Mr. MOODY–For whom, then, did Christ die?
Mr. RAINSFORD-For "THE UNGODLY."
Who is it that judges a man to be unworthy of eternal life?
Himself !! There is a verse in Acts 13 that is worth remembering : "Seeing ye put it [the Word of God] from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." God does not judge us unworthy. He has given His Son for our salvation. When a man puts away the Word of God from him and refuses to receive Christ into his heart, he judges himself unworthy of salvation.
Suppose a man say he is not "elected?
Do you remember the story of the woman of Canaan? Poor soul; she had come a long journey. She asked the Lord to have mercy on her afflicted child. He wanted to try her faith, and He said: "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." That looked as if He Himself told her that she was not one of the elect. But she came and worshipped Him, saying, " Lord, help me!" and He helped her there and then. No; there is no election separating between the sinner and Christ.
Say that again.
THERE IS NO ELECTION SEPARATING BETWEEN THE SINNER AND CHRIST.
Has a man the power to believe these things, if he will?
When God gives a command, it means that we are able by His grace to do it.
Mr. MOODY–Have these friends the power to believe?
Mr. RADSTOCK–They are commanded to believe. They can believe it just as well as they can believe any other fact, if they only listen to God's voice. But they must get rid of their own thoughts, and listen to God: Hearing His voice they will believe. "Faith cometh by hearing: and hearing by the Word of God."
What would you say to any one who thinks he has no power to believe?
He has the power to believe. Probably he is trying to believe something about himself, to feel something about himself instead of giving credit to God-He is not asked to realize this or that about himself, but to believe the faithful God.
-This is interesting to me because because of how consumed Moody is with the idea of man as a sinner who needs to repent. The idea of election and reprobation was secondary to the idea of man being sinful before God. Man as a man who owes God, rather than thinking in terms of election.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Sunday, October 3, 2010
The Social Gospel
In response to http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/communitylife/evangelism/mightyriverslipperyslope.html?start=3 in general and the emergent movement in particular.
The social gospel seems to be two things:
Certainly Christians in a republic are obligated to participate in reshaping the government at the appointed times, but what of a Christian in a communist or totalitarian country? How do we reconcile Romans 13 and our submission to the governments established by God, or of Jesus when He said "My Kingdom is not of this world?"
Which leads me to my problem with point 2- there is no scriptural support for this assertion. Richard Sterns in his book The Hole in Our Gospel made the best, most systematic effort I have read, and has several passages he uses to define social justice, but they are all taken out of context. (Kevin DeYoung does a good job pointed that out here)
Nor is justice the key concept of the Gospel of Matthew. Jesus as the King bringing in the coming Kingdom is the theme of Matthew. This is to say nothing of the rest of the books picked out.
Other generic thoughts:
The Social Gospel flattens the Ordo Salutis, and the concepts of Divine Wrath, Regeneration, Justification, and Sanctification.
Why is it that the social justice proponents are consumed with the concept to the exclusion of the other great truths of scripture? Its proclaimers don't seem to understand the nature of total depravity and inability to please God. Consider, are we transformed by doing good, or do the transformed do good? From what truth do they get the idea a non-believer doing charitable deeds is pleasing to God? Why does justification never appear in the demand of the social justice crowd? To hear it you would think that the meta-narrative of scriptures is justice, but it only finds it's legitimate place in sanctification. If they understood the nature of fallen man and the need to be Holy they would push people to the new birth, and then charitable deeds second. That we don't see the first concept is an indicator our theology is out of whack.
None of the apostles engages in Social Justice.
When confronted with the need to distribute food to other Christians the apostles decided it was not good to give up their ministry to wait on tables. When they had the chance to revolutionize the world they abstained, deciding instead to change the heart of the hearers. Curious that we would take up a mandate they didn't.
The Social Gospel looks dreadfully like Liberalism.
http://spider.georgetowncollege.edu/htallant/courses/his338/students/kpotter/ "Because the Kingdom of God has been dropped as the primary and comprehensive aim of Christianity, and personal salvation has been substituted for it, therefore men seek to save their own souls and are selfishly indifferent to the evangelization of the world."
How do we know that old time 19th century liberalism is not back and walking the Earth in the clothes of social justice? Why if we accept this movement we won't end up in the same place they did, denying the inerrancy of scripture, or the person and work of the Holy Spirit? Why does social justice look like something Rob Bell would be into, trading doing earthly good for the virgin birth or substutionary atonement?
The Social Gospel looks like Socialism
Jack London's People of the Abyss is the social gospel. That ought to make readers pause and think twice about supporting this as a Christian concept. Personally, when people tell me that MLK is a great model I'm immediately suspicious that they understand the basics of the Bible. He was not a Christian, therefore he's a terrible model, even though he was passionate about helping people, and did great things. Yes, we may praise virtue that God places in non-Christians by His common grace, but why are Christians picking out non-Christians to admire? Shouldn't we question a movement that ultimately concludes that man is the prime person and noble goal?
Now there is no question in my mind that we can see virtues in atheists, because God has not taken the common grace out of them, but that's not what the social justice people are saying.
The Social Gospel solves the problems of the world
Do we need to offer the people of this world a form of Christianity that address the same problems Capitalism does? Is it not a little curious that Von Mises or George Reisman has a better and more lasting remedy to this problem than our Bible? Is it not also strange that Karl Marx is offering something in his (proven false) writings that looks like the social gospel? That conclusion is that the best the Holy Spirit could do is less than the wisdom of the economists. Once we arrive at that conclusion it's time to re-examine our premises.
Lastly, and most importantly, the Social Gospel eclipses the Glory of the real Gospel.
The social gospel has us not talking about Christ and His finished work on the cross, it has us talking about ourselves. The most glorious thing we can do is have a relationship with God, and worship His revealed nature, but it makes it about us. His gospel was in the past, ours is in the future. His makes us message bearers, ambassadors, bringers of good news. The other makes us builders, agents of action that causes change. It is to put the lesser things before the greater. The idea of our works are fine, they are after all God's commandments which are in all ways good, but they aren't the gospel of our great Lord and Savior handed down once for all time. Our works are not equivalent to the atonement Christ offered the Father on the cross. Now I know the social justice advocates would say that this is not the case, but as a practical matter of theology, it is. When Gods plans, views, and ideas come second they will ultimately not come at all.
Well there it is. I might have missed something, but I suspect that this encompasses most of the problems I have with this brand of ideology.
Update: there is a great analogy posted by Ryan Kelly on social justice and the gospel being compared to marriage. Married people do things together after they have a covenant relationship, but not before. To ape the things seen in marriage without the ceremony and dedication is to miss the whole point.
I think it's a spot on comparison and a great way to see the proper place of both good works and gospel message.
The social gospel seems to be two things:
- Redistribution of power, government, authority, and money from the rich to the poor, or the moral to the immoral. "The right ordering of power is called "justice."
- The theme of the entire Bible- a kingdom of heaven come to earth. "Justice then becomes not just the concern of the major or minor prophets, but of Matthew and Philippians and Corinthians and Philemon and 1 and 2 Peter and far more. Such preaching enables God's people to hear and see God's heart for justice.
Certainly Christians in a republic are obligated to participate in reshaping the government at the appointed times, but what of a Christian in a communist or totalitarian country? How do we reconcile Romans 13 and our submission to the governments established by God, or of Jesus when He said "My Kingdom is not of this world?"
Which leads me to my problem with point 2- there is no scriptural support for this assertion. Richard Sterns in his book The Hole in Our Gospel made the best, most systematic effort I have read, and has several passages he uses to define social justice, but they are all taken out of context. (Kevin DeYoung does a good job pointed that out here)
Nor is justice the key concept of the Gospel of Matthew. Jesus as the King bringing in the coming Kingdom is the theme of Matthew. This is to say nothing of the rest of the books picked out.
Other generic thoughts:
The Social Gospel flattens the Ordo Salutis, and the concepts of Divine Wrath, Regeneration, Justification, and Sanctification.
Why is it that the social justice proponents are consumed with the concept to the exclusion of the other great truths of scripture? Its proclaimers don't seem to understand the nature of total depravity and inability to please God. Consider, are we transformed by doing good, or do the transformed do good? From what truth do they get the idea a non-believer doing charitable deeds is pleasing to God? Why does justification never appear in the demand of the social justice crowd? To hear it you would think that the meta-narrative of scriptures is justice, but it only finds it's legitimate place in sanctification. If they understood the nature of fallen man and the need to be Holy they would push people to the new birth, and then charitable deeds second. That we don't see the first concept is an indicator our theology is out of whack.
None of the apostles engages in Social Justice.
When confronted with the need to distribute food to other Christians the apostles decided it was not good to give up their ministry to wait on tables. When they had the chance to revolutionize the world they abstained, deciding instead to change the heart of the hearers. Curious that we would take up a mandate they didn't.
The Social Gospel looks dreadfully like Liberalism.
http://spider.georgetowncollege.edu/htallant/courses/his338/students/kpotter/ "Because the Kingdom of God has been dropped as the primary and comprehensive aim of Christianity, and personal salvation has been substituted for it, therefore men seek to save their own souls and are selfishly indifferent to the evangelization of the world."
How do we know that old time 19th century liberalism is not back and walking the Earth in the clothes of social justice? Why if we accept this movement we won't end up in the same place they did, denying the inerrancy of scripture, or the person and work of the Holy Spirit? Why does social justice look like something Rob Bell would be into, trading doing earthly good for the virgin birth or substutionary atonement?
The Social Gospel looks like Socialism
Jack London's People of the Abyss is the social gospel. That ought to make readers pause and think twice about supporting this as a Christian concept. Personally, when people tell me that MLK is a great model I'm immediately suspicious that they understand the basics of the Bible. He was not a Christian, therefore he's a terrible model, even though he was passionate about helping people, and did great things. Yes, we may praise virtue that God places in non-Christians by His common grace, but why are Christians picking out non-Christians to admire? Shouldn't we question a movement that ultimately concludes that man is the prime person and noble goal?
Now there is no question in my mind that we can see virtues in atheists, because God has not taken the common grace out of them, but that's not what the social justice people are saying.
The Social Gospel solves the problems of the world
Do we need to offer the people of this world a form of Christianity that address the same problems Capitalism does? Is it not a little curious that Von Mises or George Reisman has a better and more lasting remedy to this problem than our Bible? Is it not also strange that Karl Marx is offering something in his (proven false) writings that looks like the social gospel? That conclusion is that the best the Holy Spirit could do is less than the wisdom of the economists. Once we arrive at that conclusion it's time to re-examine our premises.
Lastly, and most importantly, the Social Gospel eclipses the Glory of the real Gospel.
The social gospel has us not talking about Christ and His finished work on the cross, it has us talking about ourselves. The most glorious thing we can do is have a relationship with God, and worship His revealed nature, but it makes it about us. His gospel was in the past, ours is in the future. His makes us message bearers, ambassadors, bringers of good news. The other makes us builders, agents of action that causes change. It is to put the lesser things before the greater. The idea of our works are fine, they are after all God's commandments which are in all ways good, but they aren't the gospel of our great Lord and Savior handed down once for all time. Our works are not equivalent to the atonement Christ offered the Father on the cross. Now I know the social justice advocates would say that this is not the case, but as a practical matter of theology, it is. When Gods plans, views, and ideas come second they will ultimately not come at all.
Well there it is. I might have missed something, but I suspect that this encompasses most of the problems I have with this brand of ideology.
Update: there is a great analogy posted by Ryan Kelly on social justice and the gospel being compared to marriage. Married people do things together after they have a covenant relationship, but not before. To ape the things seen in marriage without the ceremony and dedication is to miss the whole point.
I think it's a spot on comparison and a great way to see the proper place of both good works and gospel message.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
How did John know?
"So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the Council and said, "What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation. But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them,"You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish." He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad." (John 11:47-52)
How would John know about the secret machinations that happened in the council chamber? Why do the other gospels make no record of this?
I suspect it's because a young Paul was in the chamber hearing everything, and later when he went on his first missionary journey he shared it with John in Crete.
If that is true, and it's just a guess, it makes the next verse hit so much harder.
So from that day on they made plans to put him to death.
How would John know about the secret machinations that happened in the council chamber? Why do the other gospels make no record of this?
I suspect it's because a young Paul was in the chamber hearing everything, and later when he went on his first missionary journey he shared it with John in Crete.
If that is true, and it's just a guess, it makes the next verse hit so much harder.
So from that day on they made plans to put him to death.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Why Does God Blind Eyes?
I think the reason is twofold.
First, God blinds both the eyes of the elect and non-elect, because it allows God to progressively reveal more and more about Himself to the watching world. In that sense it's merely a proof that we are creatures and He is God. By starting everyone under condemnation, everyone starts in a position to understand grace, which is really what He's after.
Second, God blinds eyes because He's simply too much for our fallen beings to accept without annihilation. Moses wanted to see God, but God informed him that being too near to Him would destroy him. God's distance shelters weak and sinful creatures just as distance from the sun keeps things from spontaneous combustion. So while separation from God is indeed a great problem, it's also a kindness for sinners that we do not behold the dazzling brightness of God, and are not instantly undone.
First, God blinds both the eyes of the elect and non-elect, because it allows God to progressively reveal more and more about Himself to the watching world. In that sense it's merely a proof that we are creatures and He is God. By starting everyone under condemnation, everyone starts in a position to understand grace, which is really what He's after.
Second, God blinds eyes because He's simply too much for our fallen beings to accept without annihilation. Moses wanted to see God, but God informed him that being too near to Him would destroy him. God's distance shelters weak and sinful creatures just as distance from the sun keeps things from spontaneous combustion. So while separation from God is indeed a great problem, it's also a kindness for sinners that we do not behold the dazzling brightness of God, and are not instantly undone.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
God Punishes Men By Giving Them Success
Nowhere is this more clear than in the recent sensation "The Shack", a book that speaks against God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture. If I were God and someone wanted to write a book blaspheming me I'd use my power to ensure that the book was terrifically unpopular and that nobody ever read it. But does God do that? Indeed not. He puts it into the hand of everyone and permits it to go on to be a runaway best seller which rolls over the a million copies sold mark and makes both the author and the publisher rich.
And then God punishes them.
As He Himself said, "But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness." (1 Tim 6:9-11)
Friday, July 9, 2010
There is no Stability in High Calvinism
I have lately taken to thinking that there is really no stability in the idea that Christ made no atonement whatsoever for the non-elect. Try as I might I don't see how it is defensible to say that the death of Christ on the cross is of no benefit to them. If Christ doesn't buy at least a temporary pardon for the non-elect then there is no such thing as common grace, but common grace is explicitly affirmed in Scripture. If He doesn't make an atonement in any way then for some men salvation is flatly impossible regardless of whether they believe or not. But John 3:16 indicates that those who believe will be saved.
High Calvinism then is based on a logical chain of reasoning and arguments that I think is more correct and water tight in hyper Calvinism. Most Calvinists are saved from a full commitment to hyper-Calvinism because they are unwilling to follow through on the logical conclusions of their beliefs, and that's a good thing.
In short, my suspicions are that High Calvinism looks like a muddy and unstable middle ground that gives way to either the moderate or Hyper position when pressed.
High Calvinism then is based on a logical chain of reasoning and arguments that I think is more correct and water tight in hyper Calvinism. Most Calvinists are saved from a full commitment to hyper-Calvinism because they are unwilling to follow through on the logical conclusions of their beliefs, and that's a good thing.
In short, my suspicions are that High Calvinism looks like a muddy and unstable middle ground that gives way to either the moderate or Hyper position when pressed.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Matthew 5:43 and the Negative Inference Fallacy
You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' (Matthew 5:43)
This is in fact what the Jewish teachers had done. Using logic they reasoned that if we are to love our neighbor then there is a category of not neighbor that should get not love.
But God hadn't actually said anything about not neighbors and so the teachers were committing the negative inference fallacy to supply the missing piece. The reason God didn't say anything about not neighbor was because the positive category of neighbor was intended to cover everyone, which is why He answered the lawyers question with the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Today some people think that because Jesus says He lays down His life for His sheep that there's a category of not sheep who Jesus did not lay down His life for. Or because He says He loves His elect that there's the category of not-elect who get nothing but not-love. This is not only bad reasoning, it's reasoning openly condemned by Jesus in the sermon on the mount.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Even the Church of Christ believe in Once Saved Always Saved
The churches of Christ joins with Arminian churches in denying that predestination means an all powerful sovereign God personally choses you for salvation. To them, predestination means that God looks down the corridors of time and sees individuals who would persevere to the end in faith, and chooses them to be saved. That is, using divine foreknowledge He stamps His approval on those individuals He knows will be faithful to Him.
But there's a logical problem here, because if God has predestined us based on our future faith then we will absolutely make it to the end and be saved--otherwise God saw wrongly. And God is never wrong. Which means that if you start with the premise of God forseeing faith then the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints is a logical necessity. Which is a big problem, because the whole point of doing the Biblical gymnastics required to get predestination to mean the opposite of what it says is to avoid the conclusions of Calvinism.
But there's a logical problem here, because if God has predestined us based on our future faith then we will absolutely make it to the end and be saved--otherwise God saw wrongly. And God is never wrong. Which means that if you start with the premise of God forseeing faith then the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints is a logical necessity. Which is a big problem, because the whole point of doing the Biblical gymnastics required to get predestination to mean the opposite of what it says is to avoid the conclusions of Calvinism.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
30 pieces of silver
Jesus was sold to those who were going to kill Him for 30 pieces of silver.
The going rate of silver in today's market is approximately $0.28/gram, with a typical Roman coin weighing about 4 grams. Now I know it's not an exact equivalent (since silver was harder to come by back then and therefore worth more) but considering the the only source of life and happiness was discarded for a few round discs dug out of the earth totaling $34 according to today's market... well that's just awful.
It would be laughable if we didn't sell our own souls for less.
The going rate of silver in today's market is approximately $0.28/gram, with a typical Roman coin weighing about 4 grams. Now I know it's not an exact equivalent (since silver was harder to come by back then and therefore worth more) but considering the the only source of life and happiness was discarded for a few round discs dug out of the earth totaling $34 according to today's market... well that's just awful.
It would be laughable if we didn't sell our own souls for less.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The two wills of God?
Scripture presents what looks like a contradiction in the character of God when it speaks about his will to save men. On one hand you have the verses that speak to His desire to destroy sin and any sinner caught up in it:
"Just as it pleased the LORD to make you prosper and increase in number, so it will please him to ruin and destroy you. You will be uprooted from the land you are entering to possess" (Deuteronomy 28:63).
"Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden" (Rom 9:18).
"For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie" (2 Thessalonians 2:11).
"He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn-and I would heal them" (John 12:39-40)
"For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses." (Joshua 11:20).
"... for it was the LORD's will to put them to death" (1 Samuel 2:25).
and on the other hand there are the verses that speak to God's will to save men from sin and death.
"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:3-4).
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whomever believes in him shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life" (John 3:16).
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing." (Matthew 27:37)
"Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?" (Ezekiel 18:23)
I think the best way to reconcile the passages is to see the difference not between two equal and opposite wills, but as one set expressing the character of God and the other recording his actions. When presented this way there's no conflict between them (in fact you need both together to understand Him properly).
Say for a moment we had insight into the first set of verses describing Gods actions but not the second set describing His character. In that case we would see Him damning the wicked and withholding mercy, and we'd think Him cruel and unapproachable. On the other hand if we only had the verses describing His soft character He would appear to us to be a weak powerless God, if even a God at all.
The difference in Scripture then is not so much between His permissive, persuasive, effectual, continual will, but the between His nature and His decrees. His feelings and His actions. Together they paint the complete picture, showing us not only what He does for His glory, but why.
"Just as it pleased the LORD to make you prosper and increase in number, so it will please him to ruin and destroy you. You will be uprooted from the land you are entering to possess" (Deuteronomy 28:63).
"Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden" (Rom 9:18).
"For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie" (2 Thessalonians 2:11).
"He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn-and I would heal them" (John 12:39-40)
"For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses." (Joshua 11:20).
"... for it was the LORD's will to put them to death" (1 Samuel 2:25).
and on the other hand there are the verses that speak to God's will to save men from sin and death.
"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:3-4).
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whomever believes in him shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life" (John 3:16).
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing." (Matthew 27:37)
"Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?" (Ezekiel 18:23)
I think the best way to reconcile the passages is to see the difference not between two equal and opposite wills, but as one set expressing the character of God and the other recording his actions. When presented this way there's no conflict between them (in fact you need both together to understand Him properly).
Say for a moment we had insight into the first set of verses describing Gods actions but not the second set describing His character. In that case we would see Him damning the wicked and withholding mercy, and we'd think Him cruel and unapproachable. On the other hand if we only had the verses describing His soft character He would appear to us to be a weak powerless God, if even a God at all.
The difference in Scripture then is not so much between His permissive, persuasive, effectual, continual will, but the between His nature and His decrees. His feelings and His actions. Together they paint the complete picture, showing us not only what He does for His glory, but why.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
The Problem with the Church of Christ leadership
Church of Christ theology misunderstands the role grace plays in salvation, seeing it wrongly as a kind of necessary precursor to good works. The situation may be compared to a man needing to clean out his gutters. On his own he has no chance of getting the job done, but if someone were to show him grace and hand him a ladder, he would be able to climb up and improve his situation.
For the Church of Christ salvation begins with the grace of God forgiving you of your sins and continues on in the form of you keeping your salvation through good works. But it doesn't take long until the question comes, "Which good works?" The elder board answers, "All the good works necessary for salvation. You must avoid sin and attend church. You should also believe the same things as us."
This unity is only skin deep however, for while all the elders agree you need to keep your salvation each one has their own belief of which good works matters most for doing so. Invariably the member who isn't as practiced at doing good fails to keep the list and must be brought up for discipline. Or situations arise that breed arguments (like what color will the carpets be), and since these arguments pertain directly to good works, and good works pertain directly to salvation, the arguments grow like cancer until they split the church. Or the members quietly become fed up with being targeted and leave, not being able to put their finger on what's wrong, only knowing that they're unhappy.
This doesn't mean the elders are evil, only that they're people trapped by the consequences of a graceless theology.
Indeed, the very choice of elders is plagued by gracelessness. Who should be appointed as elders to help the church keep the rules? The men best able to keep them themselves of course. Men who are adept at not showing sin take up the job of purging the congregation of their sins so that they can be saved. This sacrificial duty is a heavy burden, but it also comes with the benefit of never having to face your own graceless presuppositions since you're busy staring into your brothers eye for debris. The paid ministry staff (particularly preachers) offer no solution to the problem either. In a religion where self discipline, dedication, and abstinence are of primary importance who is more virtuous than the man who's dedicated his whole life to preaching?
For the Church of Christ salvation begins with the grace of God forgiving you of your sins and continues on in the form of you keeping your salvation through good works. But it doesn't take long until the question comes, "Which good works?" The elder board answers, "All the good works necessary for salvation. You must avoid sin and attend church. You should also believe the same things as us."
This unity is only skin deep however, for while all the elders agree you need to keep your salvation each one has their own belief of which good works matters most for doing so. Invariably the member who isn't as practiced at doing good fails to keep the list and must be brought up for discipline. Or situations arise that breed arguments (like what color will the carpets be), and since these arguments pertain directly to good works, and good works pertain directly to salvation, the arguments grow like cancer until they split the church. Or the members quietly become fed up with being targeted and leave, not being able to put their finger on what's wrong, only knowing that they're unhappy.
This doesn't mean the elders are evil, only that they're people trapped by the consequences of a graceless theology.
Indeed, the very choice of elders is plagued by gracelessness. Who should be appointed as elders to help the church keep the rules? The men best able to keep them themselves of course. Men who are adept at not showing sin take up the job of purging the congregation of their sins so that they can be saved. This sacrificial duty is a heavy burden, but it also comes with the benefit of never having to face your own graceless presuppositions since you're busy staring into your brothers eye for debris. The paid ministry staff (particularly preachers) offer no solution to the problem either. In a religion where self discipline, dedication, and abstinence are of primary importance who is more virtuous than the man who's dedicated his whole life to preaching?
From top to bottom then the leadership is touched by the fundamental problem of not knowing how salvation works, which in turn multiplies fear. There's the fear of not being good enough for heaven, fear of being judged harsher as a teacher, fear of letting others slip away. The worst thing that can happen to a father is to see their children abandon the faith and the elders have to watch it happen over and over again. The philosophy doesn't work, so neither do the churches.
But the good news is that God has made it evident that the system doesn't work so that we would abandon that erroneous premise of faith-plus-works and trust in His grace alone. He pursues us (to correct us) and is continually calling us to heed the instructions of Paul in Gal 3:3, of which much more could be said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)