity over the past 50 to 75 years.

I would concur with Douglas Wilson who believes that the question of women teaching and preaching publicly in the pulpit is a sign of our times and reveals the very decline of the Church’s commitment to the authority of the Bible. He writes -

But the existence of debate within the Church tells us far more about the muddiness of our hearts than it does about the obscurity of any text. Those Christians who do see what these passages say will frequently be sucked into a tactical debate because they foolishly believe that their opponents have accepted the authority of the text. But this is not the case at all. Evangelical feminists have not accepted the (patriarchal) authority of the text; they are simply at that early stage of subversion where open defiance would be counterproductive of their purposes (Credenda Agenda, Volume 11, No. 12).

So, I say that while we must engage in this debate, we need to remember and recognize where the real impetus of the debate springs from. It springs from a lack of commitment to Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) and of a proper understanding and practice of the Biblical text on the part of men and women who want to change the Church of Jesus Christ into their own image.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Pastor Ed

More Thoughts on Complementarianism

I have been in conversation with someone concerning the God-given roles of men and women in the church and in the home. I thought it would be beneficial to show my response to some rather interesting points. I hope that it all makes sense. Below are the statements from the one making comments (which are in regular type), along with my original statements which are in brackets, tiny text and a different font [like this], and my current statements which are bolded like this. Please remember this as you read through.

I can only hope this makes sense to anyone reading it other than myself and for whom it was written. Maybe it will only spark more questions, but then, that’s okay. Please click on the link if you would like to read the original posts and responses (Not an Issue of Capability but of Responsibility) and (A Comment on Complementarianism)

- - - - - - -

Hi Pastor Ed,

Here is my ridiculously long reply to you. Unless you have specific comments that you ask me to respond to, I will go away and be a pebble in some other complementarian's boot.

[First, whether or not my statement is in compliance with Wayne Grudem is not the issue.]

Point taken. I was simply pointing out that a major complementarian, and one who was deeply influential in developing the Danvers statement, which you use as a template for your church’s gender policy, has said at least one thing to the contrary of “it’s not about female capability”. (Sorry if that was badly punctuated.)

I still have not seen the point made that Grudem actually believes what you claim him to believe. The small Grudem quote you cited was taken out of context and does not read to most as you have taken it. Do you have other examples?

[Mr. Grudem did not say that women were incapable or mentally limited in their abilities, even as it comes to teaching, leadership in the church and the analysis of doctrine. I see that you took Grudem out of context and then came to some illogical conclusions. A disposition, as Grudem uses the word, is not about ability, but how one is inclined to go about accomplishing a particular task.]

“Disposition” was probably not the clearest term to use to explain the difference between men and women in an area of mental ability. I wonder why Grudem used it?

For instance, what does this sentence really mean: “Polly has the ability to think logically, but her disposition is to be illogical.” Whatever her ability, Polly’s natural tendency, or inclination, is to act in an opposite manner to her ability. Her ability ought to come into question when she persistently is disposed to act in an opposite manner. Do people with innate logical ability have a perpetual desire to act in opposition to their abilities and behave illogically?

If I said, “Ted Bundy had the ability to be good, but his disposition was to commit acts of sociopathic sadism…” would his ability or his disposition be the stronger evidence of his traits as a person?

WE AGREE - If disposition was "not the clearest term to use" as you said, then how can you justify going to such great lengths to assume what Grudem meant by playing such word games? By way of definition, the word "dispostion" is not about ability but about attitude or temperment. One of the men in my church told me that he was seeing some laziness creep into his son’s life. This young man has the capability of doing his chores, school work and the like, but a positive “disposition” or attitude toward such things has been lacking.

I think you are wrongly making “disposition” synonomous with “ability” or “capability.” The young man certainly has the capability but is lacking the right disposition or temperament.

Why is it that in general (notice I am making a general statement) women tend to or have a greater disposition toward shopping? Is it that men in general are incapable of shopping? No, there are certainly men who have the capability to shop and there are some men who can shop better than some women. However, here’s the kicker, the Word of God does not say that a man should or should not shop, regardless of his capability or disposition.

With regard to whether or not a woman should lead, teach or have authority in the church, regardless of capability or disposition, it is not her responsibility according to the Word of God. The responsibilites for leading, both in the church and in the home, are clearly the responsibility of the men. Some men do this well, others are neglectful or slothful, yet it is still their responsibility.

1 Timothy 3:1-5
1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),

1 Timothy 2:12
But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

1 Peter 3:1-4
3:1 In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2 as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. 3 Your adornment must not be merely external — braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; 4 but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.

1 Corinthians 11:3 and 9
3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. . .9 for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.

I could go on with Scripture but these clearly indicate that the men’s responsibility is to lead and teach in the home and in the church and the women’s responsibility to help to that end. So, in general, God has granted a disposition to men to their end and women a disposition to their end. Such dispositions are certainly subject to abuse by means of sin on the part of both men and women. But this does not change the Scriptural mandate.

Rather than parse Grudem’s words, consider carefully the Word of God and what it says about gender roles. Do you find the above Scriptures equally distasteful as you find Grudem’s statement? And, more to the point, who cares what Grudem says? If he reflects Scripture, so be it. If he does not, then reject it. But it appears to me that you are overly parsing his words to fit your own preconceived misconceptions of complementarianism.

[He is stating that in general a man’s disposition is better suited than a woman’s for teaching and leading the church. Men, when following the mandates of the Lord, do tend to be better disciplinarians, better teachers and better systematizers of doctrinal truth.]

This is an assertive statement, but it needs proof.

If a man is following the mandates and presciptions of the Word of God, then it follows that he will be blessed of God in such God-given pursuits. This would be equally true for women. The proof is found in the obedient lives of God’s people fulfilling their God-given roles.

[It is interesting that with some 2000 years of church history, the great theological thinkers have been men. And before anyone says that is only because men have suppressed women, women of all ages have fought against this and today, in an age where women have the best opportunity to show forth doctrinal prowess, there is yet no true woman theologian who ranks with the likes of Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Spring, Ryle, Hodge, Warfield, or Lloyd-Jones. Even in the contemporary setting no true woman theologian has been noted along with R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur or John Piper.]

Let’s assume that theological greatness requires at least three things in addition to natural ability: 1)access to certain types of previous knowledge such as the work of previous theologians and philosophers, as well as scripture 2)an environment that cultivates and nurtures thought, and 3)the ability to express one’s opinions in some form (likely written) that will have a means of survival for posterity.Please remember that women were almost completely excluded from advanced scholarly life throughout most of history. Elite universities where serious theological scholarship went occurred, were exclusively male. Any woman who wanted to be a theologian would have done so in an atmosphere secluded from other scholars, with limited resources and with virtually no ability to publicize her views. To suggest that a great female theologian could have sprung up under these circumstances is unfair in the extreme.

But a number of females have “sprung up” throughout history who defied the male-dominated fields to have their names remembered. What of Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of England; or Golda Meir Prime Minister of Israel; or Catherine the Great Empress of Russia; or Amelia Earhart or Joan of Arc.

Why is there no female John MacArthur today? Frankly, I don’t know why there would be one. Are men like Piper, Sproul and MacArthur nurturing female talent? Do any of them have female protegees? Is a worthy female theologian to expect speaking or teaching offers? Will she be able to network in the current environment of male theologians? If the answers to these questions is “no” then it should be obvious why women are not pursuing theology careers.

Maybe women have preferred to devote themselves to linguistics, medicine, administration or other specialties that they can use on the mission field where those skills are welcome in full-time ministry.

I find it interesting how many women on the mission field I am aware of are most happy and content following their husbands and serving as a helpmate to their ministry. And those who serve in the “other specialties” may or may not be violating any Scriptural mandate. So maybe “women have preferred to devote themselves” to such things because they have no disposition to pursue violating Scripture.

[This is not because women are mentally incapable of knowing and understanding such truth, but in the context of communicating and administering this truth, women’s dispositions are not geared like men. In general, a godly woman’s communication of truth, while it may be theologically accurate, does not come across with same authority as that of godly man.]

It would be more accurate to say that women generally are not allowed to speak with authority. Given the opportunity, female evangelists have risen up and spoken the truth to thousands.

This is probably not the time to bring up the fact that numerous male theologians have produced damaging writings and theological movements.

Yes, men are sinners and are prone (huh, they have a disposition) to twist the truth. It is not that they are incapable of knowing and teaching truth, but some refuse to go about it God’s way. Those men who, by God’s help and by obedience to the Word, have their dispositions changed by God, become effective leaders and teachers for God’s church at large. By the way, women have also produced damaging writings and theological movements (i.e. Mary Baker Eddy and the Christian Science movement).

[Grudem also stated (this you left out) that a woman’s general disposition is better suited for relational and community oriented aspects of church life.]

Not only can this not be proven as biblical, but there are a number of scriptural examples to the contrary of this assertion.

Both men and women have a responsibility to the relational and community aspects of the church. It is simply that women tend to have a better disposition to seeing this happen. Again, Grudem did not say that women were not capable of teaching or of rational and logical anylsis of doctrine, but rather that men, in general (not always), are “better suited” for such by means of men’s general dispositions. If given a choice between something that is “good” versus something that is “better” – I will take the better every time. To be sure, there are times when men disobey God’s mandates and there is very little “better” to be found. This is to men’s shame. When the men of Israel forsook the LORD, being disobedient to His Word and their responsibilities, what was one of God’s punishments for them? To be ruled by children and women. Isaiah 3:12 says,

O My people! Their oppressors are children, and women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray and confuse the direction of your paths.

[To conclude, as you did, that what Grudem means is that women are “somewhere between and adult man and a child in their ability to be rational and logical” is faulty – it was never about ability, but inclination or disposition.]

All right, I’ll amend my comment: Grudem’s statement essentially means that women are somewhere between an adult man and a child in their disposition or inclination to be logical and rational.

For some reason, that does not make me feel any better.

No, you still have missed the point – Grudem’s statement is not about the ability of a woman to be logical or rational but rather whether or not her disposition toward rational and logical anylisis of doctrine is the “best” suited for such things. It is not so much about if women can be rational and logical about it, but rather how women tend to approach doctrine. Remember that with regard to doctrine, the first woman was deceived (1 Timothy 2:14).

[Now here is a statement for you to sink your teeth into. I believe that the Bible presents us with a picture for godly male leadership in the home and in the church that if followed would have godly women lovingly and most willingly desiring to follow such leadership.]

If this is true, then why must so much pressure be put on women to submit? Why not forget the women and work on the men?

We (Hope CBC and other like minded churches) do not put pressure on women to submit. In fact, as I have had opportunity to preach on the subject (which has not come up for quite a while now – about three or four years ago when I preached through 1 Peter, specifically 1 Peter 3), I usually exhort the men all the more to truly love their wives as Christ loved the Church (Ephesians 5:25-28). I do not feel as though the problems in the church today are primarily the fault of women. Rather I believe the problem is with men who have abdicated their God given roles as husbands and fathers. Because the husband is the head of the wife (1 Corinthians 11:3), he finds himself in a position of inescapable leadership. A husband cannot successfully refuse to lead. If he rebels against his God-given role, then he leads poorly, but he cannot escape his responsibility. No, the pressure is not primarily upon women but upon men to be obedient to the Word.

[When this Biblical method of leadership is interrupted or abandoned, the church suffers. The feminization of the church may result in churches that are more relational, more nurturing and big on community, but by and large such churches will be woefully weak doctrinally leaving people with improper understandings of God and worse yet, false assurances of genuine faith.]

I hear this all the time. Give some direct examples of “feminization” in the church. Specifically I would like to know of things that are outside of biblical example.

Let me quote from Douglas Wilson here, who cites that the rise of an evangelical feminism came about by the decline of orthodox Calvinism in the nineteenth century. .

The older Calvinist establishment was perceived as austere and harsh (and in the Yankee culture of New England, it frequently was). This revolt had manifestations on both the right-wing and the left-wing. The left-wing anti-Calvinists were the Unitarians, who captured Harvard in 1805. The right-wing anti-Calvinists were the revivalists, typified by leaders such as Charles Finney, who were greatly swelled with a humanistic, democratic spirit which they all thought was the Holy Ghost....

The women with time on their hands provided a ready audience for these ministers, and the anti-Calvinist ministers provided a suitably sentimental gospel for the women accustomed to their feminized literary entertainment. So an alliance was formed between the clergymen and the women, and a new spiritual norm was established within the Church.

All these developments, centered largely in New England, were not followed for the most part by the more conservative and agrarian South. But the new regime of feminization came to the Southern church as well. The War Between the States decimated the strong masculine leadership of the South for all intents and purposes. The men were no longer leading because the men were dead. Since that time (exaggerating only slightly) southern churches have been run by three women and the pastor…

This is because modern evangelicalism has been coveantally castrated for well over a hundred years. It is high time they got some ministers, and a Bible, to match their effeminate condition.

By and large, men have abdicated their roles in leadership in the church. By large there are very few men involved with teaching other men. Sunday School classes are by and large taught only by women, leaving young boys without a masculine example of godliness in these settings. While women are certainly called to teach other women and children, this is not to the exclusion of men teaching the women and children. In fact, Titus 2:3-5 has more to do with the practical aspects of godliness rather than the doctrinal side, implying that such doctrine will be taught to the women and children by their husbands/fathers and godly male leadership (obviously there doctrine and practice are linked and therefore there will be doctrine taught along with practice).

[I don’t need anymore proof of the failure of women in leadership in the home and in the church than what we see taking place all around us.]

Men are still running most churches as far as I can see. Any specific examples of females making a hash of things?

I question if some churches are really benefiting from godly male leadership. Many of the men in churches today have no clue as to what it means to be a godly leader. A woman or women do not need to have the title Pastor or Elder to “run” the church. I see that too many male leaders have become too concerned with community and relational things to the detriment of doctrine. Community without doctrine is just as damning as doctrine without practice.

[Men need to be men and lead, according to God’s Word. Women need to be women and faithful follow their godly heads (fathers, husbands, brothers) as they picture all who follow the true head who is Christ the Lord.]

Brothers? Are women supposed to assign themselves a near relative as a “head” if no father or husband is available? If I were in this hypothetical situation, I'm wondering how I would broach the subject to my brothers?

My point is that biblically speaking, it is in women’s best spiritual interest to be under the protection of godly male leadership. If the husband/father relationship is missing, then other avenues should be pursued. I can’t begin to tell you how much harm has come to women I know whose fathers abdicated their God-given role as spiritual protector.

[God has given leadership responsibilities to men who must seek to faithfully administer those responsibilities. God has given complementary responsibilities to women who must seek to faithfully administer those responsibilities.]

This seems unduly euphemistic. If one person is a leader, the other is a follower. If one person is a head, the other person is a subordinate.

A woman’s perpetual role is not to initiate and carry out goals of her own, but to assist her male “head” in achieving his goals. Can you understand why women view this as a stripping away of their personal integrity?

The highest goal of saved humanity is bringing glory to God through Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 10:31). Men and women are to find their ultimate fulfillment in honoring the directives of God’s Word. Men are to love their wives, provide for them and be a true husband. The word “husband” is an agricultural term referring to tending the garden, (i.e. pulling the weeds, watering, etc). Biblically, a husband is to provide the environment in which a wife can truly blossom spiritually whereby she becomes as the Proverbs 31 woman, a woman who finds her fulfillment in serving the needs of her family to the glory of God. This is the woman of whom it is said in the Word of God –

Proverbs 31:31
Give her of the fruit of her hands, and let her own works praise her in the gates.

- - - - - - -

I hope that some sense could be made of all this.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Pastor Ed

The Church's One Foundation

In my previous post (What is the Church?) a comment was made considering the communion we currently have with the saints in heaven. This hymn speaks of this "mystic sweet communion" and so I post it here for thought:

The Church’s one foundation
Is Jesus Christ her Lord,
She is His new creation
By water and the Word.
From heaven He came and sought her
To be His holy bride;
With His own blood He bought her
And for her life He died.

She is from every nation,
Yet one o’er all the earth;
Her charter of salvation,
One Lord, one faith, one birth;
One holy Name she blesses,
Partakes one holy food,
And to one hope she presses,
With every grace endued.

The Church shall never perish!
Her dear Lord to defend,
To guide, sustain, and cherish,
Is with her to the end:
Though there be those who hate her,
And false sons in her pale,
Against both foe or traitor
She ever shall prevail.

Though with a scornful wonder
Men see her sore oppressed,
By schisms rent asunder,
By heresies distressed:
Yet saints their watch are keeping,
Their cry goes up, “How long?”
And soon the night of weeping
Shall be the morn of song!

’Mid toil and tribulation,
And tumult of her war,
She waits the consummation
Of peace forevermore;
Till, with the vision glorious,
Her longing eyes are blest,
And the great Church victorious
Shall be the Church at rest.

Yet she on earth hath union
With God the Three in One,
And mystic sweet communion
With those whose rest is won,
O happy ones and holy!
Lord, give us grace that we
Like them, the meek and lowly,
On high may dwell with Thee.

Text: Samuel J. Stone, 1866

The church on "earth has union with God the Three in One" [the Church Militant] and "mystic sweet communion with those whose rest in won" [the Church Triumphant].

Soli Deo Gloria,

Pastor Ed

What is the Church?

Here are some thoughts concerning the church:

Matthew 16:18
18 I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

1. The church is the only institution that our Lord promised to build and to bless (Matthew 16:18).

2. The church is the gathering place of true worshippers (Philippians 3:3).

3. The church is the most precious assembly on earth since Christ purchased it with His own blood (Acts 20:28; I Corinthians 6:19; Ephesians 5:25; Colossians 1:20; I Peter 1:18: Revelation 1:5).

4. The church is the earthly expression of the heavenly reality (Matthew 6:10; 18:18).

5. The church will ultimately triumph both universally and locally (Matthew 16:18; Philippians 1:6).

6. The church is the realm of spiritual fellowship (Hebrews 10:22-25; I John 1:3, 6-7).

7. The church is the proclaimer and protector of divine truth (I Timothy 3:15; Titus 2:1, 15).

8. The church is the chief place for spiritual edification and growth (Acts 20:32; Ephesians 4:11-16; II Timothy 3:16-17; I Peter 2:1-2; II Peter 3:18).

9. The church is the launching pad for world evangelism (Mark 16:15; Titus 2:11).

10. The church is the environment where strong spiritual leadership develops and matures (II Timothy 2:2).

Adapted from John MacArthur, Jr., “Wanted: A Few Good Shepherds,” Master-piece (November-December 1989).

Soli Deo Gloria,

Pastor Ed

A Comment on Complementarianism

I received a comment on Complementarianism and posted a response. If this topic is of interest to you, please read the post and the comments by clicking (here).

Here is my response - which may seem a bit out of context unless you read the post I am addressing:

Thanks for responding personally. I am still a bit new to the blogosphere and may need to make some adjustments to the settings so as to better moderate any Anonymous postings. Often times, not all the time, such anonymous postings are not meant to do anything but provoke and criticize without allowing any real engagement in the issue. I appreciate that your intentions are not as such.

With regard to your post, I do not see that I have a problem with my assertion that gender roles are “not an issue of capability but of responsibility.” Rather, I see that you have a couple of problems.First, whether or not my statement is in compliance with Wayne Grudem is not the issue. The issue is what does the Word of God say? Second, with that much said, the problem with your citing Grudem is that you did so out of context, or rather with not in enough context to grasp the basic gist of what he was addressing.

Here is the full quote:“God gave men, in general, a disposition that is better suited to teaching and governing in the church, a disposition that inclines more to the rational, logical analysis of doctrine and a desire to protect the doctrinal purity of the church, and God gave women, in general, a disposition that inclines more toward a relational, nurturing emphasis that places a higher value on unity and community in the church (v14)”

Without getting into great detail at this time (I would like to go home and spend the evening with my family), Mr. Grudem did not say that women were incapable or mentally limited in their abilities, even as it comes to teaching, leadership in the church and the analysis of doctrine. I see that you took Grudem out of context and then came to some illogical conclusions. A disposition, as Grudem uses the word, is not about ability, but how one is inclined to go about accomplishing a particular task. He is stating that in general a man’s disposition is better suited than a woman’s for teaching and leading the church. Men, when following the mandates of the Lord, do tend to be better disciplinarians, better teachers and better systematizers of doctrinal truth. It is interesting that with some 2000 years of church history, the great theological thinkers have been men. And before anyone says that is only because men have suppressed women, women of all ages have fought against this and today, in an age where women have the best opportunity to show forth doctrinal prowess, there is yet no true woman theologian who ranks with the likes of Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Spring, Ryle, Hodge, Warfield, or Lloyd-Jones. Even in the contemporary setting no true woman theologian has been noted along with R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur or John Piper. This is not because women are mentally incapable of knowing and understanding such truth, but in the context of communicating and administering this truth, women’s dispositions are not geared like men. In general, a godly woman’s communication of truth, while it may be theologically accurate, does not come across with same authority as that of godly man. Why? Because God ordained it so. God called upon the men to be the communicators of the truth to the congregation at large while leaving opportunity for women to teach one another (in like disposition) and children.

Grudem also stated (this you left out) that a woman’s general disposition is better suited for relational and community oriented aspects of church life. To conclude, as you did, that what Grudem means is that women are “somewhere between and adult man and a child in their ability to be rational and logical” is faulty – it was never about ability, but inclination or disposition. Now here is a statement for you to sink your teeth into. I believe that the Bible presents us with a picture for godly male leadership in the home and in the church that if followed would have godly women lovingly and most willingly desiring to follow such leadership. When this Biblical method of leadership is interrupted or abandoned, the church suffers. The feminization of the church may result in churches that are more relational, more nurturing and big on community, but by and large such churches will be woefully weak doctrinally leaving people with improper understandings of God and worse yet, false assurances of genuine faith. I don’t need anymore proof of the failure of women in leadership in the home and in the church than what we see taking place all around us. And, as men in sin tend to take the path of least resistance, leaving more and more of these leadership positions to women, we are not seeing a revival but yet a further decline in the spiritual well being of the church. Men need to be men and lead, according to God’s Word. Women need to be women and faithful follow their godly heads (fathers, husbands, brothers) as they picture all who follow the true head who is Christ the Lord.I think it takes a tremendous amount of ability for a man to be a faithful and godly leader in the home and at church. I believe it equally takes a tremendous amount of ability for a woman to be a faithful and godly helpmate in the home and at church. No, it is not about ability, but about God-given dispositions and responsibility. God has given leadership responsibilities to men who must seek to faithfully administer those responsibilities. God has given complementary responsibilities to women who must seek to faithfully administer those responsibilities. If the genders wish to cross these responsibilities up, both have the capability to do so, but it will be to their own detriment, to the detriment of the church and in disobedience to God’s Word.

That’s all I have time to cover for now.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Pastor Ed