First Evangelical Free Church Sioux City, Iowa

Questioning

One quality that we as a church have been working on is the idea that questions are ok. To be frank, I'm not sure that's a given in society anymore - though we might say that "there are no dumb questions," many times our actions show that to not be entirely true. This is unfortunate as it would seem that Jesus allowed for all manner of questions from the disciples (and some of their questions certainly weren't "smart"!) and so it is healthy for the church to adopt a similar attitude.

On the flip side, however, some folks in our culture have taken the opposite end of the spectrum - everything should and must be questioned even to the point of simply trying to poke holes in people's convictions just for the sake of poking holes. This, too, is unfortunate as it reveals an attitude of cynicism rather than a heart that is seeking out the truth of God's Word.

Even amongst faithful, Bible-believing, God-honoring Christians, there are many debates about the life and practice of the church. Baptism, the meaning of the Lord's Supper, church government, the end times, etc. Is there some sort of filter or rubric that we can use to help us put up guardrails for these debates? Is there a way for us to offer genuine questions, not just for the sake of questioning, but for the sake of getting to the answer and then either confirming what we already believe or changing our thinking if there's a better answer? I believe there is and, as was pointed out by Professor Milliard Erickson, it looks like this:

. . . In criticism it is not sufficient to find flaws in a given view.

One must always ask,

“What is the alternative?”

and,

“Does the alternative have fewer difficulties?”

John Baillie tells of writing a paper in which he severely criticized a particular view. His professor commented,

“Every theory has its difficulties, but you have not considered whether any other theory has less difficulties than the one you have criticized.” (p. 61)

Now, what does this have to do with church life day in and day out? Well, it applies to areas that aren't even about theology just as well as areas of Biblical disagreement. How should we organize the church service? What about children's ministries? Should our church get involved in this particular missions work or that one? Folks will have opinions on all of these issues but the fact remains that we - as a congregational church - must come to some sort of consensus as to what we should do. This framework gives us a helpful path to tread upon - yes, if you see an obvious problem with a view or course of action, speak up. But at the same time, we must realize that no idea is perfect and so, from a big picture perspective, we are sorting among competing alternatives of imperfect ideas. And in doing so, we will find that the Lord will work in us as individuals and in the congregation at large to knit us together in faithfulness while we learn to trust, challenge, and encourage one another as we look to follow Christ in discipleship.

Everything “New”?

As we begin our summer sermon series on Ecclesiastes, one of the big points that we saw in chapter one is the desire for everything to be "new" in life. Our society cares little for that which is deemed "old" (Myspace, anyone?) and idolizes being on the cutting edge. This desire drives more of our culture than we might like to admit:

- The entire concept of branding and logos. It used to be the Nike Swoosh which appeared on everything from shoes to t-shirts, now Nike is out and UnderArmor is in.

- The constant parade of cell-phone commercials saying that your one year old iPhone or Droid is simply obsolete and definitely not cool, even though it works just fine.

- And let's not forget the current church version of these events: "being the hands and feet of Jesus." While I understand the sentiment behind the phrase, the question always comes to mind: "I thought we were supposed to be disciples? Not various body parts of our Lord." Since when was being a disciple not enough? Why must we have new ways of defining this ancient Christian task? (Not to mention the latest new term: "missional," wouldn't it be easier to stick with "making disciples?")

The simple truth is that much in life is simply old ideas given a fresh coat of paint and rehashed. Old books are given new covers to try and sell them again. Cell phone technology itself has been fairly stable over the last few years and so the only way to sell new phones is to add features that have little to do with making calls or sending texts. Last decade's fashions are re-released as "new," "vintage," or "pre-stressed" (i.e. torn-up before you get your hands on it). A trend in churches has been to get out into the community by doing various community service projects. I have been assured by numerous pastors and authors that this is the cutting edge of what makes the church, well, the church. Except for the overlooked fact that many high schools require community service for graduation and a number of larger businesses allow their employees paid time off for volunteering...

What's the point of all of this? It's not that "new" things are bad - far from it. Sometimes we need to rediscover old truths and a "new cover" might lend itself to that. The solution certainly is not to stick our heads in the sand and wish for the days of Leave it to Beaver once more. Instead the solution is to not ground our lives in keeping up with the Jones'; to not define ourselves by what we own or the numbers in our bank accounts. Our lives are worth far more than the clothes we wear (whether in style or not), the vehicles we drive, the cell phones we buy, or the causes that we support. If your life is anchored to such things then realize this: you have chained yourself to something that is dying and will be forgotten next month or next year at the latest. Instead, the counsel that we get from the Bible is that we are to orient our lives around Christ. True life, enduring hope, lasting joy is found only in Him. Live for Him who is eternal!

The first and most important warning found in the Book of Ecclesiastes is simply this: if you live for now then the summary of your life and work will be "vanity of vanities, all is vanity." (Ecclesiastes 1:2)

Binding and Loosing

We mentioned in yesterday's sermon that we will speak more of the "keys of the kingdom" and "binding and loosing" at a future date as we move further in to the Book of Matthew. That said, here are a few thoughts to help us stay on the right track with regards to Matthew 16:19...

First, a reminder from the sermon: the idea of binding and loosing relates directly to the church (not simply to Peter) and thus the authority is given to the church by Christ Himself. The church doesn't possess authority because they are some sort of ancient institution, but instead the church possesses authority because they are the church, the bride of Christ. Another way to say this is that the only reason for the church having any sort of authority to bind and to loose is because Christ Himself has given to them that very authority.

Second, we also noted that binding and loosing is directly related to proclaiming Christ's commands. Luke 11:52 helps us to define what these "keys" which bind and loose things are: the knowledge of Christ and of the eternal kingdom as revealed in the Scriptures (or, said another way, Christ's authoritative teaching of the Law). So the church has both the obligation and the responsibility to hold forth the Gospel as a great hope and joy to all who will believe.

Third, the metaphor itself then is this: those that respond to the message which the church is charged with faithfully proclaiming (the Gospel) are then "loosed" from this present earthly kingdom (and now citizens of the heavenly kingdom) whereas those who reject Christ remain bound to it. While the primary focus of this verse is on the church proclaiming the Gospel, there is also a secondary focus on the church proclaiming all that Christ has commanded in life as a roadsign or pointer to discipleship (i.e. declaring what is in keeping with the kingdom of heaven versus what is not). The church isn't creating new decisions and doctrines, but instead it is responding to and speaking out what God has already said and established (see point five, below, for more on this).

Fourth, I noted that Christ's blessing applies to Peter - certainly - but not only to Peter. Another way of saying this is that because Peter is a part of the church, he will have an integral role in using the keys of the kingdom. We see him doing this specifically in Acts 2:14-39 (loosing) and Acts 8:20-23 (binding) - it's not Peter himself who is loosing or binding, it is Christ's commands and how a person responds to them. Thus what Christ proclaimed over Peter is in fact true, however the mistake comes when we read the text as if Peter himself is the church or is the only one who is proclaiming the Gospel - this simply isn't true (see Paul in Acts, Philip, etc.). Sidenote: Peter is just as fallible as everyone else as we see in Matthew 16:23 where Jesus corrects him. Remember, Peter only has power and authority when he is acting in concert with what Christ has commanded and the same is true of all Christians everywhere.

Fifth and finally, regarding the phrases where the text notes the connection between binding on earth and heaven, the connection is this: the church has the keys and it's job is to either usher in those who are loosed from the kingdom of earth or keep out those who are bound to the kingdom of earth (similarly, as we will see in Matthew 18, the church is charged with holding those living as disciples for the  heavenly kingdom to conduct which is becoming of a disciple, or placing under discipline those who's behavior is not). While that may sound harsh, it all goes back to the One who has ultimately loosed and bound folks in eternity - God the Father, who Matthew has noted is the One who revealed all of this to Peter in the first place (16:17). And here's the connection: when the church is faithful to what the Bible says, we are working at what God has already done. God has chosen people from before there was time to worship Him (Ephesians 1:3-6) and the church's job is to proclaim the Gospel as a means of confronting those people with God's truths and thus calling them to repentance and to the salvation that God offers to them. It is in this manner that the church makes disciples and it is in this manner that God saves sinners. There are all sorts of implications for predestination in this, but we'll save that talk for another post. The point right here in Matthew is that we as the church have a delegated responsibility from Christ to be "fishers of men."

I realize that this is a complicated passage and a difficult topic, but it is also one that we should spend a bit of time trying to unravel because the implications are huge for us as a church: we have a responsibility delegated to us by God for proclaiming the Gospel as the first step in discipleship - let us not shy away from this, but instead embrace it as part of God's sovereign plan in eternity to reconcile people like you and I to Him so that we will be with Him forever. To God be the glory!

(If you want to read a short, helpful article that speaks to some of these thoughts, check out pages 108-109 of this journal article by D. A. Carson)

Repeats and Reminders

I've spoken previously about the purpose and necessity of the Bible being repetitive at times and I have come across yet another great explanation of this from J. C. Ryle:

"This repetition shows us that our Lord was in the habit of saying the same things over again. He did not content Himself with saying a thing once, and afterwards never repeating it. It is evident that it was His custom to bring forward certain truths again and again, and thus to impress them more deeply on the minds of His disciples. He knew the weakness of our memories on spiritual things; He knew that what we hear twice, we remember better than what we hear once. He therefore brought out of His treasure old things as well as new." (Expository Thoughts on Matthew, p.189)

Do not despise when the Bible is repetitive, but instead realize that it is for our own good - it is to recall and to remind us of the great things of God which we dare not forget and which we must be reminded of time and again if we are to hold faithful to them.

Holding the Line

I attended a wonderful conference on the Bible last Fall during which the speaker told us something that I thought I'd pass along: "We often think that the temptation is to take away from the Bible - that most people who go horribly wrong with their understanding of the Scriptures do so because they ignore some or all of what is written there; this is a danger, true, but it is just as much danger to add to the words of Scripture and go beyond what is written." He also noted that the first danger is the trap of liberal theology while the second danger hits a bit closer to home and is the trap of the Pharisees.

I noted a little bit of this is yesterday's sermon and so I'd simply like to spend a moment or two focusing upon this principle - we are to hold to what Scripture says, no more and no less. This can be more difficult than we think in at least two ways:

1) There is always the temptation to add to what Scripture says. For example: we read in the Bible a prohibition against working on the Sabbath and immediately (and with good intentions) carry that over into our current culture and say that it is a sin to do any kind of work on Sunday. The issue is that this brings up a whole host of questions that are left unresolved: how does the Jewish Sabbath relate to the Christian Lord's Day? What was the original purpose of not working (to spend the entire day in the worship of God) and are we really doing that today (most people I know aren't - they treat Sunday afternoon just like they would a Saturday)? What was work then and what are some comparable examples today? And of course, the grandaddy question of them all, how should the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus affect how we understand the Old Testament law?

I say all of this not because I think we should all work ourselves to the bone on Sundays (we shouldn't) and not because I don't think that we should honor the Lord on Sunday (we should), but rather I say it to cause us to be careful, to ask ourselves "what does Scripture really say" rather than what might be a good application of what it says. Let us always be wary of saying more than the Bible itself says. (For a short answer to the question of working on the Sabbath, it is interesting that Jesus doesn't seem to address this in the same vein as we see in the Old Testament; it would seem that the proper flavor of New Testament understanding - as with how Jesus applies so many Old Testament laws - is that the ultimate point isn't simply "do no work" so much as it is "set aside particular time regularly to honor the Lord in community"). Application is good and well and needed, but let us not turn application into an idol or litmus test. Nor let us turn application into Scripture itself.

2) The opposite temptation is to take away from Scripture. While we Bible-believing Christians would normally think that this wouldn't be a challenge for us, you might be surprised. When tricky questions arise on topics of divorce, church discipline, homosexuality, and hell we see that more and more often in our culture and in our churches folks tend to shy away from speaking where the Bible speaks. These are areas where the Bible has pretty clear teaching (note though that while the teaching is clear the applications are - in some cases - varied) and yet in our culture of tolerance it is hard to hold to such firm teachings. My dear friends, this particular temptation is a call for great courage and faith in the Lord. Just as we have noted that we should never add to Scripture, we should also never detract from it and become it's editor. If the Lord wished for it to mean something different than it does then He would have said so.

So what's the principle then? It is what our conference speaker called "holding the line." He drew a straight horizontal line on a white board and said that our job as preachers and ultimately as Christians is to remain on that line with our teaching and our understanding of the Bible. We aren't to go above it by adding to it and we aren't to dive below it by taking away from the words of Scripture. Instead, faithfulness is found in speaking where Scripture speaks. Pray that the Lord would instill this great truth in us, pray that we would be found to be faithful in our study of the Scriptures, and most of all, pray that God would be held in honor amongst us as we honor what He has written.

(See also: Matthew 15:8-9, Mark 7:1-8; a specific example of "holding the line" is given in Revelation 22:18-19)

The Intolerance of Tolerance

"Those people are wrong, and they must be shouted down." -Sioux City Journal editorial, Our Opinion, April 22, 2012

So say the authors of a recent newspaper editorial regarding a public issue that has recently been in the spotlight. The issue? Bullying.

My comments today really have nothing to do with the various stances on bullying and I am in no way advocating taking one position or another on Biblical grounds. Instead, what I wish to simply note this morning is how our culture has redefined the very essence of tolerance to mean something radically different than was meant for centuries up until a few years ago.

Professor D. A. Carson in his book The Intolerance of Tolerance notes this quite well when he challenges the reader to look up the dictionary definition of tolerance. What is seen is that the very essence of tolerance is the allowing of dissenting opinions and vigorous debate in the search for truth. Or, said another way, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (which is often cited as Voltaire, though Carson points out that this quote is found nowhere in Voltaire's writings). Thus, the idea of tolerance was that there is ultimate truth and that it can be found out through reasoning, knowledge, debate, and even disagreement because ultimately the truth will be exposed through those processes. Thus, debate should be allowed on all manner of issues rather than the stifling of viewpoints that we disagree with so that, out of the fray, we as a society would get to the bottom of the issue and find out what is true and correct.

Today, that definition and notion of tolerance is under attack. All one needs to do is look around and see that in many corners of our society, the free and open exchange of ideas is not permitted. From news networks purposely taking quotes of political opponents out of context to sway viewers, to event organizers not giving a platform to those who express dissenting views while claiming to be "open minded," we see a constant barrage against the idea that there is any truth to be sought out at all. And, irony of ironies, those who disagree are labeled "intolerant."

In our postmodern society, the very idea that there is ultimate truth (or even "truth," for that matter) is under attack. So instead of reasoning intelligently and kindly with one another - even though we might still disagree in the end - we have been left with a culture that is, ironically, highly intolerant of anyone that doesn't take a part in the current cultural spirit (the Germans have a wonderful word for this called "zeitgeist" - the spirit of the age). One of the values that our particular age seems to hold dear is that there is no absolute truth. But rather than allowing this to mean chaos and anarchy - which is what it would necessarily mean (and with which I would whole-heartedly disagree since I believe in truth), purveyors of this corrupted dogma instead have said that anyone who disagrees with them must be intolerant.

Pot, meet kettle.

And so we arrive at today's newspaper article in which the recommended action is to "shout others down." This recommendation is intolerant, and not of the kind that is peddled these days, but intolerant by definition. The advice isn't helpful. And to be most frank, this does nothing to address the real concerns raised in the article and the tragic situation that it refers to. The solution isn't to shout down those who disagree, but to reason with one another and find out if what we think really is indeed the case. The solution isn't to simply apply band-aid fixes to difficult and deeply ingrained social situations, but instead to set aside all of the rhetoric and political posturing to seek real, true, lasting agreements on how to address complex social situations. In short, truth will be best found not in suppressing viewpoints which are at odds with the current social feelings espoused by various governmental and mass-media entities, but rather it will be found by taking seriously each viewpoint and accepting it or rejecting it based upon fact rather than emotion, based upon what is true rather than what we feel about the source.

In our current political climate and with the current spirit of the age, this would seem to be an impossible task as our nation fractures into further and further splinter groups. But fear not, there is hope, for "nothing is impossible with God" (Luke 1:37). Not even the birth of a baby boy under miraculous circumstances; a baby boy who will grow into a man named Jesus Christ, the Savior of all who place their trust in Him. Let us point others towards genuine, lasting, truth. Let us show others that answers aren't found in simply trying to suppress other viewpoints and delivering culturally palatable talking points, but instead they are found in seeking and finding truth, for whoever seeks will find (Matthew 7:7).

Review: Warfield on the Christian Life

“Warfield on the Christian Life: Living in Light of the Gospel” by Fred G. Zaspel is an informative and helpful book for those seeking to integrate what the Bible says into their everyday lives. The subject of this particular work is the writings of B. B. Warfield, a 19^th century professor at Princeton University who was known as one of America’s premier theologians. His many writings, especially The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible put him on the theological map and continue to set the standard for robust, Biblical belief even in our day.

The book itself is fairly brief (231 pages) and is divided up into a number of topics which build upon one another to form a comprehensive theology of the Christian life. I greatly appreciated Zaspel’s introductory biography which gives a feel for a man who is not simply some ivory tower intellectual, but is also a real man who has real desires for everyday people to understand God’s Word. As well, Warfield’s absolute love and devotion to his perpetually ill wife was both moving and instructive for a man who is well known for his productivity. “It was reported by those who knew him that ‘he has had only two interests in life – his work, and Mrs. Warfield’” (p.29). What a wonderful summary of a faithful man.

I was especially taken by the various quotations of Warfield that appear as vignettes throughout the book – while his longer quotations are imminently helpful, little one or two sentence quotations appear often and let us delve into the depth of wisdom that Warfield possessed. Such thoughts as “Gentlemen, I like the supernatural!” (p.19) and “We cannot do without the Scriptures; having them we need no other guide. We need this light to light our pathway; having it we may well dispense with any other” (p.43) provide insight not just into the man himself – though they do this; not just into Warfield’s views on theology – but also they point us towards robust, Biblical thinking which is the greatest value of this book.

One of the more helpful topics that is broached in the book is the meaning of Christianity itself, which Zaspel notes that Warfield characterizes as a “sinner’s religion” (p.51). What a great comfort this is – that our faith and religion are not meant for the perfect, for those who have their lives all put together, but instead our faith is rooted in Jesus Christ who knows full well our infirmities and yet still died to save all who believe!

Regarding our standing before God, Zaspel shows us via Warfield’s thoughts in chapter 5 that the Gospel “is not good advice, but good news” (p.63). This leads into a helpful discussion on our salvation by grace alone and the resulting implications of God as not only King, but also righteous Judge. Later in the chapter Zaspel reprints Warfield’s thoughts on salvation in that “the whole of salvation, ‘in each of its steps and stages, runs back to God as its author and furtherer’” (p.66).

I found Warfield’s definition of repentance to be a breath a fresh air in our society which shuns any sort of personal responsibility for the wrongs that we commit and thus any need to change our course of life: “repentance is turning ‘from all wrong to all good, in which the trend of our life is altered, in which in a word, we turn our backs on Satan and all the works of the flesh, and our face to God and his service. The repentance of the New Testament is a total change of mind and heart, not only from some sins but from sin itself.’” (p.76).

Too, Warfield’s comments on God’s sovereignty and providence are hopeful: “The world may be black to us; there may no longer be hope in man; anguish and trouble may be our daily portion; but there is this light that shines through all the darkness: ‘We cannot be robbed of God’s providence’” (p.140).

I found the most helpful parts of the book to reside near the end. On the religious life, Warfield has the following to say: “sometimes we hear it said that ten minutes on your knees will give you a truer, deeper, more operative knowledge of God than ten hours over your books. ‘What!’ is the appropriate response…why should you turn from God when your turn to your books, or feel that you must turn from your books in order to turn to God?” and again: “Do we wish to grow in grace? It is the knowledge of God’s truth that sanctifies the heart…There is no way so potent for awakening a craving for personal holiness or for arousing a love of souls in our hearts, as to fill the mind with a knowledge of God’s love to man as revealed in his Holy Book” (p.163-164).

If there are any downfalls in this book then they are certainly minor in comparison to bringing Warfield’s solidly Biblical thoughts to a larger audience. As with Zaspel’s previous work, I found myself wishing for more quotes from Warfield himself and less of Zaspel’s commentary on Warfield. But the more that I think of it, I’m not sure this is a fair charge to make so much as an unavoidable shortfall to be aware of. Zaspel is summarizing a massive amount of literature into a single, reasonably accessible work and to do this he must restate some of Warfield’s thought in other words. This comment, though, should be taken in a helpful light: let this summary of Warfield drive us to the works of the man himself. And let us not end there, but let the words of Warfield drive us to the Scriptures themselves and to the God who is revealed in them!

Quibbles aside, I found this book to be a helpful one for those who wish to taste of the deep well of B. B. Warfield. Far be it for any to describe Warfield himself as a dry and dusty theologian after reading through and hearing his heart on the Christian life. Take up and read and you will find that the effort is well worth it to replenish your mind and to enable you to give God-honoring service with your life.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I wish to note that the publisher of this book, Crossway, provided it to me at no cost as a review sample. That said, my review is in no way influenced or controlled by them and thus I write my review of this book with honesty and integrity.)