Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘God’ Category

At our previous church, one Sunday morning our pastor recognized a member of our congregation who has just recently become a United States Marine. He was asked to stand. The congregation then clapped and, after a few moments, stood to their feet and gave him a standing ovation. Fast forward to the invitation at the end of the worship service: a lady came forward during the invitation saying that she had been previously baptized but she realizes now that she was never saved. She is now professing before the church that God has indeed saved her and she now has a genuine relationship with Jesus Christ. After sharing this with the congregation the pastor said, “If you rejoice with her please show it with a good hand clap.” And, of course, everybody clapped.

What is wrong with this picture? The congregation gave the Marine a standing ovation but the salvation received a mere cursory hand-clap? We just recognized that a person had experienced the greatest miracle of all, a spiritually dead person was brought to life and given eternal life and a relationship with the Creator of the World, and all we can muster is a hand clap? I am not saying that we should have given her a standing ovation. I do not think that we should because the work done in her life was a work done by God, not something done by her own power (Ephesians 2). However, I believe the contrast in excitement shown by our church in these two situations is merely a symptom of a bigger problem in the evangelical church. What is the evangelical church about? Have we gotten so consumed with issues of our culture that we forgotten what should really excite us as the Body of Christ?

The example mentioned above is just one example of ovations given when it was probably not appropriate. When there is special music, whether it is a soloist, ensemble or choir, the congregation almost always expresses affirmation with applause. When it is really good, there is a standing ovation given. When Fred Luter spoke at our church recently, the congregation gave him a standing ovation following his sermon. When my parents first spoke at our church they received a standing ovation. What are we saying with the applause and standing ovations? Worship and proclamation of the Word are not performances. It is not as if we are listening to the President’s State of the Union Address, or listening to music in Carnegie Hall, or applauding a great ice-skater’s performance.

If we have truly been worshipping in spirit with the music, is a standing ovation appropriate? If God has truly pricked our hearts with a sermon, is it appropriate to stand up and clap? It is one thing to stand in honor of our Lord as King George II did in 1742 during Handel’s Messiah. That is analogous to us standing in honor when reading the sermon text. A standing ovation is another thing all together. When will we realize that we are not performing but leading in worship to an audience of One? When will the clapping and ovations in church stop?

Read Full Post »

Today was a bitter sweet day at our church. Today was the last Sunday for our pastor, Preaching Pastor (PP), to be in the pulpit at our church.  He is moving on to another ministry that God is calling him to and there are exciting days ahead for him and his family. I just want to take this opportunity to write down what PP and his family mean to me. I am sure there are many others who feel the same way but just have not expressed it to him.

I live in a city in the deep South in the United States. Our county has over 400 churches but, to be honest, it is really hard to find a good church here — in my estimation. When I mean good church, I mean a church that is committed to the gospel and submits everything it does to the authority of God’s Word. I also mean a pastor who preaches the whole counsel of God and does so unashamedly. A good church should have a pastor who submits his sermons to the words on the page of the Bible and the very points of his sermon are driven by the authors who penned (not literally) the words of Scripture. When I look for a church, I look for a church where the pastor is someone that I trust and I can willingly submit to as the leader of the local congregation.  Our pastor until today, PP, was such a person and here is why.

One of the first things I noticed about him was the points in his sermon came from the text that he was preaching. He did not impose his own ideas into Scripture but let the Bible determine what he was saying to us in his sermons. He was truly biblical in his sermons. He also tried to be biblical in all aspects of how he led the church. He knew that the ultimate authority in the church is God and that God revealed Himself to us in Scripture — so the only way to lead the church was to submit to God’s Word. He was this kind of man (and still is). I believe this is a principle that was a driving force behind all that he did at our church. I believe this will continue to be the case at his new place of ministry and the result will be that his congregation will be blessed, well-fed, and well-led.

Another great thing about PP is that he constantly was reminding the congregation of what was going on in the world; not just politically but also within the church. He was leading his church members to be World Christians; not worldly Christians, but World Christians. That is, he exposed them to the persecution that continues to persist around the world and the constant dangers our brothers and sisters in Christ face just to name the name of Christ or to meet for worship and Bible Study. He reminded us that the call to follow Christ comes with a cost and rejected the false claims of the property gospel. PP kept before our congregation the need to take the gospel to the uttermost parts of the earth where the name of Christ is not worshipped and where people have no access to God’s Word nor is there anyone there who is attempting to share the gospel with them. We call this world missions and PP was faithful to keep this need before the church. Our pastor, PP, did not focus on world missions to the neglect of the gospel needs in our own community. He was very much aware of the needs in our city and how we need to be Christians taking the gospel to our places of business and to our community.

I don’t really intend this to be a long post so I will not go into great detail but another great thing about PP is how he was willing to invest in me and my family. I knew that any time I had a need or my family was in crisis, I could call him and he would do whatever he could even if that was just to listen. He has ministered to me on numerous occasions and has helped our family in times of crisis. He has truly loved us with the hands and the love of Christ during the time we have been at this church.

Last but most certainly not the least, we all love PP’s family. His family reflects his godly leadership as the head of his family. His wife is a wonderful pastor’s wife who has a warm and welcoming spirit about her. She shows love to everyone who walks through the doors of the church. Also, their children are great kids who clearly are being raised to love the Lord. They are a wonderful family and they will be missed. Their next place of ministry is getting a great family. Their next church is being blessed with a great man of God as their pastor and he will bring with him an awesome family. Our loss will most definitely be their gain.

Having said all of this, I know that this is not good-bye. We will see them again. I am sure we will see them when they come back to visit our city. We may even go visit them in their new city. Either way, it will not be the last we see of them. We will worship God together for eternity at the feet of Christ. God continues to mold us and shape us as He finishes the work that he started in us. It is a lifelong journey and God uses fragile and cracked (or even broken) vessels to carry out his purposes. He uses us where we are to bring glory to his name and sometimes he sends us off to new places to minister to and build up the church. This is exactly what is happening with PP and his family as they move on to a new phase of ministry. I pray that God may use PP and his family mightily as they obediently follow God to their next place of ministry, and beyond.

Read Full Post »

Whether you move to a new community or your church decides to shut its doors, you may find yourself looking for a new church home at some point.  When you are looking for a church, what do you consider the most important issues or reasons in selecting a particular church.  As I consider this, these are what I consider the most important issues in the selection process of a new church home.

1. Agree on primary theological issues. The first and most important characteristic needs to be that we agree on the primary theological issues. That is, they must have a biblical understanding of the gospel. This is a non-negotiable point. They must understand the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ’s work on the cross. They must agree that one’s salvation is by grace and grace alone. Salvation is a work completely of God and He doesn’t need our help. You must only repent. The church must agree with the inspiration, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture. We may not always agree on how to interpret Scripture but we must at least agree that the Bible alone is the rule for all that we do.

2. Credobaptism. Any church that I join must practice believer’s baptism. I will not join a church that does not practice baptism by immersion. Sprinkling is not baptism. Baptism is, by definition, dipping someone under water. Baptism must be reserved for believers who have demonstrated a credible evidence of regeneration and who want to join the church and become part of the community of believers. They cannot baptize infants. They must baptize only believers.

3. Ministry to all ages. I need the church to minister to all ages, at least the ages of the people in my family. Since I have youth aged children, I need it to be a place where my youth aged children can live in community with other youth. I need it to be a community of believers where adults speak truth into children’s lives and show them what it means to live as an intentional disciple of Christ. I need the church to be intentional about preparing the youth biblically for a world that is hostile to Christian ideas. I don’t need it to be about parties, concerts, and amusement parks. I need it to be intentional and gospel driven. I need to it to be a church that understands the parents’ role in the youth’s lives but will alongside the parents in discipleship.

4. Expository Preaching. I believe that a church needs a steady diet of expository preaching. It is okay to depart from it on occasion but in general, expository preaching needs to be the practice of the preacher. It helps in preaching the full counsel of God and not just focusing on the favorite texts of the pastor. It also allows the text to drive the message rather than using a Bible verse for a launching pad to say whatever they want.

5. Welcomes workers. I hope that my next church would be open to having new people serve and minister in the area of their gifting. There are areas in which we could contribute to the ministry of the church but I need the church to be open to having new people get involved. I don’t want to be a part of the church that always goes to the same people to step in and minister.

6. Missions. I would hope that the church would have a biblical understanding of missions. But, if they don’t, it needs to be a church where the pastor is leading them to give financially to support missions. It should be a significant part of the budget, prayer, and preaching.  It should be a climate conducive to the church growing in this area.

7. Love in spirit and practice. Does the church have a sense of unity in spirit? Do they love on one another? Are they welcoming to visitors?

The answer to these should be a resounding “yes!” These are really the minimum of what I think should characterize a church that I join. There are several other traits that I think are important but are not must-haves such as high expectations and accountable church membership.  However, if the church is getting a steady diet of expository preaching, these other issues will eventually fall into place.

What are your thoughts?  What do you look for in a church?

Read Full Post »

I really enjoy listening to J. Warner Wallace and his podcast called Cold Case Christianity.  You can find him at Please Convince Me or Cold Case Christianity.  I enjoy apologetics and listening to thinkers reason about faith and cultural issues.  I was recently listening to J Warner Wallace discuss the issue of abortion with an atheist.  Wallace mentioned to the atheist that his objections to abortion were not based on the Bible but based on pure reason.

I understand that you can’t reason with an atheist using the Bible.  You must use reason.  However, as a Christian I believe that the foundation for our convictions must be the Bible and not reason.  Reason and logic are a reflection of God’s character and the order that He has created.  On the other hand the Scriptures are direct revelation from God.  As 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (ESV) says:

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

God’s Word is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, training in righteousness that we may be complete and equipped for good works.  How can we use anything else as the foundation for our convictions?  Only God’s Word is without error.  I agree that when we are in “arguments” with non-Christians we should use reason but that is not the foundation for our convictions.  It is what we use to convince others of the reasonableness of our positions.  God’s Word is His revelation to us and should be the foundation on which we stand.  Reason is a reflection of his character and we must use reason as we look to His Word and apply it.  We should use reason in the public square but may we never say that Scripture is not the foundation for our beliefs and convictions.

Read Full Post »

I have been noticing a very interesting phenomena in engineering known as biomimicry.  According to the Biomimicry Guild the definition of biomimicry is:

“Biomimicry is an innovation method that seeks sustainable solutions by emulating nature’s time-tested patterns and strategies—for example, a solar cell inspired by a leaf. The goal is to create products, processes, and policies—new ways of living—that are well-adapted to life on Earth over the long haul. Biomimicry follows life’s principles, such as build from the bottom up, self-assembly, optimize rather than maximize, use free energy, cross-pollinate, embrace diversity, adapt and evolve, use life-friendly materials and processes, engage in symbiotic relationships, and enhance the biosphere. By following these principles you can create products and processes that are well-adapted to life on Earth.”

One really interesting example of biomimicry I learned at ASME.org.  There is an article that explains how a Japanese engineer used biomimicry to eliminate the sonic boom caused by the Japanese bullet train.  When the bullet train emerges from a tunnel at 200 mph, it created a sonic boom.  Japanese engineer Eiji Nakatsu copied the beak of a kingfisher because this beak allows the bird to fly at high speeds into water without making much noise and creating only a small splash.  You can see the similarity in the pictures below.

biomimicry

Amazingly the sonic boom has been eradicated but the new design made the bullet train more energy efficient and allows it to travel at greater speeds.

Scientists will tell you that they are learning from nature’s millions of years of evolution.  Well, this is actually counter-intuitive.  I think this idea of biomimicry points to a creator rather than evolution.

First, engineers are copying from nature what phenomena already exist.  For example, would one say that the bullet train was the result of evolution?  No.  It took the hard work of engineers to design.  What is more complex: a bullet train or a kingfisher, a living animal?  I believe that the existence of complex life forms points to a creator.  The creator is the master-engineer and engineers like Nakatsu who use biomimicry are copying what the master-engineer already engineered.

Second, could the bullet train come into being by chance?  Even if all of the parts were put in a warehouse together what are the chances that someone could put the parts together to make a bullet train without drawings and instructions?  Furthermore, what are the chances of the the bullet train parts putting themselves together or by chance falling into place.  The thought is crazy.  How much crazier is it to think that the kingfisher came into being by chance by evolution over millions of years.

Third, some of the best engineers of our day are copying engineering feats found in nature.  Do we really believe that these feats are a result of chance?  If they are by chance, are our best engineers so dumb that they have to copy things that happened by chance rather than ideas that they can come up with on their own?  No, they are copying the work of a greater engineer — the creator God — who knows everything and to whom there is nothing new under the sun including engineering ideas.

So, biomimcry points to God.  God is the creator.  God is the master designer.  God is the greatest engineer.  It is his designs that the brightest engineers are copying.  May we give glory to God and not to dumb chance.

 

Read Full Post »

It seems that a common practice in American Evangelicalism is take a Bible verse, pluck it right out of its context, and make it mean what we want is if it is all about us.  We think that the Bible is about us.  It is most definitely for us but it is not primarily about us.  One verse that I hear taken out of context often is Matthew 18:20.

“For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Matthew 18:20)

I have had heard this verse used many times as evidence that God listens to us at prayer meeting — because there are multiple believers there — and where there are two are three gathered God is there among them.  Is this really what the verse means?  If this what the verse means, one must take the corollary to be true also: if there are not two or three gathered in His name, He is not there.  Do you agree with that?  I don’t think so.  This would mean that all that time Richard Wurmbrand was is solitary confinement in a Romanian communist prison, that God was not there.  This means that when I pray alone to God in my car driving to work, that God is not there.  I do not believe this — especially since God is omnipresent.  In John 15:5, Jesus says that if we abide in Christ that whatever we ask will be given to us.  He does not say that this is true — if 2 or 3 are gathered in His name.  The way many people interpret Matthew 18:20 does not square with the rest of Scripture.

As you look at the context of this verse, it is in a paragraph that is abut confronting a brother about his sin.  If the brother does not listen to you when you confront him about sin you eventually should escalate it to the church body and he should be treated as a tax collector.  Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.  He should be removed from the fellowship of the local church and we should pray for his restoration.

Let us be careful how we handle God’s Word.  Let us not make texts mean something that they don’t.

Read Full Post »