Don’t Go There, Man!

I’ll just come out and say it. Scripture can be really confusing.

Not only is it confusing because I’m a Western-whitey that speaks English instead of Greek and I live in an age when a Camel is a cigarette instead of a ride to town or an uncomfortable shirt; but it is also confusing because Scripture is just flat out difficult. Hence thousands of years of disagreement over the sacred text.

Part of this is because each side of an argument usually has a litany of valid Scriptures to back up their point. And that’s actually a good thing. Here is what I mean…
I picture biblical truth like a narrow road with massive canyons on each side. So long as we’re on the road its not terrible for us to lean towards one of the ditches. After all, we’re human. We’re dust, we aren’t yet fully redeemed. Therefore it’s not surprising that we’ll have a tendency to lean away from the middle of the road. Not to mention that certain seasons often require a greater emphasis of biblical truth.

Thankfully, though, on each side of the road are massive stop signs that boldly say, “Don’t go there, man!” If you ignore the sign, cross that line, and then fall into the canyon then we’ve got a problem. Scripture provides those stop signs to help believers know where a certain doctrine—and usually its implications—are supposed to stop.

Example:

12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

One person focuses on verse 13 and notes that it is God who works within us to work out our salvation. As he leans this way and emphasizes certain parts of this truth he gets awfully close to the canyon of passivity. To wake him from slumber a loud siren and bright red stop sign screams out, “work out your salvation with fear and trembling”.

Another person focuses on verse 12 and notes that we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. As she leans this way and emphasizes certain parts of this truth she gets awfully close to the canyon of works-based righteousness. To wake her from slumber a loud siren and bright red stop sign screams out, “for it is God who works in you…”

There is help for everyone in Philippians 2:12-13. To the one wracked with guilt because she has fearfully and in trembling tried to work out her salvation but has fell flat on her face, there is balm in verse 13—”God is still working! Get up. Get back to work. He’s not going to let you fall”. To the guy withering in passivity verse 12 lights a fire under his comfort and drives him to cry out to Christ for change.

That’s only one example of many. There are many supposed contradictions in Scripture that are actually beauties to behold instead of questions to be answered. Let’s be sure to walk in the beauty of truth, finding unity somewhere on the road of grace, always heeding the signals that we’ve went too far in our lean.

5 Reasons a Calvinism Discussion Doesn’t Matter

Earlier today I explained why this discussion on Calvinism matters. Now I’m going to explain in what way this discussion doesn’t matter and why I wish we’d spend our efforts elsewhere. Apparently 5 points are really helpful for discussion…so in honor of all the problems those five points have caused…here are 5 reasons why this Calvinism discussion doesn’t matter.

Truth is the Spirit’s job

I don’t need to be the truth police. I cannot change someone’s heart and make them embrace the truth. All I can do is present the truth as I see it in Scripture and leave it up to the work of the Spirit. It’s not my job to beat truth into someone’s head. Besides there is a decent chance that I’m wrong myself. There are likely doctrines of which I hold (yes even important ones) of which I’ll need to repent of no more than 5 minutes after entering into heaven.

If I really believe that leading brothers and sisters into all truth is the Spirit’s job it changes the way that I interact with them. John Newton is instructive here. When explaining his position on election and perseverance he said, “If you should accede to my opinions upon my persuasion only, you would be little benefited by the exchange”. Newton knew that what really mattered was the Spirit’s work upon the man to whom he was speaking. And it made him humbly present his position, love the man, and leave the results of the discussion up to the Lord.

Unity and love are more important

I love doctrine as much as the next guy. But I’m becoming increasingly convinced that love and unity are more important. Yes I believe that the fuel for love is doctrine. But I also believe that when Jesus was praying for us his central concern was that we be united and show love for one another. And this not merely in talk but in actually loving sinners like ourselves.

These discussions serve as a great barometer of our hearts. I agree with Newton that there is a “principle of self, which disposes us to despise those who differ from us; and we are often under its influence, when we think we are only showing a becoming zeal in the cause of God”. If in the midst of our differences love and unity flow out, then we know that gospel is gaining ground over self.

Lengthy debates are seldom helpful

Seldom do lengthy debates lead to the fruit that we desire. Even if a few people are won to a right position a good number of people are slain in the crossfire. I do see Jesus and Paul reasoning with people and even engaging in debate. Yet I never see them drawn out. (Perhaps because they entrusted the work to the Spirit).

Again I turn to Newton:

We may become wise in notions, and so far masters of a system, or scheme of doctrine, as to be able to argue, object, and fight, in favor of our own hypothesis, by dint of application, and natural abilities; but we rightly understand what we say, and whereof we affirm, no farther than we have a spiritual perception of it wrought in our hearts by the power of the Holy Ghost. It is not, therefore, by noisy disputation, but by humble waiting upon God in prayer, and a careful persual of his holy word, that we are to expect a satisfactory, experimental, and efficacious knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus.

I like to share my position from Scripture and maybe stick around for a few questions. But I’ve never found great fruit come from lengthy debates on an issue. If it gets overly heated I can’t just chalk it up to a “I’m just really passionate about this”. I know that it’s the flesh that’s warring (no matter what side of the aisle) and I know that this zeal isn’t from the Lord.

Implications matter but aren’t central

I like what Charles Simeon said to John Wesley. After outlining the things of which they agreed Simeon said this to Wesley:

Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things where in we agree.

Yes, Calvinism will have certain implications for ministry and living the Christian life that those of a different persuasion will not approve of. The same is true vice versa. These matter. See my post on why Calvinism discussions matter. Yet at the end of the day the implications are not central.

Usually after a couple salient points these conversations degenerate into ridiculous but/if scenarios. Most of the discussion is on implications. “If we embrace this, then…” While some of these might even be true they aren’t central nor is it helpful to any sort of discussion.

Points of which we contend aren’t what the church needs

As I see it the major points of contention are not central to the gospel. Yes there are HUGE implications that come from what you believe on these issues. But they aren’t central and in many instances they aren’t even secondary matters.

Here are some of the major issues that I see:

• Can I tell a lost person that Jesus died for them? While I understand this question and what is behind it, I don’t see why it matters. The scriptural accounts of someone sharing the good news of the risen Christ are pretty simple. They share the claims of Jesus and then say therefore, repent and believe the gospel. “For whom did Christ die?” doesn’t matter when it comes to sharing the gospel.
• What did we inherit from Adam? Again this has quite a few implications. But allow me to ask a couple of questions. Are all men guilty now? So why does it matter so much to debate this? What about babies? Let’s be honest at the end of the day anything that we construct is exegetically flimsy. The best we have is that the judge of the earth will do what is right. That leaves a ton of comfort for me because I know that God is good. 
• Which came first regeneration or faith? Once again several implications from this. But does it really matter? Are there scores of people walking out there that aren’t regenerate but who have faith? Nope. Are there scores of people that don’t have faith but might be regenerate? Even if a Calvinist says yes, won’t this person then have faith? So, why does it matter? Aren’t these really inseparable graces? Are we really going to divide or debate over which inseparable grace came first?
• Are people saved because God foreknew them or because God foreknew they would choose God? Several implications to this one. But at the end of the day do you say that God saves sinners? If you do then perhaps we’re just debating about an eternal decree.

Even if we solved each of these issues and came to an agreement on them I’m not certain that all of our churches would be transformed. What we really need are passionate worshippers of Jesus that obediently live out the truth that they do know. By and large we have an obedience problem far more than we have a doctrinal unity problem. And I believe the sinful way that this discussion is often carried out is evidence of that.

What will transform our churches is a robust gospel of a holy God that is wholly other that has purposed to save sinners. Obedience to that gospel will revolutionize our churches. Falling in love with this Jesus will cause us to boldly proclaim the gospel in the dark places of our world. This same thing will create in believers a heart that treasures Christ more than the lures of the world. And we’ll be about the business of making disciples as the Great Commission compels us AND loving God and others as the Great Commandment exhorts us. 

This is what we need. Not another lengthy argument.

How I’d Destroy a Church

If you desired to destroy a local church how would you go about doing it?

Obviously I am not talking about the building itself, nor do I mean destroy it as an outsider.  If you recently joined a relatively healthy local church, with the intention of destroying it within 3-5 years, what steps would you take to accomplish this task?

Here is how I would do it:

I would spend the first year or so building good relationships with a diverse number of people.  My goal would be discovering what the church is most passionate about.  During this time I will “become all things to all people” so as to destroy the whole lot. Their passions would become my passions. With such passion it shouldn’t be difficult to move into a leadership position, like teaching a Sunday school class. 

With my new Sunday school class I will begin by digging into the really tough topics. We will lead our class through seeing what the Bible says about them. During this time I will focus on minor things as if they are major things. The gospel will be assumed. My goal will be to get people’s eyes off of the gospel and the kingdom of God and onto these “important issues”.

Just as in any church there will be natural differences of opinion within the body of Christ. I will devote my energy to exploiting these differences. In time I will lead people to view these different expressions as unfaithfulness instead of simply differences of opinion or personality.

When I spend one-on-one time with people I use all my charm to convince them that I am on their side in these “important issues”. It doesn’t matter what side I really take on these important issues so long as I can breed factionalism I have succeeded.
 
People should begin falling into certain camps. (Even if one of the camps is to be disinterested in the “issues”). Once this happens I will find an opportunity to express my grief at all of the disunity within the church. I will now make a major issue about all of the disunity within the body, thus taking peoples eyes off of Christ and firmly fixing them on one another. We will even begin prayer meetings to start praying for God to help us with our disunity. I will do everything I can to get the pastor to start preaching on unity. I’ll even come up with a 5 step plan to resolve our “unity problem”.

After being there for about 3 years I should be a respected leader in the church.  My brokenness over the disunity would make it obvious that I care deeply about the church and the people.  At this point I could move into the final stage of my plan.

I will donate a large amount of money anonymously and I will be certain not to designate it.  The only stipulation will be that the money must be used to advance the ministry of the church, and it must be used in full within the next two years.

Because of all the “disunity” in the church every suggestion for using the money will be met with suspicion. Whenever people disagree on how to spend the money (as they likely will) they will be accused of “furthering disunity”. The church should split into several groups.

Hopefully, each faction will think themselves the godly ones.  This means that anyone that opposes them are the ungodly ones.  The decision has to be made on where to spend the money, and one group has to win this decision.  But, regardless of the decision one group will consider it ungodly.  Who wants to stay in an ungodly church anyways?

I’ll probably try to stay neutral and “godly” in this whole discussion.  I will make it known how broken hearted I am by this disunity.  When the decision comes down on where to spend the money, I will lead the charge of leaving this ungodly place.  Not even because of the decision but because of the way that everything was handled.  That should successfully take all of my “godly” followers with me and those on the losing side should leave too.  That which the winning side spent the money on will now become their makeshift savior and they will slowly fade away into idolatry.

That’s my rather long answer.  What is yours?

Oh, and by the way this does have a point…

---

Originally posted here.

The Church: Bringing Weird People Together Since AD 33

I think I saw a rather crude T-shirt once about beer causing ugly people to hook up since some certain date. Sadly that is probably true. But I want to use that phrase (not the hooking up part) to talk about the church.

Did you know that one of the greatest ways that you can display the worth of Jesus is by living life together with others? When churches fight and split over petty squabbles they communicate that carpet color is more important than Jesus. Or that clock positions are more vital than our position in the kingdom of Christ.

There is a little illustration that I have used a few times before with a magnet when speaking to various groups. All it requires is a magnet, a few paper clips, and a sense of humor. Since I can gather up two of the three I usually give it a go. And because you are probably funnier than I am I thought perhaps you could use this illustration.

The Magnet Illustration

I begin by discussing the diversity within the early disciples. I talk a little bit about Simon the Zealot (the guy who hated Rome) and Matthew the tax collector (the guy who sold out to Rome). I attempt to show how these two would have been like the Hatfield’s and the McCoy’s. Then I explain how their unity in Jesus trumps their disunity. When they are transformed in Christ it transforms all of their relationships.

Then I note that this can be illustrated with a magnet and three paper clips. I try to get three different looking paper clips. I pick up one paper clip and tell his story. I talk about all of his likes and dislikes. I usually make him an old curmudgeon named Clem. Then I use the magnet and talk about Christ (the magnet) drawing Clem to himself.

Then I pick up my second paper clip. I talk about all of her likes and dislikes. I usually name her something like Wanda (because seldom do I have someone say, “Hey! My name is Wanda!). I share her likes and dislikes. All of these usually has to do with audience that I am speaking to. I try to magnify some of the differences of opinion that are likely in the group. I highlight age differences and try to caricature them so as not to make it seem like a punch to the throat but a friendly slap on the back. After discussing Wanda I then talk about her being drawn into fellowship with Jesus.

Finally, I’ve got my third paper clip which is usually my hip teenager or some other age of young whippersnapper. I make fun of him just like the others. I share his likes and dislikes. And then I talk about his being drawn into a relationship with Jesus.

I then hold up the magnet and note that these paper clips are not only drawn into fellowship with Jesus. They are in fellowship with one another--intimate and vital fellowship with one another. The second you try to remove yourself from union with one of these other paper clips you’ve removed yourself from the fellowship of the magnet as well. This is why our relationship with other believers is one of vital community.

Displaying the Power of the Magnet

That is simply an illustration to show the necessity of living life together. I usually also include a point about displaying the worth of Jesus by our unity with one another. When Clem, Wanda, and whatever I name the youngin’ lay down their differences for the sake of actually partnering for the sake of the gospel it displays the power of the gospel of Jesus. It communicates that Christ is more precious than whatever would keep us apart.

The church, bought with the blood of Christ, is the means that Jesus uses to draw really weird people into intimate fellowship. And he’s been doing it since around AD 33. Don’t forget that the next time you have a little squabble over living out life in the magnet. You’re still unique but you have something far greater than your own uniqueness that defines you; namely, the powerful Christ.

---

I don’t think that I have seen this illustration anywhere nor have I read of it anywhere. However, it is possible that somehow it slipped in through my skull at some point and lodged itself in there without my knowing it’s origin. If you have used this illustration and I stole it from you, I apologize. I know that the tweaks to it are original with me…but the use of the magnet and paper clips may not be—but I think it is.

Unity and Our Ultimate Goal

And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk.
(Mark 12:13 ESV)

That’s like saying, “And they sent to him a group of Red Sox fans and Yankees fans”.  Or if your the more political type, “they sent to him a group of Tea Party Conservatives and liberal Democrats.”  You don’t normally see these two parties together.  Yet two groups of people can surprisingly get along if they have a common goal or passion that outweighs the passion by which they are in disagreement.  (Consider Simon the Zealot and Levi the tax collector). 

But is this true unity? 

Allow me to ask this question a different way.  Let’s imagine that Red Sox fans and Yankee fans gather together for the noble cause of raising 1 billion dollars to preserve the duck-billed platypus.It is amazing to see these two communities come together for all the charity events.  The hate and vitriol between these two lengthy rivals is toned down.  They have a much greater end in mind; namely, preserving that cute little platypus. 

Months go by and finally they have raised their 1 billion dollars.  What happens, though, when baseball season rolls around and they no longer have this platypus thing to worry about?  Are they now friends?  Of course not.  They are no longer united because the goal that had united them was only a temporary goal and not an eternal goal. 

How this relates to the church (particularly the SBC)

That begs a question for the church—and more specifically for the SBC.  What is our uniting factor?  Is it something that is eternal or is it merely temporary?  Do we have an eternal end or a temporary end?

The ultimate goal for the church (SBC) relates to the overarching mission and story of God.  He is, as Piper as so aptly said, “filling the earth with his glory by rooting out of his kingdom all sin and unbelief, and filling it with [passionate] worshipers from every people, tongue, tribe, and nation.”  Our church tweaks that a little by saying “we are a church united to enjoy God’s grace and to extend His glory”. 

If we are united around this, which is eternal, then our experience of unity will not be as fragile. 

I would like to encourage you to do something either here in the comments or in your own time on your own sheets of paper.  Make a list of the things that “unite” your church and/or the SBC.  Perhaps even consider things in our history (the issue of slavery, the Conservative Resurgence, etc.)  Which of these are eternal?  Which of these are temporary? 

Tomorrow I want to look at muddying the waters with a-theological unity. 

The Source and Importance of Unity

In Philippians 1:27 Paul exhorts them to “only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ”.  It would make little sense for him to be saying “live in such a way that you earn what Christ has purchased”.  Instead what he is saying is “live in such a way that you accurately display the worth of the gospel of Christ”. 

It’s interesting then how he expounds on that exhortation.  What he mostly speaks of in the next 3 verses is unity around the gospel and suffering for the sake of Christ.  If you really think about it though it’s not all that surprising that unity and suffering would display the worth of the gospel of Christ.

Consider Jesus’ early disciples. 

One follower of Jesus was Simon the Zealot.  A Zealot was a member of a Jewish sect that refused to pay tribute to those dirty Romans.  Zealots abhorred the fact that many of their people were selling out to Rome.  Eventually this led to an assassination attempt against not only Roman leaders but also any Jews that cooperated with these pagans. 

Another follower of Jesus was Matthew/Levi the tax collector.  A tax collector was the definition of a sell out to Rome.  They not only paid taxes to Rome they actually partnered with them in collecting the taxes.  And most, of course, took opportunities to pocket a little of theses taxes for themselves.  Tax collectors stole from their own people. 

Before Christ if you would have ran into Simon the Zealot and Levi the tax collector on the streets you probably would have had to break up a fist fight—or maybe worse.  These dudes would not have gotten along.  For one man what drove him was Jewish nationality.  For the other man what drove him was a dollar and if that meant getting it from Rome then so be it. 

But look at what the gospel does.

Simon the Zealot (who probably still carried a deep flame of patriotism) is now eating meals with the once sell-out Levi (who probably still felt a little sympathy for Rome).  What happened that made Simon and Levi ministry partners?  The gospel of Christ became more valuable to Simon than his nationalism and more important to Levi than his money. 

We communicate the value of the gospel by not only our response to suffering but by our unity with one another.  When issues like Calvinism/Traditionalism, shag/berber carpet, premillenial/amillenial/postmillenial, Democrat/Republican, Yankees fan/having a soul, dominate our time, conversations, and ministry we are communicating that these issues are more valuable than the gospel. 

Disunity that comes from non-essential (gospel-centered) things proves that something higher than Jesus has hold of our affections.  That also means that the way out of disunity is not to continuously cry, “Unity, unity, unity” but instead it is to raise our affections for Christ.  It’s as A.W. Tozer rightly said years ago:

“Has it ever occurred to you that one hundred pianos all tuned to the same fork are automatically tuned to each other? They are of one accord by being tuned, not to each other, but to another standard to which each one must individually bow. So one hundred worshipers [meeting] together, each one looking away to Christ, are in heart nearer to each other than they could possibly be, were they to become 'unity' conscious and turn their eyes away from God to strive for closer fellowship.

What does your unity/disunity say about your affections for Christ and His gospel?  Are you accurately displaying the worth of the gospel of Christ by the way that you interact with brothers and sisters in Christ?  Or are you displaying that something else is more valuable and has a hold on your heart?

Proverbs for Christian Blogging: Am I Sowing Discord?

    A worthless person, a wicked man,
        goes about with crooked speech,
    winks with his eyes, signals with his feet,
        points with his finger,
    with perverted heart devises evil,
        continually sowing discord;
    therefore calamity will come upon him suddenly;
        in a moment he will be broken beyond healing.
    There are six things that the LORD hates,
        seven that are an abomination to him:
    haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
        and hands that shed innocent blood,
    a heart that devises wicked plans,
        feet that make haste to run to evil,
    a false witness who breathes out lies,
        and one who sows discord among brothers.
(Proverbs 6:12-19 ESV)

A wise husband studies and knows his wife.  He knows the things that she may be sensitive to.  He knows what “pushes her buttons” and he comes to know the things that would make her shed tears.  A good husband knows these things and does not do them.  He doesn’t just carelessly say, “Ah, this might hurt her feelings but oh well, it’s funny, it’ll get a laugh from the guys”.  No, a good husband doesn’t even take the chance.

One of the things that the Lord says that he abhors is “sowing discord among brothers”.  Notice in the list the six things he hates, seven that are an abomination.  This is a poetic way of highlighting the Lord’s hatred of one sowing discord among brothers.  Of course that begs a question, “what constitutes sowing discord”? 

From the context we know that this discord comes from a wicked heart that manifests itself in crooked speech.  The idea of one “going about, winking, signaling, and pointing” shows that this person has his aim to cause conflict, to exploit situations, and to gain personal advantage*. 

Just as I know my wife and want to be cautious and I never desire to cause her harm, so also I know that the LORD abhors the one who sows discord among brothers.  I want to be cautious not to be that guy.  I can probably cut out a good deal of discord sowing just by checking my heart before I blog or comment.  But at the end of the day I also know that my heart can be fooled.  So I ask three questions before writing an article that could be in the ballpark of sowing discord among brothers.

Three Questions for Articles I Write:

1. Is my goal to expose or shame a brother?  If we are talking exposing a wolf, then it’s not sowing discord.  Some people might be upset and accuse me of sowing discord because I say that the teaching of prosperity teachers is whack and that they are wolves in sheep clothing.  That’s not exposing a brother that’s telling your sheep to watch out for a wolf.  But there is a different type of “exposing” that goes on in some popular blogs.  They follow a typical formula.  Person X said “blah blah” but I’m not sure that he really believes that because he also said “blah blah”.  If I’m trying to expose some vast conspiracy or the heart and motivation of another person I’m probably off my rocker.
2. Am I trying to make my audience pick sides between two polarizing people?  I think I have at least bordered on guilt in this one in the past.  If I say something like John Piper teaches X, Joel Osteen teaches Y, and then ask who is more biblical?  I think I’m sowing discord.  If my goal is to say that Piper is biblical then I should just say that and not use the article to take a shot at Osteen.  If I think Osteen is teaching something against Scripture then I should compare him to Scripture alone and not throw Piper in there as well.  Because at the end of the day all that does is creates Piper followers and Osteen haters (or vice versa) and that’s not the goal. 
3. Am I misrepresenting somebody?  If I say that somebody believes something then I should be able to print off my article, hand it to them, and have them say, “yep, that’s what I believe”.  If I make logical jumps, inferences, etc. and say this is what you really believe no matter how many times he disagrees with what I think he said then I’m sowing discord because I’m causing a headache for a guy that doesn’t even hold a position that I am accusing him of. 

Three Questions for Commenting:

1. Am I engaging in a “dude did you see this?”  If I find an article of somebody dogging my friend, or another figure, its pointless for me to go to his website and then link to the guy that disagrees with him.  It’s just sowing discord.  It’s really no different than in your everyday life if you overheard gossip and then told your friend, “dude, do you know what Tom said about you”. 
2. Would I say the same thing with both parties present?  If my story would change and the way I represent one persons position then I’m sowing discord.  If I am bold in trashing a guy behind his back but not when he is there I should shut my yapper and stop sowing seeds of discord. 
3. Am I encouraging the online community to pit people against people or people against Scripture?  This is very similar to #2 above just in the realm of commenting.  If an article disagrees with Piper then it might be best to summarize his point and tell why you think he is more biblically persuasive rather than just saying, “Piper disagrees”, then providing a link.

At the end of the day a deluded heart will probably read through this list and say, “I don’t do that”.  I have a discernment ministry and I’m always exposing wolves.  A more humble heart will read through these and add caution to his/her blogging and commenting.  For me, if God says He abhors one who sows discord among brothers I am going to be pretty cautious about doing anything that may look like sowing these seeds. 

---

*I got that from my ESV Study Bible

From the Pen of Newton: On Being a Consistent Protestant

According to John Newton, popery “has a very extensive sense”.  Newton believe that anyone that desired to confine another person to “follow his sentiments, whether to doctrine or order, is so far a papist”.  He then described a consistent thus:

Whoever encourages me to read the Scriptures, and to pray for the teaching of the Holy Spirit, and then will let me follow the life of the Lord gives me, without being angry with me because I cannot or will not see with his eyes, nor wear his shoes, is a consistent Protestant.

One of the reasons that I love John Newton so much is because of his gracious spirit and desire to see unity within the body.  He constantly strove to encourage believers of all stripes to “love one another, bear with one another, to avoid dispute; and if they must strive, to let their strife and emulation be who shall most express the life of the Son of God in their temper and conduct”. 

If we really believe the gospel and the unity that Christ has bought for us then we have no other option than to pursue the type of unity and mindset that Newton models and exhorts us towards.  Consistent Protestantism means that we believe in the priesthood of all believers and we believe that the Spirit guides others just as much as us.  It means that we humbly acknowledge that the Christ is Lord over their lives and not us or any other “vicar of Christ”. 

Church Destruction 101

If you desired to destroy a local church how would you go about doing it? 

Obviously I am not talking about the building itself, nor do I mean destroy it as an outsider.  If you recently joined a relatively healthy local church, with the intention of destroying it within 3-5 years, what steps would you take to accomplish this task?

I asked this question on Facebook yesterday and received a healthy dose of response.  Which I think speaks volumes for the truth that there are numerous ways that a church could be destroyed.  As I have thought through this I have decided how I would go about destroying a local church.

I would spend the first year or so building good relationships with a diverse number of people.  It would be my goal to discover the things that drive this church.  I would become all things to all people so that by any means I may destroy the whole lot.  Their passions would become my passions.  Slowly but surely I would move my way into leadership positions such as teaching a Sunday school class. 

As I begin my new Sunday school class I will be certain to dig into some really tough topics to see what the Bible says about them. I will focus on minor things as if they were major things.  At this stage I will be certain to assume the gospel.  My goal here will be to get people’s eyes off of the gospel and the kingdom of God and on to certain “important issues”.
There are natural differences within every local expression of the body of Christ.  I would devote my time to exploiting these differences as if they were expressions of unfaithfulness rather than simply differences of opinion and personality.  When I spend one on one time with people I will do everything I can to convince them I am on their side in these “important issues”.  Hopefully this will begin to breed factionalism. 

After I sense that people are falling into certain camps (even if one of the camps is to be disinterested in the “issues”) I would become “really grieved” by the disunity in this church.  We would make a major issue about the disunity within our body, thus taking peoples eyes off Christ and firmly fixing them on one another.  Prayer meetings would be set up to pray for unity.  The teaching would be geared around unity.  At business meetings I would suggest solutions to solving our unity problem. 

After being there for about 3 years I should be a respected leader in the church.  My brokenness over the disunity would make it obvious that I care deeply about the church and the people.  At this point I could move into the final stage of my plan. 

I will donate a large amount of money anonymously and I will be certain not to designate it.  Now every opposing suggestion for using the money will be thought as “furthering disunity” and the church should split into several different groups. 

Hopefully, each faction will think themselves the godly ones.  This means that anyone that opposes them are the ungodly ones.  The decision has to be made on where to spend the money, and one group has to win this decision.  But, regardless of the decision one group will consider it ungodly.  Who wants to stay in an ungodly church anyways?

I’ll probably try to stay neutral and “godly” in this whole discussion.  I will make it known how broken hearted I am by this disunity.  When the decision comes down on where to spend the money, I will lead the charge of leaving this ungodly place.  Not even because of the decision but because of the way that everything was handled.  That should successfully take all of my “godly” followers with me and those on the losing side should leave too.  That which the winning side spent the money on will now become their makeshift savior and they will slowly fade away into idolatry.

That’s my rather long answer.  What is yours?

Oh, and by the way this does have a point…

Why Christian Unity is Not as Simple as White People Loving Michael Bolton

Yesterday I posted a book review of The Cross.  Before posting these reviews I typically check out Amazon.com reviews to see whether I am totally off base in my opinion.  This is one instance were I would be the only one giving the book a 1 out of 5 stars.  If certain people read the review I will probably get much criticism for my review.  I will probably be labeled as unspiritual, hindering the Spirit, and criticizing “God’s man”. 

Apart from the shock of no other person agreeing with me on Amazon, something else caught my eye.  The only other person to give the book a 3 out of 5 is an unbeliever.  This person noted that all of the unbelievers she asked actually liked the book.  The only ones that offered criticism were those that were believers.  This of course is by unbelievers as a reason to not believe.  “You think you have the truth market cornered and yet you cannot agree with one another about simple things”.

This argument is appealing.  Partly because it has some truth.  Our love and unity is perhaps our most powerful apologetic (John 13:35).  But unity is not as simple as everyone with the name Christian gets along and loves one another.  To me this would be like saying Michael Bolton is a white guy, therefore all white guys have to like Michael Bolton.  Or better yet, Hitler was German, therefore, all German’s should get along with Hitler.  That is appalling, especially that part about Michael Bolton. 

Christianity unity is found in our union with Christ.  Christian unity is centered upon the truth in Christ.  Whenever you stray from truth you stray from Christ.  Whenever you stray from Christ you stray from unity with one another as well. 

Christians are in union with one another.  This unity means covering over a ton of junk with love.  But Christians are not in union with unbelievers or those merely professing Christ.  Furthermore, unity does not demand absolute conformity.  I can be in unity with Arthur Blessitt in as much as he loves Jesus and is centered on the Cross.  In every way in which he (or I for that matter) strays from the faith delivered we cannot be in unity. 

Unity Within Before Our Relationship with Those Outside

It is worth noting that in Ephesians 4 Paul focuses on unity within the body before he focuses on our relationship with those outside the body. Ephesians 4:1 serves as the introduction to the rest of the letter. Everything Paul says after this statement flows out of “living lives worthy of the calling by which we have been called.” The call of Ephesians 4:1 is to live in such a way that you accurately represent what God has done in your life. What he has done in principle we are to live in practice. 4:2-6:20 is what that statement looks like in practice.

In 4:2-16 Paul focuses on walking in unity. In 4:17-24 he focuses on walking differently than we once walked (or even in the present to walk differently than those outside the body). I do not think it is an accident that Paul focuses on relationships within before he focuses on our relationship with the outside world.

In other words, if you look different from the world but you aren’t in unity with your brothers and sisters in Christ then you aren’t really walking in a manner worthy of the calling. Jesus died to redeem our relationship with him but also to redeem our relationship with one another. Relationships and unity within the body is not an option.

Borrowed Light: Today in Blogworld 04/08-04/12

Timmy Brister has a short and succinct post on how to be a missionary at work.

I am pleased to inform you that the Reformed Mafia is back up and running. Not only that, but they have recruited a new writer: The Highland Host. Check out his first post on Monkeying with the Bible.

Last week Challies encouraged us to be accountable. Today he is encourging against being anonymous.

Phil Johnson continues discussing Acts 17 and contextualization.

John MacArthur lists eight ways that parents can provoke their children.

Carolyn and CJ Mahaney give practical advices to pastor's wives on how to deal with criticism of your husband.

On the heels of Together for the Gospel, Josh Harris, writing for New Attitude, delivers a great article on Unity in the Cross.

I have to get this CD:

(HT: Thinklings)