The Jesus Sensitive Church Review

If Jesus were on earth today where would he worship?  That is the intriguing question posed by Ron Auch and Dean Niforatos in their work The Jesus Sensitive Church: Would Jesus Worship Here? .  I received this book free from New Leaf Press to review. 

I actually received this book without much knowledge of it.  The title was compelling, and the central question was one the piqued my interest.  I was further interested by the fact that these men are of the Pentecostal faith.  I am not.  It is always interesting to here ecclesiological critiques from people of different denominational backgrounds. 

It is interesting that most of what you read in the first few chapters could have easily been taken out of a book from the Reformed community critical of the “seeker-sensitive” movement.  Chapter 2’s Give Them What They Want is a familiar sounding critique that is not exclusive to Pentecostalism.

I typically feel a great disconnect between myself and many of those in Pentecostalism.  Honestly, much of that is probably my own limited exposure (ala TBN).  I was shocked to hear these guys saying much the same thing that my own communities are saying. 

Then in chapter seven the Pentecostal beliefs begin to really thunder through the pages.  The first six chapters deconstruct the seeker-sensitive church.  Essentially they are saying that Jesus would not worship in a seeker-sensitive church. 

Well then, what type of church would Jesus worship in?  What they are really asking is—what type of church gathering will have the blessing of Almighty God.  Their answer?  One that is Spirit-filled, full-gospel believing, and baptized in the Spirit manifested through the speaking of tongues. 

The last six chapter are about the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” and that this is the mark that is missing in modern churches.  If you know me, then you know that I disagree.  Debating with Pentecostals is not the point of this review.  I’ll just simply say I disagree with this major thrust of the book—and leave it at that. 

So, since I won’t be following the advice to pursue “getting filled” what can a Jesus-loving Southern Baptist take from this book?  For one, even though I disagree with their application and interpretation of passages on the Spirit, I do agree that a de-emphasis on the Holy Spirit is rampant in churches.  This book can be a wake up call to consider the Spirit in our ecclesiology. 

Also to be respected is their passion for holiness.  And I really do think that the author’s of this book have a deep love for Jesus and want to see Him glorified in churches and throughout the world.  Many of their critiques are spot on and there is much to commend here. 

However, at the end of the day I think this book falls into the same trap that many books of this type do.  That is the if you do ___ then God will do _____ formula.  They are not nearly as bad as many of the other books—because I don’t think they really are hoping to have mega-churches.  They want to be faithful to God.  But I think their underlying theological presuppositions necessitate this formulaic understanding.  In other words Pentecostalism stems from this very If I do ___, God does ____ formula. 

Would I recommend it?  Honestly, probably not.  I think if I were a Pentecostal then this book would be great and serve as a wonderful wake up call.  I hope the Lord uses it this way.  I hope God uses this book in Pentecostal churches to call the people to get back to the Scriptures, pursue holiness, embrace the gospel, and surrender to Jesus and not to methodologies. 

But I would not suggest this book to those in my congregation because I fundamentally disagree with the last six chapters.  And where this book is strong I can find other books that are also strong and do not end at the Pentecostal conclusion. 

But that’s my take, you can check it out yourself: The Jesus Sensitive Church: Would Jesus Worship Here? You can buy it used at Amazon for less than a buck.  It’s pretty well-written and is an easy read.

Rating 2.5 out of 5 Stars

Concerns with House Church

Aaron Menikoff has voiced some of my concerns with the house church movement. 

My desire is that these house churches be, in fact, churches. Whether the pastor is seminary-educated is not the point. Is the "church" led by a man or men who meet the biblical qualifications of an elder? Is the Word of God clearly taught week in and week out? Are the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper regularly celebrated? Is there a careful accounting of who is "in" the church by virtue of repentance and faith and who is "outside" the church by virtue of unbelief.

If you do comment, I encourage you not to necessarily comment on the “led by a man” section.  If this is a discussion I would prefer this to be about the ecclessiology itself and not the gender debates.

Review of The Reformation of the Church by Iain Murray

Author: ed. Iain Murray

Pages: 416 pages

Publisher: Banner of Truth

Price: 17.00/used ~3.00

Genre: Church History/Biography

Quick Summary:

The subtitle of this work tells the story: A collection of Reformed and Puritan documents on Church Issues. The Reformation had an impact on more than just the doctrine of justification. The implications of the Reformation where felt all throughout Christendom on matters of church issues as well. During the 16^th and 17^th century ecclesiology was a hot-button issue. It was, in part, what divided Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others. It was, in part, what drove the Puritans. Iain Murray hopes in this volume to recover some of these issues and teach lessons for the church today.

What I Liked:

Iain Murray is probably my favorite biographer/historian. He writes in a compelling fashion that makes you feel as if you are there with the people in the story and are forced to make some of the decisions that they are forced to make. It may seem foolish that people would go to prison over preaching attire but to many of these Reformers the gospel was at stake in manners of ecclesiology. That which Murray has compiled helped me realize a side to the Reformation that I have never considered before.

Murray’s notes are helpful and he also draws from sources that most people are unfamiliar with. This book is a great learning experience, especially for a Southern Baptist like myself.

What I Disliked:

I would love to see an updated version of this. Not much has changed since its first publication in 1965. I also wonder if it would also be possible to have a “reader’s digest version” of this great work. I love to read and am decently trained in reading literature from this time period, yet it was often difficult for me to wade through. There is so much great information in this book and lots to consider but I think it gets lost in the wordiness. There is, sadly, a reason why few people have heard of this work by such a great like Iain Murray.

Should You Buy It?

If you like history, you like Reformation, and you are fairly experienced in reading the Puritans then you will enjoy this book. You can get it used for around 3.00 at Amazon . It’s worth a shot. Just reading the section on church unity would be worth the 3 bucks. It caused me to think deeply on issues I’ve never thought about. But if you are not accustomed to reading literature from this time period this is probably not the place to start. There are other great books on ecclesiology (check out anything by 9Marks) that sum up some of these issues without the 17^th century wording.

Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

What qualifies someone to speak for God and His Word?

Recently there has been a debate in the blogosphere concerning Tim Challies new book. The debate is not about the book itself, but rather the qualifications of its author. I have no intent to enter the debate itself. My only intent is to attempt an answer to the core question that has been raised; "what qualifies someone to speak for God and His Word?" If you want more information on this discussion then you can see where it originated at JT's blog, or see Challies response on his blog.

Before we can go any further I believe we must change one word in the question to reach the central question. "What" should be changed to "Who". It is not a "what" that qualifies men to speak for God but a "Who". If we spend our time on the periphery "what", then I believe we will miss the biblical answer. First, we must discover "Who" qualifies men to speak for God and His Word, then we can begin asking questions about the "what".

As I set out to answer this question what I found was one prominent thing; God alone qualifies men to speak for Him and His Word. Who qualified Moses to speak for God? (Exodus 3-4) Who qualified Samuel to speak God's Word? (1 Samuel 3) How does Nathan have the authority to rebuke King David? Who qualifies Him to speak? (2 Samuel 12:1) Who qualifies such prophets as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel? (Jeremiah 1, Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 2) Who qualifies every other prophet to speak? The answer to all of the above questions is God Himself.

This is not only found in the Old Testament but also the New. We see this clearly in 2 Corinthians 3. Paul is asking the Corinthians, "do we need letters of recommendation?" Then it is as if he says, "you know our ministry, you have experienced what God has done, it speaks for itself, you know that we are qualified." But just to make it clear he lets them know where their authority comes from. He answers our question: Paul, "who has qualified you to speak for God and His Word?" His answer: "Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

Much of the dialogue in John 5-10 is in response to this very question. What makes Jesus think that he has the right to speak for God and His Word? What qualifies you to say and do such things, Jesus? Jesus continues to point to the Father as His source of authority: "I have come in my Father's name...My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me...I have not come of my own accord..." Now certainly Jesus is God so his situation and authority is different than ours. We do not have inherent authority, Jesus did. But, it is significant that He still points to the Father as the one that "qualifies Him" to speak for God and His Word.

This does not fully answer the question asked though. Very few people would say that our authority does not come from God. The question before us then is this: "How do we know whether or not God has qualified someone to speak for Him and His Word"?

Do we look at the qualifications for an elder and say, "only men with these qualities can speak for God"? Do we consult the local church, and say, "those set apart by the local church, they alone can speak for God"? Do we test the fruits of that which is said, and by the fruit discern whether it is from God? Or is it possible that it is a combination of these?

I can understand the concerned motivation behind this question. American Christianity is a breeding grounds for "thus-saith-the Lord" heresy. Just a few days ago I linked to Pat Robertson's New Year's predictions. Is Pat Robertson qualified to make such a statement? He is an ordained minister. At some point a local church has set him apart as a messenger of God. He has degrees. He has qualifications. But do we see fruit? Do his predictions come true?

Can we say that Joel Osteen preaches the word of God? How do we know John MacArthur preaches God's Word? What about John Piper? What about myself on a Wednesday night? How do we know whether or not God has sovereignly chosen to speak through someone or not? That is a profound question. It may just take a 208 page book to even begin discovering how to be more discerning in these matters. In brief I want to offer two suggestions on how we can discern whether the message is from God or not.

The first comes from 1 John. "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error"

It would take an entire sermon (and much more) to fully exposit this text. For now I want to show three things that help us to see whether it is from God or not. How do you know if God has sovereignly decided to speak through someone?

1) If they have an accurate Christology as clearly revealed in Scripture then perhaps it is from God.
2) If their teaching sounds like the world, then it is not from God. (This is where the Osteen's and prosperity teachers fall off). If their teaching matches up to what is revealed in Scripture then it should be received.
3) What do trusted believers say concerning the matter? Since the Holy Spirit dwells in believers and he confirms truth, what is the consensus of godly men. Since this one is the most subjective it is the most unreliable, but still should be strongly considered. Ultimately our trust in discerning these matters should be in the Lord.

The second suggestion comes from Jeremiah Burroughs. A recent reprint of some of Burroughs' sermons entitled Gospel Fear might give us an answer. After discussing our need to tremble at God's Word (and Burroughs includes in that the preaching of that Word) he pauses to address an objection. "...we will fear the Word of God; but is everything that a minister speaks the Word of God? If we were sure that it was God's Word, then we would yield unto it. But we know that one man is of one opinion and another is of another opinion." In other words, how do we know whether it is God's Word? Burroughs answer is beautiful and very fitting for our current discussion:

When anything comes in God's name, do not slightly cast it off, but try it and examine it...So do not lightly cast off that which comes in the name of God, but yield so far unto it as to examine it. Search the Scriptures; test whether it is according to the divine rule or not. I know a gentleman who, when he came home once from a sermon, said, 'Well, if it is true what this minister says, we are in an ill case'. Now woe to that man whose chief comfort lies upon this false ground, that he hopes that which he hears out of the Word is not the Word. Oh, that man is in a miserable case who has no other ground for his comfort" Gospel Fear, p23

Burroughs then offers two suggestions for those that are poor and ignorant. First of all be willing to yield to what you know. Secondly, get alone and cry to God, and ask the Lord that he would make His Word known to you.

In sum, what (or rather who) qualifies someone to speak for God and His Word? It is God alone. But, how can we know whether or not God has sovereignly chosen to speak through someone? We should not slightly cast it off if it comes in God's name but we should test it. There is something to be said for the local church standing behind a man. But they can be wrong (either positively or negatively). There is something to be said for elders being the primary teachers. But certainly God can speak through laity (He even chose to speak through a donkey). But ultimately, we must rely upon the Lord and His Spirit to help us discern whether or not it is God's Word. God is sovereign and the Spirit inside us will help us discern His truth.

Perhaps this adds little to the conversation, but may God be glorified.