Veritas Aequitas

I came across this post by Dan Edelen yesterday, and want to share it with you.

How quick we are to presume we know the whole story! I never noticed the passage in Ezekiel before, either!

How many of the things in that list – arrogance, gluttony, apathy, uncaringness/unlovingness, haughtiness – are you and I guilty of?

Again how true is what Jesus says to his disciples: “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them – do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

There is no one sin that is any worse than another – we’ve all sinned and deserve death and punishment.

How awesome is it that God provided a way of escape through his Son!

to complete my claim with technorati, I must add the claim code: ix2uwqbvn3

I came across a great resource yesterday: http://www.translatum.gr/bible/download.htm.

Several versions available, and all free

I’ve written recently about both baptism and church membership.

In those two posts, I argue both that the modern concept of “membership” is wrong, and that withholding baptism from a professing believer implies a more perfect knowledge of the state of someone’s soul than a mere human can claim to have.

If membership is a Biblical concept in some fashion, is there a legitimate rationale for “stages” or “types” of membership, or disallowing membership until the applicant has reached a given age?

What I mean is that if there is a way of defining “belonging” to a church without the manmade additions as seen in modern church membership, is there a reason to have a series of member statuses. For example, junior member, full member, transient/associate member.

Is there any Biblical or otherwise reasonable warrant for limiting the responsibilities or roles of a member because of their age? For example, does it make sense to dismiss “junior” members when issues that need to be handled by the church arise but are of a “mature” nature (perhaps sexual sin, or public incidents involving drugs, etc)?

If there is reasonable warrant for such levels, how does the church determine at what age a person should go from “junior” to “full”? Should it be up to the parents of the member? Is it entirely based on age? Is it a determination that needs to be made from the member’s standpoint, by speaking to the elders about a change in status?

Of course, if there is a staged membership concept, it could be abused by people not wanting to become “full” members, and keeping themselves as “junior” for as long as they could.

My question about associate/transient membership is more related to a person who spends a lot of time traveling or splits his work between a few places for more than just a week or two at a time. Such a transient status could allow a level of local responsibility with a given church, for example in St Louis, while maintaining a similar status with another church in, say, Detroit.

If we use Paul’s commendations of various people from one church to another, then it seems there is warrant for an associate concept of church belonging. Of course, as with the “junior” and “full” concepts, this could be abused by someone who wanted to avoid responsibility at all by claiming they were committed to the other church(es) they belong to, and really do nothing with any of them.

What are your thoughts?

I came across this except recently in my meanderings, and feel it is worth reprinting here.

---

Many think of Jesus as a weak, sad looking fellow. He has been depicted as such by artists around the world for thousands of years.

I could be wrong, but personally, I think Jesus was a man’s man. Remember, Jesus was a carpenter. In those days, nail guns, circular saws, chainsaws, and belt sanders were not available. To be a successful carpenter, you needed to be patient and strong. You chopped down a tree with your axe, cut it to a manageable length by hand, then carried it by hand or beast to the work area, cut it to finished length by hand, hand shaped it, and hand nailed it. I think Jesus was physically strong, with rough, calloused hands.

With that in mind, let’s look in Mark 11. Here, Jesus is heading to Jerusalem for His final days. In Mark 11:11, He walks through the temple and “looked round about upon all things”, then He went to Bethany for the night. While Jesus was in the temple, He saw that the people had forgotten the significance of what the temple represented. They had become callous to the importance of the building. They had become indifferent, even cold to the presence of Almighty God who was worshipped there. The merchants had taken up space for business within the temple proper, carrying on commerce and haggling over profits on holy ground. People were taking shortcuts around town by wandering through the courtyard, as if the temple was just another building or some obstacle to be crossed through as quickly as possible. It is doubtful behaviour like this would have been permitted in the days of Moses or Joshua. Frankly, as some might say, “they were cruising for a bruising”.

At some point after walking through the Temple and reviewing what was happening there, Jesus sits down and makes a scourge (per Strong’s, the Greek word is phragellion, and means “a whip, that is, Roman lash as a public punishment“). Notice Jesus was not out of control, nor did He throw a furious fit about what He saw in the temple; He simply looked around, then calmly left for Bethany, and made His whip. The next day (per verse 12) Jesus enters the temple again, and begins cleaning house.

Now, consider John 2:15. Jesus goes into the temple, driving out the moneychangers. Can’t you see a greedy merchant, ticked off at Jesus, going to the temple guards, demanding that they stop Him? I can imagine the guards looking at Jesus, looking at his whip, and then looking back at the merchant, and saying, “Hey pal, I’d like to see YOU go try to stop him!”

Is there an appropriate age at which someone can be considered for baptism? Is there an “age of majority” that needs to be considered before allowing someone who professes faith to be immersed in the baptistery?

I am a firm adherent to believer’s baptism. When a sinner is saved by grace, it is both their responsibility, and their privilege to be baptized and join the church.

But at what age can a profession of faith be “trustworthy”? Is there something magical about turning 16, 18, 20, 21, etc that makes a statement about an internal change of heart more true or more believable? I was not converted until about when I graduated high school. I knew for a long time that I was playing by the rules so I didn’t get in trouble. So by the time I was a Christian, no church I knew of would have had an issue with baptizing me.

But what about people I know who were converted around age 6? Or 10? Or 13? What is about turning 16 or 18 that makes some churches think that now they can believe that a person is really saved? What must be going-on in a converted child’s mind when a church won’t let them be baptized for 8 years because they’re only 10? Does that not lead to a great deal of self-doubt and wondering if what they’ve learned and accepted and believed is really true?

If a person has been truly saved, they can never become “unsaved” – but they can struggle with issues of assurance for years because someone they trust (a pastor, parent, Sunday school teacher, etc) has told them they have to wait.

All of the examples we have in the Bible of people declaring their faith in Jesus have them immediately being baptized as soon as a suitable source of water can be found. Yes – the apostles had special insights that our pastors can’t have today. However, even in the Jerusalem church were there found people who agreed to lie to the Holy Spirit about how much money they received for the plot of land they sold.

Were Ananias and Saphira false converts? I don’t know. But they didn’t show well in the only instance we have recorded of them in the Bible.

My personal conviction is that upon a credible profession of faith, any person should be baptized as soon as possible. As humans, we will make mistakes. We will occasionally recommend the wrong person to the church. Or misapprehend a profession as being what we want to hear, rather than what is really going-on. A verbal profession, followed by some [short] time of observation by both the person’s family, the church, their friends, and maybe coworkers ought to be enough to determine the likelihood of their statement being true.

But when that short observational time is done – and they’re still following what they claim to believe, withholding baptism from them becomes no longer a verification that they are what they say they are, but a way for the church to impose extra rules on top of the examples shown to us in the Bible’s account.

As reported on The Fishermen, http://thefishermen.us/?p=332. 41 questions to ask a church.

A. Theological Questions

1. What is the church’s statement of faith and how did the church devise it?

2. What has been the most vexed theological question the church has faced? Has there ever been a church split over theology or practice? Why?

3. On the wider scene, what theological trends and strands of false teaching would the elders at Ballymoney be particularly concerned about at the moment?

4. What are the key functions/roles of an elder at Ballymoney?

5. What is the elder’s relationship to the pastor? (For example, is the pastor an elder? Do the elders perceive themselves as, in some way, subordinate?)

6. What would the church’s position be on the role of women?

7. What is the church’s position on the function of charismatic gifts?

8. Is there a different kind of membership for someone differing on secondary issues? Would it ever be considered?

9. What kind of church government structure is practiced? How does it work out in practice?

B. Ministry-Philosophy Questions

10. What is the process of being baptised and becoming a church member? How is baptism and membership encouraged?

11. What are the expectations laid upon church members?

12. How does the church practice church discipline? (What sort of discipline has been practiced in the past?)

13. Do the elders have any plans for expansion of the building or church planting?

14. What, if anything, would the elders want to see change or develop in the future? (each elder might want to answer individually!)

15. Do the church members generally (and happily) follow the lead of the eldership?

16. Can the elders give evidence of an openness to growing in their role? (by eg. reading resources on eldership, attending conferences, having a weekend away with pastor, etc)

17. In what ways (if at all) do you think my young age might affect my reception both in the church and among the eldership?

18. What would be the minimum and maximum expectations be of the frequency of the pastor’s preaching? (ie. is one Sunday evening off in preaching a month the minimum acceptable; on the other hand, would preaching every service without fail be deemed unhelpful)

19. What items in the current services are non-negotiable? What other items are deemed acceptable and have been featured in the past? Is the pastor responsible for putting together all orders of service?

20. Is the current practice of communion (format, timing, gap between service and communion) set in stone?

21. What sorts of things do the Ballymoney elders feel the pastor should not be doing with his time?

22. What are the congregational/eldership expectations (these two may be different) regarding pastoral visitation?

23. How often are business meetings conducted? Does the pastor moderate this? Are they productive and generally positive? What is typically discussed?

24. Does the church have a yearly budget and if so, how is it put together?

25. What is the church’s attitude and approach to missionaries?

26. Who is responsible for the website and library and how easy would it be for the pastor to make a significant input into each of these areas? (Note: I believe these resources would have some relation to my teaching function as a pastor)

27. Has the church ever had Fellowship Groups? If so, what is the leadership’s feeling about their significance?

28. What are the leadership’s views concerning counselling?

29. How would you sum up the spiritual health of the congregation in qualitative terms (against measurements like prayer, heart for evangelism, love for one another)?

30. What kind of impact have ‘the troubles’ and its aftermath had on the Ballymoney congregation?

31. Pardoning the expression, are there any ‘sacred cows’ in the church?

32. Would the congregation consider adding an additional paid staff member at any point?

C. Personal Questions

33. Would the elders have any objection to the pastor working from a church office? (my preferred place for sermon prep)

34. What is the view of the elders regarding the pastor resourcing himself? (conferences; the odd retreat to read & plan, etc)

35. Are there any expenses for things?

36. What is the rationale regarding days off and holidays?

37. Is there any scope for ‘preaching away’ from Ballymoney? (Note: I would be very cautious about doing much of this, especially early on, however)

38. Do you think it would be relatively easy for a young family to settle into the church/town? What challenges might Nicki and the children face?

39. What role would the pastor’s wife be expected to have in the church?

40. What are the schools like in Ballymoney?

41. How easy might it be to buy an affordable house in the Ballymoney area?

The original edition of this list: http://unashamedworkman.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/41-questions-to-ask-a-potential-church/.

This is the first in a small series of posts on church membership.

I am not convinced that church “membership”, as implemented by most churches I have attended or visited through my life, is a Biblically-valid stance to take.

Certainly we are not to forsake the gathering of ourselves together. And in order to be a vital part of the bride of Christ, we need to be engaged with a local manifestation of that body.

But does that mean that a church can or should offer, let alone require, membership?

From observing many churches, membership is a formal process whereby a given professing Christian applies to become a part of a local church. They [generally] must agree to the church’s constitution and confession of faith. They [typically] must meet with the elder(s) in an interview who will probe their background, why they want to join this church, and then be submitted to the congregation to consider.

Once the consideration period is over, the new member generally reads their testimony in front of the congregation, and then is voted-upon for reception into membership by the current members.

Various churches have differing standards over aspects of this process: how old must the applicant be, what type of background they have, how new are they to the church, etc.

My question is why is there such a formal process of joining a church? Yes, I understand that if you are not a “part” of a church, church discipline doesn’t make much sense. I do not see any direct evidence that the early church practiced a “membership” process – though some of that may just be based on the relative lack of mobility amongst first-century people. Or it could be related to the likelihood that a given city or area might only have one church because they stood out so much from the surrounding society. And certainly, claiming to be a Christian in the first century AD was not something to be taken lightly.

We also see Paul commending certain people from one city to brethren in a different city to be accepted by their gathering if/when they come. We see in 1 Corinthians Paul calling-on the church to put away from their midst the sinning brother. We also see in 2 Corinthians Paul now urging the church to take him back if he’s truly repented.

If I am a member of a church, and I decide for whatever reasons to move to a different area, or find my convictions no longer lining-up well with the church I had been attending, I believe it is my responsibility as a Christian to find a body of believers with whom I can more readily identify and cooperate with. My duty as a Christian is first to my King and His work, and secondly to the local body I work with.

I’m not suggesting that if you don’t get along with somebody in the congregation that that’s grounds for just moving-on. Nor do I think it is a good idea to try to be engaged with more than one or two churches at a time. But I cannot see how the formal practice of membership is a healthy add-on to the Christian life.

It seems that the church as a whole has taken lessons from other organizations whereby you must join to be a part – such as the Elks or Freemasons. Joining the church happens when a person is converted and baptized. Once I was converted, I became a member of the universal body of Christ. My attachment to a local representation of that body took a while because the church I was in had draconian policies which had to be fulfilled before someone could be baptized and become a member. Such policies turned-off many of the people I grew-up with form wanting to join that specific church.

I’ve attended other churches that had completely no concept of membership or belonging… and I can see the issues with that, too. I do believe it’s important to belong to a church. But the concept of membership needs to be re-examined.

When I was a kid, I recall it being somewhat exciting and fun to drop a couple coins in the offering plate at church.

Now it’s not so interesting. Most churches I’ve been to seem to have an undue focus on money; certainly there should be some focus, as the Apostle Paul directed the Corinthians to give according to their determination and set that aside to help the saints in Jerusalem who were in need. Certainly running a church costs money – pastors need to be recompensed for their work, utilities need to be paid, maintenance done on the building(s), etc.

And of course we should be funding the expansion of the Kingdom of God across the world through missionaries, translation work, helping those in need, etc.

But why is it that giving is such a focus in so many churches? Is it because the people in the church don’t feel a need to help others, and need to be constantly reminded? Is it because there’s a focus on 10% as a Biblical minimum, and then more should be given on top of that?

What happened to the phrasing of Paul to the Corinthians? “I am not speaking this as a command, but as proving through the earnestness of others the sincerity of your love also.” “Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” (2 Cor 8:8 & 9:7)

Go back and read the rest of those two chapters. Paul is commending the saints of Macedonia in their generosity as a spur to the Corinthians to keep to their commitment to the Jerusalem church.

2 Cor 9:10-11 (“Now He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness; you will be enriched in everything for all liberality, which through us is producing thanksgiving to God.”) is often used as a spur for people to give to the church – almost as a get-rich-quick scheme by the church’s leaders, ‘give to us, and God will give you more’. But that quote is taken out of the context of the larger flow of Paul’s direction and commendation on giving.

Of course, not every church is like this. And even fewer pastors.

But I want to know why the views of so many church-goers that I have met is that the gospel is a thin cover for asking for more money.

Is it true that people don’t like giving from their funds/time/things/skills? Based on reports that periodically are published in newspapers, Americans are the most generous people on the planet – as a per capita view of donations. Do people make donations just to get the tax break? Certainly some people do that – why else would you ask for a receipt from Goodwill when dropping-off clothes?

What should be the REAL incentive to the Christian’s giving? Should it be that we want to put things down on our spiritual balance sheet that God will notice, and maybe bump-up our spot in heaven from near the noisy ice machine? Should it be because we expect to see a physical return on that investment – such as if we put in $20 this Sunday, we’ll find $50 on the sidewalk? Should we be looking to have the best church building in the county? The best music group? State-of-the-art computer equipment to simulcast sermons across the world?

Or should we be giving of our means because that’s what God did when He saved us by sending His Son? Should we be taking from our time, money, and effort to try to reach the lost? I won’t give to support anything that isn’t directly related to reaching more sinners.

If they are being used for activities that aren’t in line with reaching the lost, then I can spend that time/money/energy better elsewhere.

But if they’re going directly to reaching sinners, I’ll participate every chance I get.

I attended the Metropolitan Tabernacle this past Sunday. For perhaps only the second time in my life was I in a church that had a mix of ages, colors, ethnic backgrounds, etc that I think really will represent how Heaven will look.

The sermon was on Deuteronomy 32:1-4, “Give ear, ye heavens, and I will speak; And let the earth hear the words of my mouth. My doctrine shall drop as the rain; My speech shall distil as the dew, As the small rain upon the tender grass, And as the showers upon the herb. For I will proclaim the name of Jehovah: Ascribe ye greatness unto our God. The Rock, his work is perfect; For all his ways are justice: A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, Just and right is he.”

At the end of his long and varied life – 40 years of being raised as a prince in Egypt, 40 years as a shepherd, and 40 years as the earthly head of Israel – Moses had this to say: “I will proclaim the name of Jehovah: Ascribe ye greatness unto our God. The Rock, His work is perfect; For all His ways are justice: A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, Just and right is He.”

After 120-plus years of walking the earth, Moses was still praising his God – THE God, the God of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the one true, living God.

His confidence even in the final moments of his life was that he would proclaim the name of God. In 120 years he could not look back and see anything more worthy of comment than that his God was truth and faithful.

I issue a challenge to any who call themselves ‘Christian’ – can you say today that as you look back over your life, God has been truth and faithful to you? Not in the abstract, but in the personal.

If you were to die today, would the last words on your lips be “I will proclaim the name of Jehovah: Ascribe ye greatness unto our God. The Rock, His work is perfect; For all His ways are justice: A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, Just and right is He.”?

If not… why?