I am at once very attracted and very repelled by this quote from Luther (in a letter to his friend Philip Melanchton). I am hoping to use some of it on Sunday (Reformation Sunday) and I sure would appreciate any insight from my friends at the BHT. Any insights?

“If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness, but, as Peter says, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner.”

JimN: Ten years at a Baptist Boarding school and you are asking me about these sorts of things?? How long have ya got? We actually don’t do too badly. Compared to traditional Christian schools we are a wild orgy. Kids actually can smoke, listen to secular music, wear whatever they want within a moderate dress code. We do have pretty stiff rules on the content of music, content of messages on shirts, how much skin can be exposed, etc. No VCRS or DVDs, but that is because of studying. We do use corporal punishment. Two dumbest rules: No dancing. Totally related to the $$ support of Baptists in KY. No shorts in the dining hall. I think this goes back to some sainted professor who told a previous prez that he didn’t like to look at hairy legs. Hey!! Don’t look. None of these rules is put forward as Bible based. The dress code and music rules are sold as appropriate for a “Christian school.” Overall, I don’t feel too pinched. My good friend Eric felt a bit more of the stupid side of all this than I did, so maybe he has a pov.

Michael, just to play devil’s advocate, at one point in my Bible College days, I was told that it was ok for the college to impose non-biblical behavior requirements on students (no jeans on Sunday, even off campus. No swimming on Sunday. No playing cards. No beer. etc.) on the grounds that “the college is not a church” and thus could impose whatever restrictions it chose. To be fair. they were consistent on the issue: they wouldn’t allow communion celebrations at chapel or on campus unless these were sponsored and attended by elders from an area church. I’d be interested in your thoughts on this.

What really got me mad, though, was when they finally began to admit that they were dead wrong on these issues (except drinking), but then came out and told the students that they had to continue the policies (no jeans to class or on Sunday, etc.) because if they did make the change, they would lose their funding base. (They had to back down on no going to movies because of technology… the VCR put that whole thing to rest.) Funny thing is, even with the rules in place, they ended up closing; they lost their student base, in part because they were unable to attract enough local part-time students to replace the shortfall when full-time enrollment dropped off.

I wrote a paper once on the whole enterprise of using Romans 14 vindictively. We used to call some people “professional weaker brothers” – they ran around looking for “offensive” behavior, then sprang up and announced that the behavior had to stop because they took offense. So if I come off as hard on this issue, it’s because I’ve dealt with a lot of abusive behavior in my time.

OK. Bart and Eric are right. ;-)

Jake: The problem here is that meat offered to idols and drinking a beer are not the same thing. Let’s change issues. Suppose I have a member who is an animal rights wacko who genuinely believes it is morally wrong to eat meat. They see me coming out of a KFC munching on a bucket of my favorite chicken. Yikes!! Do I follow this principle of “no stumbling block” and swear off extra crispy for the weaker brother who was TRULY offended? How about seeing me buy a CD by some obviously lost secular musician? How about not wearing a suit? How about wearing a beard? The difference is that all these things are truly neutral and I am under no command of scripture to let my life and conduct be dictated by the weaker brother. NOW, if I am in a culture where eating chicken is considered worship of Col Sanders as God, then we have a different matter. And that is what Paul was dealing with. Don’t deputize the professional weaker brother to tyrannize everyone with what offends him.

Jesus drank wine. Is there anything else that needs to be said on the subject? He drank enough to be considered a bit of a party-guy. The Old Testament celebrates wine. (Psalm 104 says it gladdens the heart of man but we aren’t commanded to drink it????????? OK- I agree. But how about this: Is it OK if we drink it as a gift of God that gladdens the heart of man? I think that is what Jesus MUST have done!!!)

Ronald: If I am requiring a single non-Biblical requirement of my people with the authority of a church covenant, tell me and I will either stop it or resign. I am quite serious.

Guys, the defense of non-Biblical requirements here comes close to defending a LOT of things you guys don’t really want to defend. Things YOU don’t agree with, but some church does. I will use the BJU no inter-racial dating rule as an example. Not Biblical, but students were conscience bound to obey. That’s indefensible, unless you say that Christians have the right to impose non-Biblical requirements with the moral force of binding the conscience.

I’ve never heard the covenant at my SBC.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but in most SBC churches isn’t the covenant recited prior to the crackers and juice? What if you don’t recite that part? I didn’t sign anything or have to review any Coventry literature prior to joining my church. In fact, the ONLY time I can EVER remember seeing or reading the covenant (in any SBC church I have belonged to) was prior to the crackers and juice.

Ronald: Although I disagree with you, it seems, I at least think you are making some good points that I happen not to agree with. Number 4 on your list, however, is not up to your usual debating abilities. I wouldn’t do or bring a lot of things to church that are not sinful. I take a couple of dumps a day, but I wouldn’t squat down and fire one off in the sanctuary. Is dumping a sin just because I wouldn’t do it in church? That’s extreme, but how about this—sometimes I like to fix a pack of Ramen noodles and eat them with alternating spoonfuls of peanut butter. For the potluck, I will probably not bring Ramen noodle-peanut butter casserol. Not because it’s sinful, but because, well, people would not like it and probably think I was a freak. The two examples are different than your number 4, obviously, but the principle is the same: deciding what we would do in/take to church has little to do with the moral soundness of the act. That reminds me of a lady I really respect asking me once if I intended to get down on my knees and ask God to bless my activities before I went into a casino in Las Vegas. She turned up her nose in victory as if her point were won, and I didn’t want to risk making her angry, but what a silly way to “prove” something is wrong. I don’t get on my knees and ask God to bless my activities before I brush my teeth or put my deodorant on or sharpen my pencil. What does that prove? Such arguments originate in the assumptions that the arguer already holds about the activity in question.

Jake:

Caveat:

since you made no actual personal reflection of the passage that you cited, my response is based on assumed meaning and intention…

Okay, so I’m a stumbling block for a Pharisee. Isn’t Paul speaking too much more largely ingrained cultural practice, specifically, the intentional eating of non-kosher foods around early Jewish Christians? Remember, he was once a Pharisee himself. Therefore, he would understand the great impasse that this issue would have created in that society. I think Paul is speaking to the eater and the drinker here, not the witness to the activity. I think he is calling the eater and drinker to not be judgmental towards those who don’t have the ability to see that all food and drink are from God and not bad (with the exception of food sacrificed to idols). So, we shouldn’t place a stumbling block in front of our brothers by purposefully putting them in an uncomfortable situation. So, is it still a stumbling block if I go purchase a six-pack and happen to see a member of my class?

My take on the alcohol thing: I’m a teetotaler, but for reasons other than Piper’s:

1) I’m not too big on the taste of alcohol in general. I’ve found a couple of wines that I can handle pretty well (including a 2000 Biltmore Gardens Blanc de Noir), but in general, I’m not much on the taste. The only mixed drink I’ve ever had was a screwdriver that tasted like someone peed in a glass of perfectly good orange juice. Maybe it just wasn’t made very well.
2) My family has a history of alcoholism. My grandfather, great-grandfather, and great-great-grandfather were all raging alcoholics, and my grandfather died from cirrosis (sp?) of the liver. My dad died of stomach cancer at the ripe old age of 55, and when I asked the doctor if I was at risk, her first question was, “Did he drink a lot?” “Yes, ma’am. Smoked like a chimney, too.” “Well…”

However….

1) Alcohol’s dandy within moderation. Anyone telling you otherwise is probably trying to get you to join their church.
2) Alcohol is an adult beverage. Adults should understand the problems with overindulging in anything.
3) Jesus made wine. He drank wine at the last supper. I read nothing in the Bible about Jesus secretly replacing wine with Tetley’s Iced Tea to see if the disciples could tell the difference.

One question…Why aren’t those who establish the ETOH free covenants being taken to task for their pharisaical extrapolation of scripture? It seems to me that what we have here is a bunch of covenants that were re-written at or around the time of prohibition (Victorian era) and have never been changed to reflect its repeal. Does anyone know the dates for the last SBC covenant revision? I am also of the opinion that the idea of self-creating sin is nonsense. There is right and wrong, not multi-situational ethics or personality based reality. Either God says it’s wrong to drink or he doesn’t. If he hasn’t said that it is wrong to drink but that it is wrong to get drunk; don’t get drunk. He has said that we should not cause another man to fall (stumble), how is it my responsibility to make sure that some freak from my Sunday school class doesn’t leap off the judgmental cliff and fall into the river of animosity while floating along holding onto the log of gossip if he sees me drinking or purchasing adult beverages? It’s not my responsibility it’s his. Maybe if we spent more time making sure that our own walks were good to go, we wouldn’t have to be so concerned about what other people think, especially stupid people.

Here is an interesting article on Cheverolet sponsoring a contemporary Christian tour. While I am not fond of the commercialization of Christ, I find it interesting that the commercialization of the gospel is not even the issue here:

“The majority of Americans are not evangelical Christians and it would be very, very bad business for Chevrolet to put the idea into people’s minds that they’re the evangelical brand.” —In essence, sponsoring a Christian concert is bad because some people might be offended. What about sponsors of gansta rap concerts; perhaps I am offended. Oh, wait, as I am not of a minority group that would attend a gansta rap concert, in my case offended means racist, right? As there is no negative term for being anti-Christian that bears weight in the media, it is okay to be offended publicly about a company sponsoring Christian music.

“We consider this to be a breakthrough for our industry,” said Frank Breeden, head of the Christian Music Trade Association in Nashville, Tenn—In many ways, this is more offensive. Look, God just broke through. He eats praise songs like crunchy cookies too!!!

Jim: I am not sure that the arbitrary constraints argument bears much weight. In the case of drinking, while their is no biblical mandate not to drink (but rather not to get drunk), there is also no mandate to partake. As such, I do not believe the covenant measure should be regarded as sin. If the church mandated a witchcraft ritual to enter the church, which is directly forbidden in the bible, I would agree that the covenant went too far.

As far as the “Grace + not drinking”: I will agree that many do, but I see every denomination has a particular set of passages put higher on the pedestal than others, so not drinking is just the tip of the iceberg. Get into a sprinkle/dunk argument and you will find that each side often thinks the other is on the Lucifer Express.

Jack: In the case of the indulgences, there was no biblical basis for the idea. In the case of drinking, there is at least a biblical mandate against getting drunk. While I am not one who honors the non drinking issue, I do not see where the indulgences (which, in many ways were contra-scripture) and non-drinking (which are not contra-scripture, but more of an extra) are equal, except that each bears language that is not explicitly spelled out. In which case, we have a whole lot of doctrine, from any number of denominations, that has to be thrown out, as it is interpreted rather than explicitly spelled out. I do not see the covenent of non-drinking as something that is directly contradictory to the clear teaching of scripture.

as far as the sin, there are a variety of things that are sin that are not explicitly spelled out by God to be sin. The scripture informs us that the things we believe to be sin are sin, regardless of whether they are spelled out. Causing division is sin, as is causing our brother to stumble. The scripture does not state that causing our brother to stumble while committing what is explicitly spelled out in the bible to be sin.

Bringing 1 Timothy 4 into the discussion, to me, is a low point in this discussion. The Spirit does not teach us to drink alcohol. In fact, the Psalmist tells us that God provided wine to gladden the heart of man, but not that God commanded us to drink it. As such, stating that this covenent is heretical and the sign that these people are hypocritical liars is a bit judgemental. Paul was warning Timothy of false teachers and states some specific items which are specifically contra-scripture. If we start to condemn any denomination that supports ideas that we do not feel are explicitly outlined, and use the scripture as a weapon, we are the ones causing division.

As I have stated before, I do not agree with the Baptist’s position on non-drinking. I do, however, believe they are sincere brothers in Christ. At this time, I attend a Baptist church and know plenty of congregation members that take the idea of non-drinking to the nth. I support them in that decision, although I disagree with the complete abstinence stance. I do not believe they are the spawn of hell or the false teachers Paul warns about due to this one very minor issue.

Spencer, bruddah, this one is on me!

I’ll say my bit on the drinking thing and then go to class. (All respect to those who differ.) It is wrong- flat out, absolutely wrong- to bind the conscience with Biblical authority over matters where the Bible does NOT bind the conscience. The particular covenant RonaldC refered to is a generic one used in thousands of churches. Dump it. Write one that reflects the convictions of the congregation that subscribes it as endorsed by scripture.

Scripture teaches that moderate alcohol use is receiving joyfully a gift of God. Psalm 104:14-15 14 You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth 15 and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man’s heart. We are obligated to embrace and endorse the Biblical position, not a mistaken and non-scriptural cultural rule, no matter what common sense reasons can be brought forth to defend it.

Since Jim brought up the PCUSA, let me say something good about the people who pay me to be their preacher. The PCUSA has a Book of Confessions. There are 9 of them in there. The advantages and disadvantages of this are obvious, but it shows that confessionalism need not be narrow. Now a couple in there are real stinkers, but the WCF and the Heidelberg balance it out. Second, how are conservatives winning their battles in the PCUSA? Confessionally. The Confessing Church movement is setting squarely on the Book of Confessions and forcing the liberals to defy the constitution and demean the confessions to endorse their positions. Now this is a denomination whose recent antics will win few awards for loving orthodoxy! Yet the Confessions are saving the church, literally, from apostasy. I am personally more comfortable with just one confession, but the PCUSA experience is a good example of the value of Confessions.

Folks, I’ve been keeping my posting on here down, as I’m struggling with arthritis and every keypress is painful, but I’m too much of an argumentative type to let all this “sin to drink” stuff pass. While I agree that breaking one’s word is a sin, isn’t there also some sin in placing arbitrary constraints around fellow believers? I mean, who in the “Christians don’t drink” crowd really believes it’s a matter of conscience, and doesn’t look down on those believers who choose to use alcohol? I would argue that most such churches are “adding to”, turning salvation by grace into “grace + not drinking,” and I think that’s a much more damaging and debilitating problem. If I were in such a church, and found that my convictions had changed, I’d go before the elders and tell them that they were in error, and give them the opportunity to change. If they didn’t, I’d leave. And, more to the point, I’m done with joining churches whose confessions and/or doctrinal statements support behavioral practices and theological positions that I can’t agree with, or that lock me into a specific interpretation of problem passages; it’s one of the key factors in my decision to join the PC-USA rather than, say, the OPC or a Reformed Baptist church. I may not agree with everything my denomination does, but I don’t have to agree to a confession that violates my conscience to join.

All of which pretty much goes along with what Michael just posted while I was typing this. Confessionalism is good, and necessary. A Confession that gets into specific behavioral patterns in places where scripture doesn’t clearly speak is potentially as bad no confession, though.

RonH: At the risk of crashing the computer again ;-) I would like to comment on something you said in the post on confessions:

However, I think they should avoid codifying doctrines which lack the consensus of the catholic Church (in the “Apostles’ Creed” sense), and I think they lessen their own spiritual growth by relying on their litmus-tests rather than wrestling directly with Scripture.

First, haven’t you just done away with the entire Reformation and any other movement that fails to have the concensus of all Christians? I agree there is a broad level of essentials that all Christians must subscribe to, such as the Trinity. (An essential confessional doctrine btw that is an inference from Biblical language, not a direct Biblical statement, as are several essentials.) But I think there is another level, not of essentials, but of doctrines vital to a healthy and Biblical faith, on which there is not nor will there ever be full concensus. This would include justification by faith alone, substitutionary atonement, eternal punishment and many others. If we abandon all confessionalism short of the first seven ecumenical creeds, then we are saying that no group of Chrsitians can go any further confessionally than the church as a whole. If the visible church weren’t full of fallen sinners, the unconverted and the merely human, that would be fine.

Also, good confessions are the results of wrestling with scripture. How is it that I wrestle with scripture but can come to no conclusion that can be put into a paragraph? The only choice I have on, let’ say, the doctrine of total depravity, is a list of verses? Or the whole Bible? I can’t say “This is what the Bible teaches: Human beings are made in God’s image but have all willfully rebelled against their creator, with continuing results.” Your sentence above seems to endorse a sort of doctrinal skepticism (epistemologically speaking) that would shut down any kind of systematic theology, confessional theology, or Biblical theology (in terms of summarizing Biblical teaching.) What I fear would result from what you endorse is the tyranny of this and that human teacher who was able to say “No Creed but the Bible….as I teach it.”

Confessions are not scripture and cannot replace scripture. They can’t be used as scripture. They are fully human and derive their usefulness from scripture. A good confession is a blessing, not a source of contention. Go to a church that joyfully embraces their confessions and you will see. But when you speak of confessions, you seem to see primarily their use to divide and bully and exclude. What about their power to unite? To bring about worship? (Hymns are confessions, in an sense.) To make leaders accountable? To qualify members and ministers? To catechize children and adults? To witness to the truth of scripture? To promote the health of the body? I just can’t see that our only answer to any issue or situation is 1) to say “read the whole Bible” or 2) wait till there is universal concensus or 3) have a massive congregational discussion on every issue every time it occurs.

You also said that most every confession you had read would exclude you. Could you give an example from a good one, such as the New Hampshire?

RonH: I just crashed after penning a 45 minute reply to your post. It is killing me to allow you the last word! But that will have to be the way it is.

1) The Bible has enough clarity on enough topics to allow us to do theology, preach and be confessional.
2) Confessions in no way replace or can be confused with scripture.
3) Local churches can’t just come together with the Bible and start from scratch on every topic and every situation. Confessions are very necessary and helpful.
4) The dogmatic pursuit of objective truth is a Christian joy and duty. God’s revelation in words makes that possible, not impossible.
5) Good confessions, Like the New Hampshire Baptist Confession, are far more inclusive and flexible than you portray them.

More, but its all gone…

A teacher at a mostly black school says most badly behaved students are black. Now he’s on the rack. Gosh, he should have said most of the badly behaved students were white so no one would be upset.

Things overheard at an STD clinic. Gross, but darned hilarious.

B.H. Carroll: “A church with a little creed is a church with a little life. The more doctrines a church can agree on, the greater its power, and the wider its usefulness. The fewer its articles of faith, the fewer its bonds of union and compactness. The modern cry: “Less creed and more liberty,” is a degeneration from the vertebrate to the jellyfish, and means less unity and less morality, and it means more heresy. Definitive truth does not create heresy—it only exposes and corrects. Shut off the creed and the Christian world would fill up with heresy unsuspected and uncorrected, but none the less deadly.” …

The current issue of Founder’s Journal contains five articles by SBTS history prof Tom Nettles on Confessionalism. Articles 2 and 3 are important reading for this topic. I think you’ll be greatly blessed by this discussion from the foremost authority on confessions in Baptist life.

Here’s a sample. Writing about SBTS Pres E.Y. Mullins, the seminal figure in SB’s decline into non-confessionalism and neo-orthodoxy, Nettles says that Mullins believed…”that creeds “become barriers to the free development of personality in religion” and “a chain to bind, not wings on which the soul may fly.” One may warrantably wonder why precise information and unadulterated truth imposes hindrances on the development of personality, unless one desires freedom to develop apart from the guidance of truth. Can our obedience to God be truly personal and filled with respect for His holiness if it takes no regard for His commandments? Can our praise to Him be acceptable if it is not formed by His truthful revelation of His character? Should we be like those against whom Paul wrote whose regulations were mere human commands and doctrines (Colossians 2:22, 23). Or do we show love to God and restore the image of God in human personality and really grasp “the truth as it is in Jesus” when our thinking, talking, walking, worshipping and witnessing follows the pattern of sound words and protects the deposit of truth (2 Timothy 1:8-14)?

JackH: I join you in full on your disagreement with Piper. John-boy: that is lame. He also misses the mark on divorce and remarriage. But then he has never spent a day in here with us, so what can you expect. (Piper sometimes takes a passionate approach to non-essential matters and goes too far.)

RonH: First, I know the reformation didn’t reform all that needed reform, but I would say what was recovered was no small matter. Things were pretty awful ya’ know. Recovering justification by faith alone, the priesthood of the believer, sola scriptura—- all good and so what if Protestantism is still divided. At least we care!

Confessionalism is subject to all the futilities and foibles of human beings. And you are right that it is dangerous. And you are right that too much can be said. For instance, I think a confession that codifies a particular eschatology is overboard. Confessions are bones in the body. The whole body can’t be bones. There has to be room for breathing and movement and growth. But like a ship needs and anchor, a church needs a confession. Confessional differenences are fine if we are contending for the truth. If we quit caring about the truth, or become individualistic sudjectivists or innane post-moderns, then we jettison confessions and go to pragmatism or mysticism.

The Bible is propositional in its message. That message has to be confessed in language. Scripture itself is a confession and a good confession- Like the New Hampshire- just puts in short form what scripture says in long form. Don’t treat the confession as scripture, but don’t treat its message as less than a human wording of divine truth. I will agree that confessions should be modest and confessional Christians should be humble. But a church without a confession of Biblical essentials is not a church because it cannot carry out its New Testament commanded duty of discipline, fellowship, teaching and evangelism.

Re: Piper’s view on drinking alcohol: It is with great trepidation that I dare to disagree with John Piper over anything, but the four reasons he gave for abstaining simply don’t wash:

1. A Guilty Conscience – I would no more feel guilty about enjoying a good drink than I would about enjoying a good steak. If he feels guilty, then clearly he shouldn’t partake.
2. A Mind-altering drug – So is caffeine. So are the endorphins that are released in my body when I eat hot salsa.
3. Addictive – See my response to number 2.
4. Making a social statement – This is probably his strongest argument, but that’s only because the others are so weak. Alcohol may be the number two killer in America today, but number one is heart disease. If we are going to make a social statement about the dangers of alcohol abuse by abstaining from the fruit of the vine, then should we not by the same reasoning make a social statement about the dangers of over-eating and under-exercising?

The world knows how to abuse God’s gifts, but does a poor job of enjoying His bounty. Seems to me that the church would delight in teaching her people how to enjoy God’s goodness in righteousness.

I would have to suppose that all the BJU students who had an inter-racial date were sinning, because they signed on to BJU’s rules for students? Hey guys- I am not aware that human rules ever are undertaken with a view that they are perfect!!! Was Martin Luther King Jr. sinning when he broke the laws of Selma, etc? Yikes!!

Sin is any contradiction of or lack of conformity unto the LAW OF GOD. A human rule that is wrong is not the law of God and the law of God does not bind the conscience to keep such a rule. Gee. Jesus was a sabbath breaker according to the Pharisees!

I have a fellow who says he really believes thousands are being saved in T.D. Jakes meetings so isn’t Jakes right?

Gregory, (and anyone else who is folloiwing this): OK, maybe I’m a little thick-headed here, but I don’t follow the argument at Ronald’s church:

1.You agreed to abide by our rules
2.Our rules prohibit drinking alcohol
3.You drank alcohol
4.Therefore, you committed a sin.

How is this different from the way the RCC dealt with Luther over the issue of indulgences? (and later, over the issue of Sola Fida?) Luther failed to honor the authorities in his church, but he did so because they placed the authority of the church over the authority of the scriptures. The church prohibited monks from marrying as well. The church prohibited eating beef on Fridays. The church allowed buying indulgences to “pay” for sin. The church clearly positioned itself as authoritative in direct contradiction to the clear teaching of scripture.

Which one holds the trump card?

To claim that the sin occurred not in drinking but in failing to honor the covenant also doesn’t make sense to me. If my covenantal community prohibits what God permits, which authority should be honored? Any authority that exalts itself above the word of God is in clear violation of the 3rd Commandment and is therefore illegitimate.

If my covenantel community prohibited giving to the poor, and I gave to the poor, would it then be a sin? If it prohibited taking care of widows and visiting those in prison, and I did both, would that be a sin? If it prohibited marrying and I married, would that be a sin?

I Timothy 4 tells us that things like this will happen, and it says that those who teach such things have had their consciences seared:
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

But then again, maybe I’m just an idiot.

Here is a sermon by John Piper on Total Abstinence and Church Membership. What do you guys think?

Jack: I would agree with Ronald that the covenant, which is a promise, would make drinking a sin. That does not mean that all drinking is a sin, which is the reason Ronald stated that he would ask if they were a member of his church, as he does not have agreements with all Christians. We enter into all sorts of agreements that are extra-biblical, and, while the activity itself is not sin, breaking an agreement would constitute a sin, as you would, at the very least, have lied. I, myself, have not thoroughly examined the covenants of my church, so I am free to have my nice, frosty Guiness. Ah! (said tongue in cheek).

Micahel: From a biblical perspective, drunkedness is the sin, not having an alcoholic drink. I have no problem with those who choose to take it to the nth. I also have no problem with Ronald’s church’s covenants, as a member is free to become a member of a certain church or not.

Eric: I have actually tried to be a witness under the influence (in a definite state of sin) and will tell you that the Spirit was not flowing (although the spirits were). As such, I will agree that one should not be a witness while imbibing.

Ronald: I’d like to pose a question whilst I linger over a cool, creamy Guinness…

How does your church justify its position that drinking alcohol is a sin when the Bible clearly teaches otherwise? If your church covenant prohibited eating beef, would that make dining at Mickey D’s a sin?

I understand that membership naturally entails submitting to leadership, but what in the world makes your church’s position qualitatively different from the RCC during Luther’s day? Then, the church said it was sin for common people to possess the scriptures, (amongst a myriad of other abuses). The whole point of the Reformation was to restore scripture to its proper position as the sole authority in the life of the church.

Maybe you presented the position poorly, but if I was a member of a church whose covenant superceded the clear teaching of scripture, I would quickly and vehemently speak out against such folly.

And keep protesting until they either reformed or excommunicated me.

Interesting. Would like to see some BHT comments on this paragraph. If you don’t know Scott Hahn, he is the primary RCC apologist and a former Presbyterian.

Scott Hahn, a former evangelical Presbyterian who is now a Roman Catholic professor of theology and Scripture at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, says the greatest argument for Mary’s perpetual virginity is in the Bible. At his crucifixion, Jesus sent Mary to live with John, saying “behold your mother.” “Protestant and Catholic scholars agree that this would have been social nonsense,” Hahn says. “It would have been illegal for Jesus to do this if he had younger brothers. They would naturally have taken Mary into their homes.”

Ronald: Are you a totally comfortable with binding your members conscience covenantally to to a position not explicitly required in scripture? (I mean, could Jesus…..No, I won’t ask ;-)

Richard: I’ll spare you what happened to me when a Pentecostal minister came into my office and saw a pumpkin (not a jack o’ lantern) on my desk. Also, the worst thrashing I ever got from my dad was when I happened to tell him I had played poker at a church lock-in.

Anyone have a feeling that the CCM industry has made a mistake in being sponsored by Chevrolet? (Including giving a free worship CD to anyone test driving a car.) This is disgusting and shows what is in “The Heart of…” CCM. $$$$$$$$$

Ben Witherington III on the Jesus/James/Joseph inscription.

Anecdote # 1 – Some 20 years ago I was a guest preacher at a neighbouring Baptist church. I preached from John 2 and stated in passing that our Lord made real wine. One of the older saints stopped me at the door to tell me that if Jesus had really done such a thing then He was not worth following.

Anecdote #2 (unrelated but raising similar bewildering issues) – I recently visited a fellow pastor (from the Christian and Missionary Alliance). Finding him playing solitaire on his computer I asked why he simply use a real deck instead of staring at a monitor. His shocked response: “I would NEVER have a deck of cards in my house!”. Weird…

Anecdote # 3 (in which I show my cowardice… or wisdom?) – I don’t usually buy wine in our isolated little town. I prefer to avoid the grief and stock up when I travel.

Gregory: I have lived among the Baptist teetotalers my whole life and I have only heard the “non-alcoholic wine” argument made once. Actually, I have never heard a coherent Biblical argument for the no-drinking position. Its just assumed to be the teaching of scripture. Here at OBI, I no longer feel any pressure to say anything other than drunkenness is wrong and many Christians feel it is wise to swear off alcohol totally for their own reasons. But I say- from the pulpit- that Jesus drank wine and I have never had a problem, even from my teetotaling employers. No booze, no dancing, no cards, no movies, no Disney- its mostly Baptist mythology. I was never exposed to serious drinking until I went to seminary. The profs and students were almost all drinkers.

Group: I received an e-mail accusing my of inaccurately portraying Lucado’s position on baptism and urging me to pause before accusing the Lord’s “annointed.” They sent along the statement on baptism from Lucado’s church. It is spun in such a way that it appears Lucado is not a member of the Church of Christ and takes a more Baptist view of baptism. It begrudgingly admits one could possibly be saved and not baptized if one was providentially hindered from Baptism. Actually, I was far from convinced, but I altered that paragraph to Joyce Meyer so as not to have the lawyers chewing my buttocks. People actually read this stuff!!

ScottW: Ask your friend if he knows that God eats the praises of his people when he is hungry.

Scott Ward fires off another classic: “I’m pro-life, except when a woman wants an abortion.” Scott, you are too funny.

I too liked the line about a good Christian but not a good Baptist. Interestingly, the Baptist church I now attend omitted the traditional prohibition of alcohol from the covenant we recently adopted. The pastor said that he chooses to abstain for reasons of possible witness tampering (wacka wacka), but he does not expect or require the same of anyone else. And the covenant was passed with no oposition. What kind of Baptist church have I stumbled onto here??

Greg:

The appropriate response is “Really? Which do you recommend?” heheheheheh

Jack: One of the members of my Sunday school saw me buying a four pack of Guiness pub draught cans at the local Kroger and his jaw almost hit the ground. He said, “you shouldn’t be buying that.” I told him the comment I put here (I may be a good Christian, but I am a bad Baptist). I doubt I will be elected deacon this year at my church. LOL!!!

The predominent Baptist thought is Jesus made non-alcoholic wine at the wedding. Discounting the fact that the the Greek language is far more specific than English, one has to wonder, if it were non-alcoholic, where the comment on saving the best for last came from. I have tasted different non-alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks (beer, wine, et al) and I would never comment that they were the best.

Gregory: “I may be a good Christian, but I am a bad Baptist”?

I love that line! That line is almost good enough to make me want to be a Baptist – just so I could use it.

I think this one is a bit funny (not so much for the Bush jab, but for clippy):

I think that now that we have identified the reason for the portly stature of the majority of the BHT clientele, we are required (by tavern law) to identify and cast out all demons and evil spirits. Following this exercise will be THE FIRST ANNUAL BHT PIG ROAST AND KEG PARTY. Amen.

SPIRITS OF YEAST AND BARLEY MALT BE DAMNED TO THE LAKE OF FIRE! COME OUT OF THEM …AND GET INTO MY BELLY! You know, this means that Geno of Geno’s east is Satan’s sole representative on this planet.

Scott: Laying on Hands Get out you demon of Papa John’s. I curse you, spirit of Dominos. Hehehehehe!!!

In your case, it may be genetic, but it may be related to habits you developed as a child. I blame my weight on the demon of beer personally (I may be a good Christian, but I am a bad Baptist), as I love to home brew, et al. I do not believe that praying against spirits is a worthwhile endeavor in most instances, but I do believe that some cases may be attributed to supernatural forces, so hedges bets is not an evil activity. Would I suggest berating spirits and telling someone not to go to a doctor? Never!

Michael: I am in complete agreement, and would also add that this kind of thinking is the result of some of the things you mention in your article on Know-Nothing Christians. It’s what happens when you assume a label, but refuse the baggage that comes along with it. Kinda like saying, “I’m pro-life, except when a woman wants an abortion.” The only thing I can really hope from a debate with a person like this is that someone else will see the truth, and see the lies, and make the right choice.

Gregory: Since I weigh in at over 300 lbs, and since I’m not too keen on blaming myself or genetics for it, I wonder if I could have a demon of Pizza Hut? With extra pepperoni.

Jim: As far as Boar’s Head Tavern, Clint Eastwood used to own a little restaurant/bar in Carmel, California by the either the same, or a very similar name. I ate there back in the late 80s when I had a visit to the San Francisco area.

Michael: I will agree with you on the Charismatics heading for trouble. I was fortunate to be under the guidance of a pastor who believed that personal revelation must always be tested against scripture (ala 1 John 4:1). I have seen Charismatics who made everything out to be an issue of a spirit, which naturally comes down to questioning your faith if you have “spirits.” The pastor at the church I attended was absolutely livid over someone who had told a woman that her disease was due to a lack of faith.

On the demon of cancer: Is it possible? I guess so. I see nothing wrong with laying on hands and praying, and even with speaking with the boldness of Christ against the one that fights to kill, steal and destroy. On the other hand, I believe that our bad habits and bad diet account for most of the cancer in the world. Colon cancer comes from polyps that form, which most often results from when a person does not eat right and drink enough water to keep the system moving. Lung cancer most often results from smoking. Skin cancer results from too much sun exposure (what is too much is the question). While we have not found a definitive link from every cancer to what we eat and drink, and how we live, it can also be noted that people with good habits tend to have a higher survivability rate when they do get cancer. I am not trying to blame the individual for their cancer, but I do not see the link between bad habits and everything being an evil spirit.

ScottW: This fellow has his own individualistic version of Christianity. One of the annoying little truths is that when you put yourself over scripture you have contradicted the basis on which scripture has any authority to speak about anything. So when I sit around and talk about what parts of scripture I like or what parts of scripture are still OK or what parts of scripture are really inspired, I am wasting my time. I have contradicted the basic foundation of Chrisian epistimology- Holy Scripture is the authoritative and truthful revelation of God. You can debate how you understand that (as I frequently do on the nature on Genesis 1) but you cannot put yourself in charge of your own personal canon and call yourself a Christian. Remember- the confessions are much less interested in the HOW of scripture’s inspiration and authority than in the fact of it. BTW- Your debate partner needs to explain what he thinks of various heretics in the early church who did what he is doing. Try Marcion on for size.

I mean, WHY does he think scripture speaks at all? Because it speaks to HIM? OK, then why not open up the canon to include anything anywhere anytime that speaks to him? Does he agree we must limit special revelation to the Bible? OK- WHY? Are you going to accept the judgment of the church universal? Then you have to accept it all. It’s either one or the other. There is no middle ground here.

Group: In my expanded article, I mention that leaving off a denominational name is not in and of itself the problem. Spurgeon changed the name of his church from New Park Street Baptist Church to Metropolitan Tabernacle. MacArthur pastors Grace Community Church. (I do think this runs into the risk of how you are identified. In our area, the “Community Church” are Word/Faith TBN types.)

I’ve actually already mentioned that to this guy. His response, and I quote: “I don’t like what that Westminster guy said.” This coming from a guy who says he was a “Bible Student” in college.

Thanks guys.

One more thing Scott. Be sure and tell your friend that by rejecting the OT as Holy Scripture, he has removed himself from the Christian family: WCF 1.2 “II. Under the name of holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the Books of the Old and New Testament, which are these: (Insert OT and NT). All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.”

OK Scott. It’s late and the Monk is surly. You should get a quality answer. Be sure and give me credit when you pass this on.

1) Does Jesus’ fulfilment of the OT negate it? My initial reaction is “No”, but my reasoning is more faith and less scholarly.

This is the “moron” position on the OT. (Sorry but it’s late.) Does it occur to any of these Mensa types just what EVERY mention of the word SCRIPTURES in the NT is refering to? Has it occured to them that there WAS NO NT CANON Until the 4th century? What was Paul’s Bible? The Bible all the preachers in Acts used? What is the whole book of Hebrews using to make the case for Jesus? What is quoted or refered to 200+ times in the book of Revelation? Who the heck are these people that think we don’t have ONE BIBLE but two testaments?

2) Did Paul’s teaching on not circumcising go against Jesus’ saying that “not one jot or tittle will be removed from the law”?

Back to that OT again. There is this thing called the NEW COVENANT that the entire Law is pointing to. Listen closely my young hippie pot smoking friend of Scott: Israel is an imperfect picture of what God is really up to. The Old Covenant is NOT PERFECT. It is an imperfect pointer to the perfect. Circumcision of the flesh of Israel is a picture of circumcision of the heart of the New covenant believer.

(Send this guy to some NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY web sites. I have some on the sidebar.)

3) Tweedle-twit seems to think it is in relation to the Old and New Testaments, and seems to think that Jesus is saying that since old wineskins can’t hold new wine, the old wineskins are bad and need to be replaced.

Your addled friend is closer to correct but still off the mark. New wine= the new age of the Spirit inaugurated by Christ. Old wineskins= the Old Covenant structure of law, sacrifice, etc. Jesus is probably using this analogy for the benefit of Jews who knew the Messiah was going to inaugurate a new age. Jesus is the one bringing the new wine, and the Old Covenant structure will give way to the New Covenant FULFILLMENT. Jesus = temple, sacrifice, priest. Church = new Israel, priests, kings, etc.

Your friend needs to say this word over and over: FULFILLMENT FULFILLMENT. Filling full of meaning, not destroying as bad or worthless. We now read ALL the OT in view of JESUS and the NEW COVENANT. We don’t through it out.

T-SHIRTS!!! I want T-Shirts!

We’re on the map.

Great fireworks. We turned out the lights and enjoyed them!

OK. The article is finished AND expanded AND cleaned up. I do hope everyone will read it, and pass it on to everyone in David’s church ;)

Gregory, I think we agree on a great deal. I have been charismatic, spoke in tongues, worshiped with Charismatics, prayed and labored with them here at OBI, and affirmed them many times. At the same time, I believe there is a GREAT tension in the Charismatic movement that leaders, churches and members must resolve or else there is trouble BIG trouble ahead. That tension is between Biblical authority and claims of personal Spirit-experienced authority. Especially, how can this tension be resolved in specific, issue by issue matters. How can the Charismatic who told the guy in David’s church to cough up the demon of cancer be told he is wrong? This seems something Charismatics cannot bring themselves to do, and I contend this is because they have demoted the Bible to a secondary place below individual spiritual experience. This has to be resolved, or what has been a great blessing to the church is going to become a great Apostasy of the church.

David: Quenching the Spirit is, of course, the code kneejerk for the refusal to put the Bible in an authoritative place above Spiritual experience. I would just call these people out on this, and lash myself to the scriptures and the heritage of the church. As to the comments on “more decisions,” ask what they would conclude if someone preached a message that explicitly denied the Trinity and there were hundreds of decisions? Again- WHERE is the authority in the church? Where did God put the authority in HIS church?

More later….(Please read!)

One more. You have to see this one!

http://doody36.home.attbi.com/liberty.htm

Michael: I ran through the article a bit quickly. I will revisit once you have edited, as I would like to see the finished piece. While I agree with you that there are charismatics that are very visible doing great harm to the scripture, I have also seen a lot of good in the charismatic church. Spirit-filled worship, which you state in your article, is one of the items I have lived in my stint in a charismatic church, is certainly one of the good points. Accepting that God can still work healing (and other miracles) is another item I think is great in the Charismatic movement; of course, this is a double edged sword, as some begin to focus on “their gifts” rather than giving God the glory. But, I have seen this in a variety of denominational churches, as well. It is human to long for fame and fortune.

I have met a great many charismatic church leaders and some are very scripturally sound, accountable to God and their congregation and genuinely focused on giving God all of the glory. Others preach a “name it, claim it” gospel (esp. during “tithe season”) and focus on how many people “they have saved.”

Do denominations do better at keeping scripturally and doctrinally sound? I am not convinced, but I am a skeptic at heart. I believe they are better able to hold back the tide, as they have certain ideas firmly entrenched. But, I also find the church of today more ignorant than the church of twenty or thirty years ago. I find that many mainstream churches are watering down the message to avoid offending people.

My personal pet peeve is the “Jesus is my best buddy” message preached by so many churches, both denominational and non-denominational. While I agree that the relationship aspect of Christianity is important, we are not an equal to God. Even viewing Jesus in His human form, we have not been able to remain devoted to the father in the manner He did, so we will never be His equal, even on His worst day and our best day. I get a little torqued at people who state a pastor should never preach hell, as it takes away from the message of grace. How can you understand grace until you truly understand just what you deserve and have been saved from? Do you understand that the stripes on His back are your stripes? He has covered you and taken the beating you rightfully deserve by your actions and was nailed to the cross when it was you who deserved it? Without understanding the depth and breadth of the gift, in conjunction with your evil nature and the proper result of your crime, can you ever really understand grace? It’s okay, Jesus is your bud man! No need to think about confessing your sins, accepting that you deserve full punishment for wht you have done.

Off my soapbox. No one is listening anyway. ;->

Michael: My being confessional proves nothing. The bigger point, however, is I think most denominations have abandoned confessionalism, as well. I do not believe it is a non-denominational problem, but a church problem (church as the buildings and members, not as the body of Christ).

Ronald: While we have one God, we are individuals and want to be approached in “our way.” Since each of us responds differently to different messages, denominations give each of us the message in a way that reaches us. There are times, however, when all get out of touch with God and have problems.

Scott:

1. I have nothing to say about this one.
   
2. Without the bible, you have no rock on which to stand, which makes Christianity subjective.
   
3. It is possible he did not mean to hurt anyone in the temple, but he certainly wanted to wake people up, as well as clean out the non-Godly parts. As far as hurting feelings goes, Jesus was about the truth, not political correctness. If he had been PC, he would not have been crucified.
   
4. Once again, shifting sands. If we have no fixed reference, then there was no need for Jesus to die on the cross, as salvation can come from anyone.
   
5. I do not have a problem with newer confessions and catechisms or old ones. I can take either, as long as they are scripturally sound. As your debate partner does not care about the scriptural soundness, he is apt to like anything that strokes his ego, rather than look for things that please God.
   

1. Jesus’ fulfillment does not negate the OT. He states, very explicitly, that he did not come to abolish the law. The law, however, takes on a different meaning, as you now obey out of respect for what Jesus did for you, despite the fact you did not deserve it, rather than to live a perfect life to get to heaven (which is impossible).
   
2. Which reference? In Romans, Paul does not talk down circumcision, but states that circumcision, of itself, does nothing (as does non-circumcision). This all leads to being judged by the standard you put forth. He is putting the circumcision of the heart above the physical act of circumcision. Throughout his letters you see the theme of circumcision and non-circumcision each meaning nothing if there is not a spiritual change.
   
3. Jesus was talking about the change that takes place in a person when they are born again. Infused with the Spirit, they become a new creation. A person who lives their old life cannot accept the Spirit (the new wine). This is a bit over simplified. I am certain some OT/NT parallels can be drawn, but I have always seen the new creature in Christ being pivotal to understanding the parable. I am also certain that I will find new gems in this in future readings.
   

MIchaelS: I think your analysis is on target. In our situation, over the past 4 years, 35% of our new members ( about 400 people) have come into our church by statement of faith, meaning they have not come from a shared doctrinal background of our denomination. The leveling of the doctrinal playing field has led to an increasing refusal to define, even to the point of redefining tradtionally Catholic terms so they fit comfortably and give no offense.
Secondly, the charismatic ability to claim the “high ground” of spiritual vitality and immediacy is astounding. That may be as much attributed to the loss of passionate exposition ( what Piper calls ” expository exultation”) as to the word-faith, current revelation belief. The concern being floated after one day of teaching on biblical worship is the concern that I am bent on ” quenching the Spirit” among us. As I read your comments about the charismatic reluctance regarding written confessions, I was struck by the memory of the early days of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship when Cecil Sherman made a very similar comment, inisting that current revelation was more important than old confessions. So, liberal and charismatic stripping of biblical authority is not all that far apart.
And yes, pragmatism is the driving value in many places. When told of the current struggle with heretical teaching fostered by a worship leader, the first response from one of our team was, ” Yes, but you know there are more decisions in that service than any other, so..” Yikes! Please pray for wisdom and faithfulness in this place where God has so obviously placed us.

Here it is unfinished, wrong picture, unedited, uncorrected, but you’ll get the drift. It will look much better when I’m done. “Know-Nothing Christians.”

Courtesy of The Door, it’s …

The Prayer of Jabez’ Next-Door Neighbor, Shabez
by Tamara Jaffe-Notier
Issue #180, Mar./Apr. 2002

“Oh, that you would bless me indeed, and enlarge my territory, that your hand would be with me, and that you would keep me from evil, that I may not cause pain.” So God granted him what he requested.—The Prayer of Jabez

The Prayer of Jabez’ next-door neighbor, Shabez:

“Lord, would you please clue me in on your definition of evil? I know that You have ‘kept Jabez from evil’ but he’s such a shlub! He’s got all the water rights for a couple days’ journey in every direction, and he charges me 15 sheep a year just to let my flocks use the springs and wells. OK, maybe that’s not evil, but it’s not very nice either.

“Another thing—I’ve really had it with this ‘enlarging his territory’ thing. Oy vey! Last year when I couldn’t pay my 15-sheep bill at the end of the year, he made me sign over the deed to another hunk of my grandfather’s grazing land. That’s the third year in a row that his territory has gotten bigger and mine has gotten smaller. What a schmuck I’ve been. OK, maybe that’s not evil either, but is it right? Se shtinkt!

“Something else that bugs me is how Jabez’ kids are always pushing my kids around. I know that technically Jabez himself isn’t causing anyone pain, but his oldest punk son has shlogen my youngest son three times now. Couldn’t you at least make him pick on somebody his own size? Plus I hate that ‘My kid is an honor student at the Yeshiva’ bumper sticker he’s got on his camel. “And his daughters! Lord, have you seen them lately? They paint themselves up like professionals, and hang out at the city gates. They belong in a shandhoiz! Of course, my hormone-ridden sons are such shlemiels, they are half crazy about them. Listen to this: they’ve sold off several she-goats just to buy jewelry for these girls, in the ridiculous hope of marrying into his family. Jabez has already made it clear that only princes are allowed to ask for his daughters in marriage.

“I just don’t know what to do, Lord. I guess I’ve got to move, but I don’t have any camels left. I sure don’t want to shlep my wife’s clothing half-way to Cana on my back! Could you at least get me a nice camel so I’d have something to pack my bags on? Thanks. I’ve got to go cook for another one of Jabez’ big parties now. At least maybe I’ll make a little something on tips from the goys tonight. Shalom, Big Guy”

Scott: I will respond to all three later. Be patient.

Ronald: When I post the article, please read and take issue with my contentions. If you think non-denominational churches are following the lead of liberals I agree with you somewhat. If you think that non-denominational, non-confessional churches are not leading the way to doctrinal invisibility, I have to wonder what non-denoms you are hanging with? Remember, being non-confessional and abandoning doctrine are not always the same thing at the same time.

Gregory: The fact that you may be confessional doesn’t prove that non-denoms as a movement have not led the way in abadoning confessions. One person within a movement may be highly counter to the movement. I assume there are Roman Catholics who believe in Biblical authority alone.

Dang… I’ve already written this once, and it got deleted by accident.

As many of you know, I am prone to debate. Recently, I’ve been involved in an ongoing debate with a person who has stated that they believe the following:

1) They have “very much faith in Jesus”. Good for them.
2) The Bible isn’t really relevant today, since it was written by falible men. Especially the icky parts.
3) Jesus didn’t mean to hurt anyone when he ransacked the temple. When He returns, he’ll join the hippies.
4) The writings of such noted modern theologians as Benny Hinn and Marilyn Hickey are equal… nay… superior to the writings in the scriptures.
5) Confessions and catechisms written prior to last Tuesday were written by boring old white men. They therefore suck.

In the course of this debate, I have come across 3 points which I am struggling with, all relating to the relevancy of the Old Testament in the New Testament. They are:

1) Does Jesus fulfilment of the OT negate it? My initial reaction is “No”, but my reasoning is more faith and less scholarly.
2) Did Paul’s teaching on not circumcising go against Jesus’ saying that “not one jot or tittle will be removed from the law”?
3) I’ve read the parable of the wineskins for years, and I have no idea what it means. Tweedle-twit seems to think it is in relation to the Old and New Testaments, and seems to think that Jesus is saying that since old wineskins can’t hold new wine, the old wineskins are bad and need to be replaced. I think he has squirrels in his head, but I’m not sure why.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. And would earn you a free years membership in the Official Scott Ward Fan Club. Our motto is “Scott. He’s nifty.”

Gregory: I have spent most of the day writing a large piece defending my statement on non-denominationalism. It will go up later tonight. We are taking Queen Noel out for dinner! But I will be interested in your response because I think my statement can be defended.

Jake: Read my piece on what we learn about worship from the Pslams. I address the issue of style directly. In fact, all of my worship essays deal with some aspect of that and related issues. Bottom line: music must make worship participatory to the ure it represents inthe congregation. NOT to the ure it wants to reach evangelistically. The people of God worship. Using worship to “attract” is a flwed method. But using appropriate style so all worshipers can worship is good church.

cya

Michael: I do not believe you can blame this on non-denominationalism. I consider myself non-denominational, but I regard scripture, confessionalism, et al, as a very important part of the Christian walk. I will agree that there are charismatics that have taken things too far, but I have seen the same problems invading denominational worship. It is perhaps a bit easy in a non-deonminational church, as it is harder to change course on a ship than a small boat (not saying these churches are small, but they act more like speedboats than tugs or liners). Commercialism is a big problem. If you want to find out what the bible means, go buy a book on what the bible means, right? Why not read the bible? Too passe!!!

Church growth movement: Big turn off to me. Our minister of education and administration recently used the latest buzzword: “assimilation.” The idea is that a church grows by finding out the skills and desires of its paritioners and matches them to “ministries.” (Oh, put Betty Crocker in the cooking ministry.) The idea being that people stay longer if they are working for God. The problem here is we do not try to retain people who want to be a part of the body necessarily, we just try to retain bodies. Unfortunately, this can kill a church.

Bartholomew: I dig what you’re saying. Hershael York, my pastor in Lexington, once said that the best part about his job is people, and the worst part about his job is … people. I too hate church politics. The good news is that the church is very small right now and seems more concerned with what churches should be concerned with rather than frivolous stuff. That may eventually change as we grow, but the further good news is that our pastor doesn’t believe in the mega-church model. His vision is to send out folks to start other ministries once we reach a certain number, if the Lord so blesses us.
The Sunday School lesson makes me shudder. Unfortunately, I too have sat through many such lessons at times in my life. God bless you.
Jake: Good question. I think that a pastor should preach in order to glorify God first and foremost, staying in the word and in prayer to be attuned to what God specifically wants him to address in his sermons. I don’t think church should be geared toward any group of people or individual, but rather focused on God. According to scripture, yes, the gospel will be foreign to non-believers, until the Holy Spirit opens their eyes and ears. I think your question gets at the heart of modern church issues.

MichaelS, in what would be a bizarre twist of syncronicity if I didn’t believe in Providence, you wrote the movement towards non-denominationalism is responsibile for the recent abandonment of confessionalism, and the resulting vulnerability to heresy and error right after I spoke with the senior pastor of our PC-USA church, who told me that liberals within the PC-USA believe that confessionalism is destroying the denomination by making it vulnerable to witch-hunts over heresy and error. We read your post and chuckled. Of course, you’re right. We were very much reassured in our discussion of issues with the pastor, by the way. It seems that the movement within the PC-USA for a formal confession is large, healthy, and growing. We’ve opted to join.

Rigney-
Generally –
I don’t like people. Especially large groups of people that like to play church politics. So, if you have the temperament to deal with the needy masses of loony whiners, it is truly better you than me. Further, you are ordained ahead of me for that very reason. As, Angus likes to throw stones at those that piss him off. As you can see, attending one of the largest SBC’s in the state has had its effect on my ability to be a wise and benevolent leader. So, count yourself truly blessed to be in your environment. I have to go to Sunday school and listen to lessons that regard the pruning of the vine as God helping us to make a lifestyle change…..

WOW. The same confession as Reformed Baptists. Bravo. It is the best. In these days of open opposition to Calvinism in the KBC/SBC, you guys are likely to make the Western Recorder!