www.mybethelbaptist.com

Recently engaging with various individuals about church life. It seems to be a growing trend in American evangelical Christianity that is gravitating towards the “home church” model. House churches have always existed. In the beginning, it was necessary. Now it is optional. And with a new generation of “Emergent Christianity” the rise in people removing themselves from traditional Christian churches is inevitable.
Why are people dissatisfied with the traditional churches? Today there is an enormous pressure on pastors to grow churches. If your church is not large or if it doesnt offer the things you like, then there is something terribly wrong. If your church is not filled with programs and kids activities, then it is an abberation. And so with the ease of travel and more flavors than Baskin Robbins, it is no wonder people have flocked to “Mega Churches.”
Lets face it, church has become a place like a business. Churches must compete with larger churches or they shrivel up. A pastor friend in Cincinnati has to face the sad reality that many people in his community can hop on the interstate and drive north to Crossroads Community Church. At that church you can get “plugged into” a ginormous (pronounced ‘Jie-Nor-Mous’) list of programs. There is a live band that plays cool songs for a long time. there is a very relevant and inspiring message about how to cope with your problems. And the most important part, lots of people just like you.

But sometimes people just lose their taste for that “big-ness.” They want true fellowship and to keep things simple. So rather than return to the traditional churches, they stay home and have other believers come join them. You can have the Lord’s Supper around the breakfast table. A full bodied Cabernet for the adults and Oceanspray for the kids. Asiago-herb sourdough for the bread. Everyone can participate and there really isnt a leader (although inevitably there will be a leader).

There are many Christians in our community that are part of this movement. Some call it the ”Simple Church” some call it the “Organic Church” sometimes it is called the ”house church.” And there are various points on the scale. Some might have a “sermon” others might just sit around and talk about what Jesus means to them.

One thing is certain: these groups did not ”just happen.” Something has driven them to do this. If you ask them, they will say things like, “We wanted to return to the Acts model or return to the pure church model.” The problem is that they are not satisfied with the traditional churches or the megachurches. Something was missing. The question is, “Is the thing that is missing an inherent problem for the traditional church?” Or, “Can the traditional church model be fixed?”

We have certainly been hoping to fix the problem. Over the past month or so, our church has been looking at the “One Another” passages in the New Testament, mostly in Paul’s letters. This study has given us insight into how life in the body should be lived out. The only question now is “how do we do this?”

No Comments »

No Comments »

No Comments »

Recent coverage by major media outlets concerning the debacle with Liberty University’s new President, Ergun Caner, has prompted many people to consider exactly what Christians stand for. If nothing else, Christians ought to be honest. You can read about the issues here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blackberry/p.html?id=582225

The problem is not about Dr. Caner’s claim to be a former Muslim. The problem is that he claimed to be a very devout Muslim and a few other inconsistencies in his testimony/biography (his biographical information has been changed significantly on the Liberty website). Apparently a man on Youtube, Mr. Khan, has taken up the challenge of authenticating the background pieces to the life of Ergun Caner. And apparently there are some discrepancies in his testimony.

I have personally listened to Dr. Caner’s abbreviated testimony in a chapel service once at Southern Seminary. Although he was a dynamic speaker, I was not really impressed with his message. He referred to himself as a former “Towel head” (i.e. Muslim). He told alot of jokes and funny stories and was quite humorous.

I want to be the last person to kick a fellow Christian while he is down. I do not intend to further discredit Ergun Caner. But if anyone has followed his shenanigans over the past few years, it is no wonder why he is in such a predicament. This is just one example of the strange ways of drawing a crowd: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agjV0tbktvQ. In his debate with James White and Tom Ascol, Dr. Caner was at times imbecilic. And now he is the President of Liberty University.

All this to say that there is a deeper issue here than the problems of Ergun Caner. The bigger issue is pop Christianity. For some strange reason we love to place image over substance. It is not because Dr. Caner is a respected church historian that he is the president of a major Christian University. He is the president because of his charisma and charm. He was put in place based on some misleading statements about his past activities in Islam and his conversion to Christianity. I do not doubt his conversion nor his desire to further the  cause of Christ in the world. It just seems that he is somewhat of a celebrity with very questionable integrity, based on the current investigation and the way he has handled himself in the past.

Again, for some strange reason Christians are willing to prop up any fad or fad producer as their leader and statesman. It doesnt matter if they do not know basic church history or theology as long as they are “cool.” I can buy a leather jacket and a beanie and say some funny things and people will want me to be the president of their school. But it will not happen.

The most important thing we can do is be truthful and honest in our testimony and lives. If we have a testimony about how God miraculously saved us, let us share it and be truthful. Every conversion experience is a miracle of God’s grace and does not need embellishment for the sake of shock and awe.

We expect more from our leaders and we expect them to be forthright and honest. We also expect to admit when they are wrong, rather than blaming certain groups of Christians for conspiring with Islam to discredit another believer.

No Comments »

Another National Day of Prayer has come and gone. This year, of course, as always is marked by controversy regarding the lines between church and state. Whenever a secular society wants to do something religious, there is bound to be trouble. This year however, things seemed to have heated up.

Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham and founder of Samaritan’s Purse, was apparently disinvited to pray inside the Pentagon on the National Day of Prayer. The reason Rev. Graham was disinvited was because of his negative words concerning  Islam. But there is something much deeper going on that we are all much aware of. Unlike his father, Franklin Graham speaks in a very straightforward way. When asked about the exclusivity of the claims of Jesus, Franklin states very clearly and in no uncertain terms, just what he believes. That attitude does not make for good ecumenism. And so he is unwelcome at these ecumenical prayer services.

The battle lines are now being clearly drawn. Rick Warren may offer an ambiguous prayer to an ambiguous “god” at the inauguration ceremony. There was some controversy surrounding that event, but as long as you do not make any specific claims about Jesus, you are fine. This leads to a specific point: we are told that it is unloving to take a stand for absolute truth. we are told that if you do not cooperate together with anyone who claims to be a Christian, regardless of their specific beliefs, then you are unloving and will never impact the world for Jesus Christ. My question is, “When will Christians really take a stand for what they believe? When will Christians be willing to say exactly what they believe to be true about Jesus and salvation and stop pretending? Is the Mormon my brother in Christ? Is there such a thing as orthodoxy? Can one transgress the boundaries of historic Christianity?

Of course this is not a new problem. But it is a problem that must be addressed. The world will soon be calling us out, “What do you believe to be true? What do you think of Islam?” False unity is no real unity. Getting together to sing songs and pray with nothing other than a nebulous statement, “We believe in Jesus” is taking us nowhere and is a waste of time.

I believe that Christians must be united. Christians should be able to fellowship, sing, pray, and labor together for a common good. But we must state clearly what we believe in matters of essentials. I have no problem protesting abortion alongside Roman Catholics, yet we have fundamental theological differences that cannot be ignored. I have no problem joining together with Muslims for some social cause. I know what Muslims believe about Jesus. I do not agree that he is merely a prophet as they do. I believe that Jesus is God the Son incarnate and is co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. I have no problem standing together with a person of the Jewish faith for some good cause. I know where they stand. But I don’t know where many “christians” stand. I have had Jehovah’s Witnesses tell me that they are Christians just like the Methodists and the Presbyterians. But are they? There are some Baptists who have no right to call themselves Christians because they deny the faith that was once delivered to all the saints. I will not stand together with them because they pretend to hold to historic Christianity while in essence they have denied the faith.

This is a time to stand. In an age that holds all truth to be relative or even non-existent, we must be willing to say what we believe. There are differences that are essential. There are differences that are non-essential. But we cannot afford to pretend that they do not matter. There can be no true unity without something solid to unite around. And the mainline denominations have proven that fact clearly.

No Comments »

I have never watched a single episode of South Park. I know about the show, but have never personally watched it. If you do not know anything about the show, here is an overview: South Park is a cartoon on Comedy Central that really likes to push the envelope on censorship. To put it another way, it is a very crude show. The creators of the show pour on the satire in a mercurial fashion. They take shots at every aspect of life. They have no problem insulting our leaders, religious or otherwise. They are especially crude when it comes to religion, that is, until recently.

Just last week they planned to air an episode about Islam. The creators of the show tried to depict the prophet Muhammad wearing a bear costume and riding in the back of a Uhaul. You can read about this here: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-south-park-20100423,0,5940860.story?page=1 and here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/arts/television/23park.html

Shortly before the the episode was aired, a group called “Revolution Muslim” posted on their website what could happen to the creators if they air the episode. Basically the spokesperson for Revolution Muslim stated that the creators could possibly end up dead if they went through with the episode. So what happened? The creators backed down. Probably for the first time. The group said it was not a threat, but rather what could possibly happen to the creators would be the same thing that happened to Theo Van Gogh who was killed by a Muslim for drawing caricatures of Muhammad.

The LA Times article included a good point by professor Volokh who claimed that backing down from bullies will only allow them to gain the upperhand. Here is what the LA Times said, “UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh said that although he sympathizes with the predicament faced by Comedy Central, the network has potentially empowered other extremists by how it has chosen to handle the situation.

“The consequence of this position is that the thugs win and people have more incentive to be thugs,” said Volokh, who teaches free speech and religious freedom law. “There are lots of people out there who would very much like to get certain kind of material removed, whether religious or political. The more they see others winning, the more they will be likely to do the same. Behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated.”

What Christians and all people should learn about this message is clear. Jesus said in Matthew 10:28, “Do not fear those who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can kill both soul and body in hell” (ESV). The creators of South Park have no fear on hell. Based on the content of their program, they do not understand what Jesus meant when he said in Matthew 12:37, “By your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned” (ESV). Again, based on the content of their program, the creators have no fear of the consequences of their words as they are spoken through imaginary figures. But they are afraid of extremist groups. If some group states that something bad can happen to them if they air the show, they back down. But why is there no fear of God?

We can stop sinning because we fear going to jail, hurting someone, or being labelled something bad. But does that really get to the root of the issue? What is at stake is judgment and hell. In an age where people think, “Anything goes” and “Its all good” obviously it is not. People are scared of someone coming to kill them in order to censor their message. But who is afraid of God? Apparently not many today. The Apostle Peter put it best when he said, “For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God” (1 Peter 4:17 ESV). Let us therefore guard our tongues and our thoughts in fear of sinning against God.

No Comments »

In a recent article by the voice of the Emerging church, Brian McLaren ponders the question of why Evangelicals do not like him. You can read the fine article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-d-mclaren/why-do-evangelicals-disli_b_517094.html

I could save Mr. McLaren some time by telling him why Evangelicals do not like him. The reason why they do not like him is because he claims to be one but he is not. No group likes to be misrepresented. And what Mr. McLaren does is misrepresent Evangelical Christianity. The things that he stands for and believes in according to his new book A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions that are Transforming the Faith (HarperOne, 2010), are in reality nothing new. The “Ten Questions” that are to transform Christianity are really not new. And I believe that is why Mr. McLaren is whinning about Evangelicals not liking him.

Instead of asking me first, Brian McLaren believes that he is the object of scorn because he is questioning authority. The authorities have spoken and we are not to question them. First of all, who are the authorities? The biblical writers? The early Church Fathers? The Roman Catholic church? The modern leaders of Evangelicalism? Why whine and complain about the enigmatic figure called “Evangelical Leader?” Instead, Mr. McLaren should simply state what he believes and then let the people decide if he represents Evangelicalism. Because judging from the surface, he certainly falls more in line with classic Liberalism, though he would probably deny that.

It seems that perhaps he may just have an axe to grind. He tries to caricature Evangelical Christianity in such a way so as to suggest that they all unilaterally support Israel over against the Palestinians. Can one be an Evangelical and be pro-Palestine/ Anti- Israel? Certainly no Christian should be against any particular nation. A nation may invade your nation and you have the right to defend your freedom and homeland. But are Christians supporting one nation against another nation based on race alone? True that many conservative Evangelicals unilaterally support the nation of Israel with regards to its policy against the Palestinians. But I would hesitate to  say that supporting Israel is a fundamental tenet of what it means to be Evangelical.

Perhaps Mr. McLaren would be better off just enjoying himself among his friends in the Moderate camp and quit thinking of himself as the target of conservative Evangelicalism. If you are going to try to reinvent Christianity and redefine what it means to be a Christian, you are going to make alot of enemies along the way. But your enemies are enemies because you claim to speak for them. Then you pretend that they are upset with you because their authority is being questioned and they are defensive. But there have been many who have sought to redefine Christianity. In the end, how much Mr. McLaren represents historic Christianity will be determined by other Christians of whom he is accountable to. If he does not like their scorn, then perhaps he should keep his thoughts to himself. If however, he wants to continue to redefine historic Christianity, his thoughts will be held up to sever criticism and he will make many enemies. It simply comes with the territory and has been happening since the beginning. So my advice, if anyone cares is to “man up” and stick by what you say and believe. If you can’t run with the big dogs, stay on the porch. But please stop crying.

No Comments »

You know the slogan, “You can do it, we can help.” It has become increasingly apparent to me recently just how much of an issue this has become for churches. In the old days, the enemy was always seen as outside the church. Conservative Christians were afraid of Evolution being crammed down their kids’ throat. They were concerned about long hair and short skirts. But those things are not too concerning to the modern Conservative Evangelical Christian. Today there is a brand new enemy. It is called by various names such as: the self-help gospel, the therapuetic gospel, the Jesus-is-your-life-coach gospel, etc ad nausea ab absurdum.

The idea is that you can change yourself to be a better you. The pastor is there alongside you to help you. He is simply your coach along the way. There is nothing to it except a change of attitude. One must simply take on the attitude of Jesus and all will be well. This is very dangerous thinking however. The danger is that it sounds like Christianity. It uses the same phrases and it uses the Bible as its basis. The church has seen this before in Modernism and even Neo-Orthodoxy ala Barth.

So what makes this new Evangelicalism so dangerous is that it removes God from the equation. It is almost like Deism where God is for you but is not really involved in the creation so much. He has given you the instructions, now you figure it out. You can call him, but the change is your doing. Of course no pastor who uses the self-help gospel would put it like that. All would say you need the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. But as always, there are trajectories with such thinking.

Examples: No one is offended by this so-called “gospel.” There is no offense of the cross. There is no stone of stumbling, rock of offense. It is simply Jesus is your buddy and he is there to help you along through life’s problems. Sound good? Sure, who wouldn’t want that? And that of course is the problem.

I am afraid however that this way of thinking is all too pervasive. It is probably taught in most churches in America each week that consider themselves conservative Evangelicals. There simply is no gospel. There is no cross. There is no need for the radical conversion from death to life. Paul could not preach this idea of Jesus being your buddy or life-coach. Instead he said things like, “we preach Christ and him crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles” (1 Corinthians 1:23). Moreover he could say, “If in Christ we have hope in this life only (meaning no resurrection), we are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Cor 15:19 ESV).

For Paul and the rest of the Bible, the historic event of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus was foundational to everything. Any foundation that is built on self-esteem, self-help, is a shaky foundation. Once the gospel is lost, all you have is self-help or do good because that is what you should do. Just stop and smell the roses. Life is too short to be in a hurry. Live your best life now, Jesus will help you. Once the cross is removed from the equation, the message ceases to be the gospel. It is something, but not biblical Christianity. May we repent of ever being guilty of offering people hope apart from the gospel.

No Comments »

Situations frequently happen in churches where unrepentant sin begins to affect the church as a whole. It only takes a little leaven to “leaven the whole lump.” But what should the church do? Immediately we might say, ” Judge not!” But is that the biblical response? Is there such a thing as a   “biblical response”? If there is, can we follow that today?

The two most well-known biblical texts that speak about the issue of unrepentant sin in the church are Matthew 18:15-20 and 1 Corinthians 5. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus teaches that if a brother or sister is in unrepentant sin and refuses to listen, finally to the church, then they are to be treated ”as a Gentile and a tax collector.” In 1 Corinthians 5, a man was involved in scandalous sin and Paul instructs the church ”to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (verse 5). Then he states in verse 11, “‘But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.”

There are other passages that could be used to support the idea that the church is to be a group of believers who seek to follow the Lord. The church obviously is not sinless or without struggles with sin. But it seems that the church is to be holy (1 Peter 1:16). The biblical mandate is clear. the church is not to tolerate unrepentant sin among its members.

There have been times when a pastor has had to address the problem of unrepentant sin among one of the members. If the church does not have any form of church discipline in its constitution or bylaws, the pastor can really do nothing. The pastor can warn the individual, but the individual can simply ignore the pastor. He or she may even get the support of the church against the pastor. If the church refuses to repent and deal with the unrepentant sin then what is to be expected?

When John has his vision of the resurrected Lord Christ in the Book of Revelation, notice what the Lord said to the church at Ephesus: “Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent (2:5). Jesus threatens to remove his presence from the church. And any church that ignores unrepentant sin among its members should expect nothing less than the loss of the presence of the Lord. I am afraid this is widespread in our day.

All of this talk of discipline can sound harsh and unloving. Nevertheless it is a biblical concept and one that is good for the believer as well. Paul told the Corinthians that the man was to be delivered over to Satan so that his soul might be saved. The turning over to Satan was only for the destruction of the flesh. Ultimately, Paul wanted the unrepentant member to repent and be saved. The goal is always restorative and never punitive. Of course church discipline has been abused, but the real question is, ”Is it biblical?” If it is, how should we go about it? Let us imitate Jesus in this way. He was kind and merciful to “’sinners.” But to the hypocrites he was harsh and straightforward. If the church knowingly tolerates unrepentant sin, it is no more a church of believers. James 4:17 says that the one who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, to him it is sin.

No Comments »

Something no pastor would want to hear. Most pastors probably feel that everyone should want to join their church. But then again, it is not really “their” church. It is God’s church. So if there were only one church left on earth, should you join it? Historically, at least since the Reformation, people have sought to distinguish the “marks” of a true church. It is generally agreed that there are two marks of a regular church: The right preaching of the gospel and the right administration of the sacraments (Baptism and the Lords Supper). Though some would include church discipline as a third mark, it could just as well fall under the right administration of the Lord’s Supper, the Supper being withheld from unrepentant members.

So if there were the right preaching of the gospel and the right administration of the sacraments, then yes you would be obligated to join that church. But what about a church in your area? Are you obligated to join a church? There are good reasons to join a church. Mostly because of what Jesus himself taught about the church. He said that he will build his church and the gates of hell will not stand against it (Matthew 16). It is said of Jesus that he loves the church and he gave himself for her to be a spotless bride (Ephesians 5:25). If you are sick, you cannot call the elders of the church (James 5:14). Who would have commissioned Paul and Barnabas on the missionary journey in Acts 15? How could you have deacons or elders? How would you observe the Lord’s Supper? How could you be baptized? How can we judge those inside the church (1 Corinthians 5:12)?  Paul seems to have directed the churches in Galatia to take up an offering (1 Corinthians 16:1). How could you obey your leaders and submit to them (Hebrews 13:17)?

Much more could be said, but one thing is clear: the idea of a local assembly of believers, where the Apostle’s teaching is heard, is clearly outlined in the New Testament. Many would immediately appeal to the universal church or invisible church, but that is not something that the New Testament speaks about specifically. What the New Testament does speak about is a local congregation of believers who meet regularly for things such as hearing God’s Word, prayer, giving, Lord’s Supper, baptism, evangelism, etc.

So the question remains, are you obligated to join a local church? If you answer “no” I would want to know why not. In an age of commitment phobia and churches tripping over each other, perhaps we are setting ourselves up for failure. We enjoy Walmart because it has everything we need under one roof and the prices are cheaper. Maybe we are treating the church the same way. We want everything that suits our needs under one roof. In other words we are consumer driven in our mentality. Instead of seeking to come alongside other believers in your community and build them up, we are looking for whatever will bless us by way of music, teaching, or fellowship. There is nothing wrong with that desire. However, God has given Christians different gifts to be exercised within a local church body for the edification of believers (Ephesians 4:11). And you should come alongside a group of believers in your area and seek to build them up even if that local body has many deficiencies. If the two marks are in place, then that is a great place to start.

No Comments »