The Pyro Phil writes about reforming Evangelicalism (or not). A couple of quotes:

My strong suspicion is that the movement [evangelicalism] is well and truly dead, and we shouldn’t mistake the bloated and expanding size of its corpse, or its occasional spontaneous post-mortem twitches, for signs of real life.

What I am eager to see preserved and perpetuated are the sound, biblical ideas that sparked the evangelical and fundamentalist movements, not the corrupt cultures that ultimately overwhelmed them and led to their predictable demise.

The Pyromaniacs folks, namely Dan Phillips, have a great post up titled Things a pastor isn’t: The Minister. The subject is whether or not the pastor is the minister of the church, the one in the church expected to do ministry on behalf of the people.

This is one of my great struggles as I look for a church. It seems to me to be far too common, particularly in the smaller churches, that the pastor is the one expected to do all of the outward ministry of the church. He is the one that teaches and preaches. He is the one that does all the hospital visits. He is the one that goes to visit the shut-ins and the visitors. He is supposed to be the one reaching out to the lost. Etc, etc. Others might go with him from time to time but the pastor is the one expected to “do the work of the ministry.”

As Dan points out in his post, while the pastor does indeed participate in the ministry, his primary calling is not to “do ministry” so much as “equip the saints to do ministry”. That is, the pastor as a Christian does ministry as all the saints do ministry. The pastor as pastor is called to equip the saints to better minister. When a church has an expectation that the pastor will be doing more ministry than everyone else the church has a wrong view of ministry, the pastor’s calling, and their own calling as believers. If anything I believe the example in Scripture is of the body taking up more on the work so those called to preach and teach can focus their time on just that work. Consider how and why deacons were established. It was so the leaders of the church could focus on the ministry of the word – that is, teaching and preaching and spreading the gospel in a society that had not heard of Christ:

Acts 6:1-7

6:1 Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. 2 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. 3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. 6 These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.

7 And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith. (ESV)

Waiting tables is not slighted in the passage, the point is that the Twelve were not called to that work. Far from being expected to be the ones taking care of the physical needs of the body (I believe the work would include most of the things I listed above), a new class of people were established precisely to fill this function. Though it is not mentioned in this passage, it is widely recognized that the office of deacon is the one that carries out this task. In too many of our churches deacons equals leadership of the church. Deacons were never established as a leading body but as a serving body, ministering to the needs of the church so those called to teach and preach could focus on that work.

How does all of this play out in the church today? I’m not sure yet. But I pray God leads me to a church where the balance is healthily and properly established.

I’m not sure what this is from but it’s a great message. For a full sermon on Hell from Piper be sure and listen to his sermon The Echo and Insufficiency of Hell.

HT: Unashamed Workman

Today marks the fortieth anniversary of the release of the Humanae Vitae, the document from the Catholic church that prohibits the use of artificial contraception (as opposed to birth control by abstinence during fertile periods) in marriage. Joseph Bottum over at First Things has a great article on the document.

While I do not agree with the Catholic church that artificial contraception is always wrong I do believe it is far too common in society. We have turned sex into recreation and pregnancy is simply one of the possible consequences. Contraception helps us to avoid the consequence. I believe if more married couples followed the instructions of the Humanae Vitae some of the sacredness of marriage would return. Sex would not simply be recreation but a life-giving gift. Children might even be considered a blessing.

I more or less agree with the statement at Desiring God about birth control but I strongly feel that couples practicing artificial birth control should be the exception rather than the norm. Human life is sacred. How are we demonstrating this when our marriage practices seek to prevent new human life?

If you have not read the Humanae Vitae I recommend you do so. You will not agree with everything in the document but it offers a wonderful picture of marriage and family.

Request: If you read nothing else in this post, read the last quote from Jonathan Edwards at the bottom.

Pagitt’s book arrived in the mail and while I’m nowhere near ready with a review (have to read farther than the preface for that!) I wanted to post a few comments based on the editor’s note.

Pagitt’s book, A Christianity Worth Believing, has been published through a new series of books called A Living Way: Emergent Visions. Series editor Tony Jones included a forward in Pagitt’s book explaining the series. Here are a few snippets that demonstrate the kind of thinking at the heart of the emerging church:

New ways of being Christian, of being spiritual, of following God have bubbled up…

The problem being that there is nothing new under the sun. There are no new ways of being Christian, of following God. The way is the same as it’s always been. If the path one is following does not resemble the path of old one must ask whether or not he is moving in the right direction. But to be moving in the right direction you have to be headed to a destination. This could be a problem:

…it’s become clear that it is the conversation that matters, not the conclusion; the journey, not the destination.

We might not get anywhere, but at least we’re moving… Certainty, definiteness, firm ideas and a clear vision are things the emerging church tends to cringe away from. I am not even sure what it means to say the conversation, not the conclusion, matters. If you aren’t going somewhere you’ll never get anywhere. This is one reasons Christians are called to fix their eyes on Christ. He is our destination and getting to him is no nebulous journey filled with exploratory conversations and vague travels. He is the end we have in sight and he has already shown us the way to himself. That remains true in this age just as much as in any other.

Doug is an adopted son in the Christian family, and his lack of Christian heritage gives him an unconventional set of eyes and leads him to some unconventional conclusions. He is not beholden to many of the theologies and practices on which many of us were weaned.

In a movement that has done a great deal to throw off “traditional Christianity” someone coming from outside (is Doug really that much of an outsider? He has been “in” the church most of his life…) has certain appeal. In a movement already going away from orthodox Christianity people are all the more willing to respond favorably to someone who will try to once and for all replace the old with something new. Part of the problem is that this new thing isn’t drawn from a firm foundation but comes instead from the conversations of those who don’t believe we should be heading anywhere anyway.

As I read this book I will also be reading Jonathan Edward’s A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections, following Tim Challies’ Reading Classics Together venture. The two books will make an interesting mix. The following quotes come from the introduction of Edwards’ book and will be helpful to keep in mind as I read Pagitt:

It is by the mixture of counterfeit religion with true, not discerned and distinguished, that the devil has had his greatest advantage against the cause and kingdom of Christ, all along hitherto.

By this means he deceives great multitudes about the state of their souls; making them think they are something, when they are nothing; and so eternally undoes them; and not only so, but establishes many in a strong confidence of their eminent holiness, who are in God’s sight some of the vilest of hypocrites.

By this means he brings in even the friends of religion, insensibly to themselves, to do the work of enemies, by destroying religion in a far more effectual manner than open enemies can do, under a notion of advancing it.

And by what is seen of the terrible consequences of this counterfeit religion, when not distinguished from true religion, God’s people in general have their minds unhinged and unsettled in things of religion, and know not where to set their foot, or what to think or do; and many are brought into doubts, whether there be anything in religion; and heresy, and infidelity, and atheism greatly prevail.

I’ve been browsing through some info about Doug Pagitt’s new book A Christianity Worth Believing. I’ve ordered a copy and will post a review once I’ve dug through it. In the meantime I wanted to post a brief comment about something found on the Amazon review, coming from Publisher’s Weekly:

“Conservative critics will no doubt consider this Christianity subtly twisted out of recognition, but postmodern readers struggling with current expressions of faith will see love and hope.”

Odd choice of words. On the one hand you have conservative critics and on the other you have postmodern readers. On the one hand are negative, stodgy, old fashioned people who want to condemn this book and on the other hand are relevant, timely readers who want to consider facts and experience the bliss of love and hope.

Pagitt has posted several YouTube videos about the book. Between the snippet above and the videos below, reading the book should be quite the ride for an old conservative critic like me. But the book isn’t here yet so we will all have to wait and see.

“Those Christianities” get in the way of the kind of Christianity we want today? He is pursuing a Christianity that fits into the world he lives in. I pray that I’m pursuing God who shapes the world we live in.

Evidently people used to say that God lives up in Heaven but now we should say that God lives within and among. Why not return to the omnis and recognize God is everywhere? Early church heretics often failed to properly consider the humanity of Christ. Today’s heretics tend to go the opposite direction, dragging God down to a human (or subhuman!) level.

Pagitt subtly ridicules those who tried to help him understand Christianity. He puts aside what others gave him to help him make sense of Christianity (don’t miss the negative slant he puts on “making sense of Christianity”) and takes up instead… what? We’ll see once I read the book. I have some suspicions.

Amy tells us about the constant childlike connection all people have with God. People are already aware of their sin and it’s that awareness which keeps them from God. She’s right that we are never in a place of no return (in this life) but she is tragically wrong that we should stop focusing on sin separates us from God. We are separated from God, fully and completely, by our sin. The amazing thing is that God did not leave us there. The reason there is never a point of no return is because of what Christ did because of our sin. A few other things worth mention in this vid but I’ll move on.

As far as blatant opposition to truth this is the worst of the videos. Just watch it. But be seated. And try not to yell at the computer, it isn’t its fault. And you might scare the kids.

I don’t really believe that John Piper reads my blog, but the timing of his post is perfect… A few people have contacted me about my last blog entry so I am going back and thinking through it again, but here is Piper on the subject of God’s love and God’s glory.

Why It Matters That God Does Everything for His Own Glory

From the entry:

God loves us not in a way that makes us supreme, but makes himself supreme. Heaven will not be a hall of mirrors but an increasing vision of infinite greatness. Getting to heaven and finding that we are supreme would be the ultimate let down.

The greatest love makes sure that God does everything in such a way as to uphold and magnify his own supremacy so that when we get there we have something to increase our joy forever—God’s glory.

The blog Calvin and Calvinism offers a good quote from Louis Berkhof (no, I have no idea who he is) on the love of God for all:

(Brief aside: for a Calvinist discussion that touches on this, see John Piper’s article Are There Two Wills In God?)

When God calls the sinner to accept Christ by faith, He earnestly desires this; and when He promises those who repent and believe eternal life, His promise is dependable. This follows from the very nature, from the veracity, of God. It is blasphemous to think that God would be guilty of equivocation and deception, that He would say one thing and mean another, that He would earnestly plead with the sinner to repent and believe unto salvation, and at the same time not desire it in any sense of the word.

I recently commented at another blog that we cannot try and think of God’s love for us as we think of our love for each other. God’s love for us is the love of a supreme being for lesser beings he has created. God loves the people he has created, I think the Bible is clear on that. God also extends salvation to all people. But God is not ultimately motivated by his love for people. He is ultimately motivated with the will to preserve and promote his own glory. His love for humanity is beneath his jealousy for himself. Love is an aspect of his glory, it does not stand alongside his glory.

The Bible is filled with evidences of this. Whether deliverance or judgment, all is done for the glory of God. In 1 Samuel 12:22< Samuel tells the people that God, for the sake of his name, will not forsake the people: "For the Lord will not forsake his people, for his great name’s sake, because it has pleased the Lord to make you a people for himself.” Consider also Psalm 79:9: “Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of your name; deliver us, and atone for our sins, for your name’s sake!” Again in Psalm 115:1: “Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to your name give glory, for the sake of your steadfast love and your faithfulness!” Several times in Ezekiel we read something like, “But I acted for the sake of my name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations…” (Ezekiel 20:9)

The New Testament is much the same, filled with words about the glory of God and that all things are done for God’s glory.

God’s chief motivation is his glory, not his love for us. Thus it is no contradiction to say that God loves humanity and yet God permits – or perhaps even ordains – that some would suffer eternally.

This does not solve the question of whether God permits or whether he determines the damnation of sinners, it simply reframes the question. Most Christians agree that some people are saved and some are not and those who are not saved will go to Hell. The Calvinist who focuses on God’s glory says that God is glorified by sovereignly determining those to whom he would show his mercy and those to whom he would show his wrath (I realize a distinction exists between single- and double-predestination, I am not touching on that here). The non-Calvinist who focuses on God’s glory says that God is glorified by sovereignly enabling all people to respond to the gospel and then offering the gospel as a free gift which sinners can receive or reject.

I am still wrestling with how to answer that question: in which way has God established that he will receive glory? I would say that we need to be careful to ensure that our answer is shaped by Scripture, not by personal preference or inclination. This reminder is mostly to the non-Calvinist, I believe our natural inclination is to say that God is glorified by giving us the ability to respond freely to him. That this is our natural response does not mean it is wrong – nor does it mean it is right. We must see what the Bible says.

So what is the answer?

This is something of an off-the-cuff post about a topic that could use more careful, deliberate consideration.

I was reading a review of The Shack at USA Today (HT: Justin) when I came across the following:

McVey says Young connects with people outside of, or unhappy with, institutional churches that “tell us what we ought to do for God, while grace focuses on what God has already done. A person discovers grace when you come to the end of your own self-sufficiency and realize you have been made acceptable through Jesus Christ and him alone. You can’t score points with God.”

Institutional church is contrasted with grace. The institutional church tells us what we ought to do for God, while grace is what God has already done for us. I will ignore the part that makes grace sound like something you can discover within yourself. I am more interested in the contrast that is made, and the implication that grace does not require anything of the recipient.

Perhaps the person offering this description should be referred to Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s The Cost of Discipleship (I’ll bet you knew I was going to bring that up!) in which Bonhoeffer speaks of cheap grace versus costly grace.

There is no actual contrast to be made between displaying the grace of God and requiring obedience to God. Institutional churches are being faithful to the Bible itself when on the one hand they present the free gift of God through grace while on the other hand they show what God has required of man.

Hear what Bonhoeffer says:

Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of the church. We are fighting to-day for costly grace.

…

Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.

Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will gladly go and sell all that he has. It is the pearl of great price to buy which the merchant will sell all his goods. It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake a man will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble; it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows him.

Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock.

Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son: “ye were bought at a price,” and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon his Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered him up for us. Costly grace is the Incarnation of God.

Grace cost God his Son and grace costs us everything we are. We do not properly receive grace if we think it requires nothing of us. Our proper response to the grace of God is complete commitment to the will of God. Giving up of the self and pursuing God.

HT: This Bread Always