Canadians extra-ordinarily ordinary

John Shelton Reed was interviewed on the radio program Thinking in Public last month about the question of regionalization and culture. While most of the conversation was centred around the South, he did use Canada as a reference, and said that "Canadians take pride in being un-exciting, extra-ordinarily ordinary." I found this rather humourous. Are we as Canadians as boring as he just made us sound? What about our beer commercials? Those certainly make us look exciting...don't they? The rest of the conversation centred around topics which help us understand regionalization, and it made me think of our own 'boring' country. Does regionalism factor into our Canadian culture? I think it's obvious it does.

If our country could be generalized from coast-to-coast, we would find our regions very distinct. Religiously, the east coast through to central Canada is largely made up of Catholics. The western half of the country has a large portion of evangelical and ecclesiastical protestants as compared to the rest of the country.

Our food is regionalized. Can you get better seafood than the east coast? Can you find a better steak than Alberta? B.C. Salmon and fruit is delicious. Quebec...poutine!

Quebec speaks French, as does New Brunswick. Ontario says 'boot' (I had no idea what Americans were talking about when they said we spoke with a funny accent until I spent some time in Ontario), Newfoundlanders speak...Newfanese?? The west speaks English.

When you think of major crime, Quebec has the Canadian mob, B.C. has Asian gangs, the rest of the country has a hodge-podge of all of them.

Alberta is the stronghold of conservative politics, Ontario typically Liberal, Quebec socialism, and the rest of the country again being a mix.

So do these differences, although largely generalized, play an important role in our self-image and identity as 'Canadians'? Or will these differences eventually split our country apart? It almost did once in the 90's with the very close Quebec referendum. Will we ever, as a country, feel truly united?

Do these differences matter to the church and how we share the gospel with others? How do we reach out to Canadians? As Paul Washer has said when asked how he evangelized to the Peruvian natives, he replied, "I don't preach to Peruvian natives, I preach the gospel to lost people no matter where they are."

The point Paul was making was that evangelicals sometimes get too caught up in cultural differences and studies, rather than trusting in the Word and the Spirit to convert lost people, regardless of the culture. The message is the same no matter where you go. Man needs a Mighty Saviour, and we have One in Jesus.

If there is no God...

If there is no God, then we have no soul, thereby making us no different from animals. Aquinas stated: Animals are all flesh and no spirit, angels are all spirit and no flesh, while man is both, thereby having the ability to ascend to the higher, or descend to the lower. As a culture, we are moving toward the lower.

Pensees radio program was discussing the ramifications of the idea that we are beings without souls, a popular atheistic belief that directly affects how we view our society. It strikes at the very heart of the philosophical debate about humanity and the very reason of our existence.

People wander through life rarely asking why they are here. In the brief moments that they do, they tend to not think on the topic long due to the inevitable dichotomy that occurs. Can we have purpose or meaning without God? If there is no God, then can there logically be any real meaning to life as we know it? You would be hard-pressed to find any person that has spent more than a couple of intoxicated minutes on the subject to come up with a logical and reasonable answer. Without God, there is no meaning to this life. As the parable of the rich fool went, "eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you die." As you may know, Jesus called this man a fool as that very night his soul was required and would be answerable for his life. (Luke 12:13-21).

What do we tell those we love during times of suffering without God? Hang on...be strong...Why? What for? Keep suffering...how utterly hopeless. What do you tell people you love when a loved one passes away? He/she had a 'good' life, and now its over. They are gone forever, and their life was pointless. It goes well with the whole idea of the t-shirt that states "He who dies with the most toys wins." I wonder what he 'wins'?

George Bernard Shaw believed that man is born morally neutral, and can be trained to serve the state. Those that prove otherwise should be wiped out. How very atheistic. At least he's honest, and consistent with his beliefs. Those with the power make the rules, and those that don't get on board should be wiped out as they are threats to those that are in power. If there is no God, then we are simply nothing more than 'advanced' animals, and should be treated as such. We have no inherent worth, and by some people's philosophy, we are a cancer on the earth. I've had people tell me that we should wipe out societies in order to curb the population explosion. I'm sure he didn't mean Canada...maybe those Africans that are starving and killing each other. By that logic, what happened in Haiti and Japan are both 'good' things.

Moral education is virtually non-existent today as students are seen as strictly flesh with no soul, no moral compass by which to point and live by. While attending grade 12 (for the third year), I was indoctrinated into the post-modern thought of there being no truth, no absolutes. I wrote a paper on the leadership qualities of Adolf Hitler, using the very post-modern argument that what was true for Hitler was true for him, and if we follow this 'truth' then who are we to tell him otherwise? I was shocked that my mark scored low, not because of my poor writing skills, but because I dared argue that Hitler wasn't wrong in his leadership and actions according to the philosophy of post-modernism. How very UN-postmodern! Where was the consistency of thought? Post-moderns are absolutists about the things that really matter to them.

William Golding, author of Lord of the Flies, was asked to justify his writing of the novel. His answer was profound for a non-believer. He said, "The problems of human society are the problems of human nature." It wasn't because of a lack of education, a lack of resources, a wrongful distribution of wealth. It was our nature. This lines up perfectly with Holy Scripture.

Scripture tells us don't follow your heart, for it is wicked. Deep down we are rotten to the core.

Can you wander through Auschwitz and still say 'man is good'?

All philosophies seek to fix the problems of man, whether it be wealth distribution, education, environmentalism. Christianity is the only philosophy that can properly understand this issue, our only help is regeneration of our spirit through Jesus Christ that will restrain us from our wickedness. We will see ourselves differently, but we will see others differently as well.

Diversity

I listen to a variety of different programs via iTunes podcasts. One of these is Pensees, a program that looks at cultural issues and Christianity. You can find the website of the program here. The latest one I listened to had to do with how cultural diversity is destroying America. This has been a hot topic for years, especially since the US has looked upon diversity as a positive. Of course, Canada has officially had a policy of cultural diversity since 1980. We encourage those that come to Canada from other countries and cultures to maintain their culture within our own. The Pensees program considered this to be equivalent to the Roman pantheon which collapsed under its own weight and inability to maintain control over such a wide variety of different belief systems. If America (or other nations that adhere to the same beliefs) continue to embrace this ideology, then American culture will collapse under its own weight as well.

It got me to thinking about the church local, and how important it is for the stability of the flock to be under one teaching. While setting up the Constitution and By-Laws of Hill Country Reformed Baptist Church, I had to come up with a means by which Elders would be qualified to be preachers and teachers of God's Word, and how that may look different than the more general understanding of the Christian beliefs for the membership. While there are the closed-handed issues that all Christians adhere to, there are the open-handed issues that can vary from church to church while still maintaining the orthodox Christian teachings. With that being said, it doesn't mean that the secondary teachings can be diverse within one body as being taught from the pulpit. There needs to be a consistency of teaching from the leadership which helps maintain unity within the local body. Without this, the body gets confused and unsure of itself, and eventually fractures.

The body of Christ has many parts, and each plays a different role, both individually and corporately. Can the body of Christ be united in one sense yet diverse in others? I would argue it can. Can a country or empire be united in one sense yet diverse in others? I would argue it cannot. The reason for this is that a country with such diversity cannot agree on the primary issues that maintain its essence. Eventually the diversity becomes an entity in itself where nothing has any distinct meaning and therefore collapses.

Chaplaincy and Political Correctness

I'm a fan of the show The Unit. Yesterday, while watching The Unit, the chaplain for the base in Fort Griffith was explaining to someone that he was involved with a ceremony for 12 Wiccans, and that part of his job was to serve all those in the US military equally, regardless of which faith they were a part of. How very post-modern. I don't expect atheists, or those that are 'spiritual' that have bought into post-modernist thought to understand this, but the Bible is clear that as a believer, to be involved in any worship activity that does not proclaim and worship Him, in a way that is acceptable to Him, is grievous sin against Him. I too, was once asked to participate in a Wiccan ceremony (not as a chaplain), and I had to decline. This did not go over particularly well, but under no circumstance could I be directly involved with a ceremony that was against my God. To tell the truth, I don't know why anyone would want someone not of the same faith to be involved with a ceremony that means a great deal to them. Is this not putting the approval of man above the worship of your god? To accept those of different faiths into the worship of your god indicates that faith doesn't matter, that we all worship the same god and that it (he, she, they...whatever) doesn't care about the means by which you worship it. The true and living God does care, and will not accept anything except true worship from a heart that loves Him (Matt. 15:9). I am grateful that thus far in my chaplain ministry I have not been asked nor demanded to participate in any religious ceremony that is not Christian. I believe my job as chaplain would be to assist them in finding the help they believe they need, without compromising my own faith. To do anything else would be unacceptable. This does not mean that we avoid and have nothing to do with those of a different faith. We are called to love all people, therefore we need to interact with them, serve them, and if possible, share the gospel with them. We can participate in humanitarian efforts with them, and a variety of other non-worship activities without compromising our beliefs or worship, but we must not involve ourselves in any worship activity with them. We must also prepare for the fact that this will not be taken well by those that are more 'enlightened' than we are.

Can we learn from the Joshua Tree?

Amy here. I've spent the last few weeks exploring the deserts of southwestern USA. I've seen many cool and interesting things, one of which actually inspired a blog post!

On the southern side of California there is a small National Park called Joshua Tree Park. Right in the middle of the desert, this beautiful park is really worth visiting. It is one of the few places where the Joshua Tree actually grows.

Hence the name, obviously.
Story has it that this tree was named by Mormon missionaries. This tree looked like a person lifting their arms in praise to God, so they named it after the biblical Joshua.

Isn't that a great mental picture? How often have we done the same, open hands, raised arms, to praise or worship?

Now imagine doing the same, but with a tight clenched fist. Not the same peaceful mental picture at all, is it. Go ahead, take your relaxed open hand and clench it. You can almost feel the tension, the anger, rolling up your arm. We just wouldn't do that with our arms up praising God.

Yet how easily we take our open hands, point our hands towards our brothers and sisters in Christ, and clench those fists tight.
There are two kinds of issues we have to be aware of. Some require a fist, so to speak, but so many don't. Do you know the differences?

Closed handed issues - these are the things we must stand firm on. God created the Heavens and the earth. God is trinitarian in being, comprised of the Father, the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. Christ died on the cross for us, and God raised Him from the dead 3 days later. The things like these that salvation depends on. (These are examples of close-handed issues, not all of them are mentioned).

The rest are called "Open handed issues" - these are the things that people so often disagree on. Arminian or Calvinist? God came for everyone or for the elect? How about, are you are pre-trib rapture, post-trib rapture, or it'll-come-when-it-comes rapture believer? What about infant or adult baptism?

Did you even know that it's okay to have different viewpoints on these things? And that's just a few examples. Brilliant biblical scholars have held vastly different opinions on so many open handed issues.

And guess what? That's okay. More than okay, that's good. If people who have devoted their lives studying these things don't all agree, why should we?

If you don't know where you stand on open handed issues, or didn't even know about them, I urge you to learn. Learn which things you can't disagree on and which you can. Learn from many different sources, so you know not only where you stand, you can understand the opinions others have. Learn.

If you are a leader, be it as a mentor, a small group, large group, or more, you have a bigger responsibility. Teach what things are okay to see differently on. Teach to keep an open mind on the open handed issues. You don't want to teach those that look up to you that your view of an open handed issues is the only right way. You don't want to teach those fists to close.

It's hard to show love with a tight closed fist. When we close up tight on an open handed issue, we show no love, no understanding, no family in Christ. A pastor I see as a smart man defined that attitude perfectly - "all rules, no love". He was talking about Pharisies, and how perfectly that describes anyone who shakes that tight angry fist at a brother or sister over an open handed issue.
An interesting fact about the Joshua Tree, with it's arms stretched up to God. When it dies, those beautiful branches droop down to the ground and whither into a tight ball, and the weight pulls the branch right off the tree. One by one the arms droop and die until the once beautiful tree is a broken split apart stump.

Are we willing to break apart and whither from our brothers and sisters over open handed issues? Would it not be better to keep those hands open on love, reach out and work together, and just see how much we can grow the Kingdom of God that way? Who knows what can happen then, but you'll only know if you keep open on the open handed issues.

It's time to learn. Before we whither too.

National Politics

So, here we go again. Another election, another waste of $300 million. Once upon a time, I was very keen and interested in politics. I even made some noise about being an MP or MLA, but my lovely wife told me under no circumstances would she be the wife of a politician. Career change averted! I have some thoughts on politics, and I will mention them here, then I hope to not have to do it again for another 4-5 years.

I have been a conservative voter my entire life, and it appears I will be doing so again this election. Let me explain my reasons.

Option #1: Green Party. This party is a non-starter for me, for the following reasons. 1) Their party policies are based upon religious principles, primarily the love and worship of the earth. I have no problem with the very Christian principle of taking care of what God has provided for us, but to put the earth above the needs of humanity is in serious error. 2) The policies put forward to 'protect the earth' would put our country in serious financial and economic peril. No thanks.

Option #2: NDP. The New Democratic Party is a socialist party that would put this country into serious jeopardy. Think modern-day Greece. They would bankrupt this country with the policies they would put forward, higher taxes for big-business (the very businesses that bring the most employment to our economy) which would force these corporations to move to cheaper countries, thereby costing us jobs. The social programs they would like to put in place would make Quebec look down-right conservative. No thanks.

Option #3: Liberal. My issue with the Liberal party isn't so much the party itself, but with the general smug attitude that comes with it. The liberals have said that they are the "natural-governing party of Canada." (embracing the title given by the very liberal CBC). Pardon me?? The liberal voters are beyond dogmatic in their approach to politics. These people will vote liberal no matter how bad they are doing, no matter what major scandal they are involved in. How is this different from the conservative voters? I'm glad you asked. Back in 1993 when the Progressive Conservatives were doing all they could to make a mess of the country, it was the conservative voters that annihilated the party, so much so they had to absolve the party over a decade later and amalgamate with the Canadian Alliance Party (now just known as the Conservatives). It was the conservative voters that punished the very party that they had supported for so many years. Hard-core conservatives changed their vote. Hard-core Liberals have proven that they will vote Liberal no matter what they do. I would argue that the conservatives have taken over the middle of the political spectrum, making the Liberals move further left. With the proposals introduced by the Liberals, they too would put this country into economic peril. No thanks.

Option #4: Conservatives. While no party is as good as they think they are, and no party is as bad as the others would make them out to be, I consider this year's best choice out of a bad bunch to be the conservatives. While their current policies are still too left-leaning for me, they are the closest thing to a responsible government that we have. They are not devoid of crimson stain, but at least we won't be cast into the economic poor house in the near future; their policies will take a few years to get us there.

How I miss Preston Manning. Get out and vote this year.

The problem with Evangelicals

So, I was talking to my neighbor the other day. I've had great discussions with her in the past about all things Christian, and discovered she's very knowledgeable about Christianity. I haven't seen her in a while as her new job has kept her busy, so it was great that I was able to have a brief chat with her before heading off to church. I was telling her about our upcoming church plant, and the first question she asked was "Is it evangelical?" It was asked not in a positive frame, but one of guarded interest. I answered that we would be a reformed baptist church (yes, I avoided the question). When talking with another neighbor friend of mine, she asked if we would be "Baptist" (again, not in a positive "Oh, I hope it IS!" kind of way). I told her we would be affiliated with the Canadian National Baptist Convention. I didn't feel ashamed, but at the same time I felt...discouraged. Why all the negative vibes?

It reminded me of my last conversation with my mother. She believes herself to be a Christian, yet she hasn't opened her bible in 45 years (her own admission). There is a belief in many corners of Canada today (and maybe elsewhere) that being an evangelical is something to be sneered at. My mother calls us "hoity-toities". (I think she means we think our poop doesn't stink...but I'm not sure). My beloved Grandmother has no use for evangelicals, and neither does the rest of my extended family. I thought this was simply a family issue, but upon further study, I've realized that with the founding religions of Canada being primarily Catholic and ecclesiastical Protestants (United Church of Canada among other liberal churches), to be an evangelical is to be an 'annoying Bible-thu

mper'. This leads me to two issues we as evangelicals need to deal with. 1)We need to educate people about what Christianity is, and use the bible to do so. This may lead to the 'annoying Bible-thumper' title, but if we do it in such a manner that isn't so...arrogant, maybe people would be more likely to listen. Maybe. 2)Stop giving non-evangelicals ammunition to rightly call us nasty names. There are some that feel unless you're dancing in the aisles, you're not born of the Spirit. Therefore, anyone who sits quietly in their seat, sings quietly, or does anything quietly, is spiritually dead. We're also known to be quite forward in our proclamation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of the notion that religion is something we keep to ourselves, we are commanded to share the gospel, I'm just saying we can be more discerning about the manner in which we do it.

We cannot help that the gospel is going to offend people, Jesus told us that would happen, but we can help the manner in which we

conduct ourselves in relation to others. Maybe we can try loving our neighbors instead of trying to convert them every time we see them. Maybe we can listen instead of talking. Maybe we can let the Spirit guide our actions instead of taking charge ourselves.

Universalism

One of the greatest questions in theology is "Who did Jesus die for?" Many evangelicals like to claim that Christ in fact died for everyone. They misquote John 3:16 and a few other scriptures to support this weak position. There are two main areas of concern with regards to this Arminian position: 1)If Christ died for everyone, then everyone will be saved, even those that do not believe in Jesus. This is called universalism, which believes in the universal sacrifice of Christ on the cross and that His atonement was indeed for all people for all time...even for the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and all the other people that were monsters, even by our own sinful and earthly standards. Scripture is crystal clear that this is not the case, and to be fair, Arminians don't believe in universalism. So what do they believe?

Jesus died for all of humanity potentially, and for none in actuality. Salvation depends upon the response of each individual to the gospel message. If you respond positively, you will be saved. If you do not, you will not be saved. Therefore, while Christ's sacrifice on the cross was sufficient for the entire world, there was the potential that His sacrifice would save none. How is this different from reformed theology?

Jesus died for His church. John 10:11 says, "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down His life for His sheep." Jesus did not come to earth with the potential to save all, He came to save His sheep. He knows who belong to Him, and His sheep hear Him (John 10:27).

2)God is unjust if Christ died for all yet universalism is wrong. If Christ died for the forgiveness of the world's sins, yet those that don't believe in Christ by the time they die are cast into hell, then they have been punished unjustly, for their sins (including the sin of unbelief) have been paid for by the death of Jesus on the cross. If the fine has been paid in full, how can God exact more justice? He cannot, yet maintain His justness.

Regardless of how you believe one comes to faith, if you stand with orthodox Christians, you MUST believe in particular atonement, otherwise you must believe in either universalism, or you believe our God is unjust, as he punished his Son for the sins of the world, AND he will punish those again that do not believe in Christ. Our God is good, our God is just. He sent His Son to die on a cross for the forgiveness of sins, more particularly, the sins of His church.

Victory!

Palm Sunday, the glorious entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, the final week of His earthly life and ministry. Jesus rides into Jerusalem on a colt, and the masses are going crazy. Can you see it? Christian movies have tried to capture the scene, but I don’t think they ever get it quite right. There is bedlam in the streets as the Messiah is coming into the city, expectations are through the roof, His reputation has preceded Him. This of course was not His first visit to Jerusalem, as He had spent time in the city before, including His trashing of the Temple which He was about to repeat this week as well. He had healed many in the city, and again in His three-year ministry all over the area. He had cast out demons (Legion into the pigs, the man in the temple in Capernaum, the boy with convulsions, the woman with the disabling Spirit to name a few), did miraculous healings (Simon’s mother-in-law, cleansed lepers, healed paralytics both by the pool and the gentleman dropped through Peter’s roof, healed the withered hand, raised Lazarus, the widow’s son and Jairus’s daughter from the dead, healed the Centurion’s servant, healed the woman that bled for 12 years, the man with dropsy, the blind beggar in Jericho, and again many more). He taught with authority (Capernaum, Nazareth, ministered to multitudes, forgave sins). He accomplished “cool” things (fishing until the nets were breaking, calmed a storm, fed upwards of 15000 with a couple of loaves and a few small fish, with leftovers not once, but twice!) He was transfigured on a mountain, and prophesied His death, the destruction of the Temple, of wars and persecution, the destruction of Jerusalem, and made the religious establishment very, very nervous.

As it says in John 12:13, the people took palm branches and went out to meet Jesus as He was entering the city. They were calling out to Him “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!” This was not good news for the Sanhedrin, not out of worry for what Jesus was going to do, but for fear of the Roman authorities. You see, the Palm branches in this time symbolized victory. The Jews were frantic and excited by the prospect that Jesus was making a triumphal entry into the city to over-throw the Romans and establish His earthly kingdom. This is essentially the same as poking a stick into a hornet’s nest. The Romans knew full-well what the branches meant, which no doubt would bring the wrath of the Roman government upon the people. The Sanhedrin would lose control of Jerusalem, along with all the perks that went with the position. This type of entry and the response by the people sealed the resolve of the Sanhedrin to eliminate Jesus once and for all. Little did they know! Jesus was going to be victorious over death by His death on the cross, and the resurrection to follow! You’ll notice that you too have palms that you carry everywhere, one on your left, and one on your right. Feel free this week to raise your palms in victory over death! And thank the Lord our God for His great sacrifice that He made for us.

Wrong? I'm NEVER wrong!

I have learned much in my walk from some godly men and women. I've even learned some things from the not-so-godly category as well. I've had the pleasure of learning from some great minds at the Canadian Southern Baptist Seminary, and I've supplemented that learning with a variety of other professors and pastors from a variety of different sources. One of the most influential has been R.C. Sproul. He heads up Ligonier Ministries which is LOADED with different resources, and is pastor of St. Andrews Church in Sanford, Florida. The guy is a gem; too bad he's a presbyterian. Another that I've learned much from has been Albert Mohler Jr., President of Southern Baptist Seminary in Kentucky. A wonderful mind, and he's Baptist. He must be a 'winner' right? Apparently he's not well liked, even by Southern Baptists. Under the not-well liked category would be Dr. John MacArthur. If you listen to this guy preach, he's a walking theology book. He is extra-ordinarily brilliant, a real warrior for God. He's apparently too much of a Pharisee. There's Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church who grew a mega-church from 8 people meeting in his living room. His problem? He's a bit too unpolished, and can say things from the pulpit that make your sensitive hairs on your neck stand up. No topic is off-limits, and he can freak out from time to time. There's Paul Washer, another good Baptist, but he's way too depressing and concentrates too much on the shortcomings of the church today. If you ever want to feel as though you're doing everything wrong, listen to this guy. Never mind that he lives and breathes Christ, he's too much of a downer. Matt Chandler of The Village Church is a charismatic preacher, a quick wit and fantastic delivery. He's also a tongues speaker. Ravi Zacharias (has an accent), Todd Friel (really long neck) and many others I could speak about, but I won't.

When I first started listening to these fine gentlemen of the faith, I was fortunate enough that I had matured enough in my faith that I knew none of them were Christ. I knew that even though they were men of God, they weren't Him. I've listened to countless hours of sermons and lectures from each of these guys, and I'm grateful for their ministries. I've even listened to them long enough that I have found something that I disagree with from each and every one of them. I think this is a good thing, for my bible has almost 2000 pages in it, and if I ever found someone that agreed 100% with every aspect of Christianity with me...well, that would be creepy. Besides, aren't I always right?

I know far too many people that get hung up on their favourite preachers and teachers. With the everyday use of the internet today, pastors have another tool that can and often is used against them. "How come you don't preach like John MacArthur?" asked one person to a pastor-friend of mine. Answer: "I'm not John MacArthur."

Preaching is one aspect of being a pastor; an important one, but a small one. The job of the pastor goes far beyond standing in a pulpit once a week. Let's take it easy on our pastors a little shall we, especially seeing how I'm going to be one.

By the way, all those preachers and teachers mentioned are wonderful people of God, and the issues presented are quotes I've heard from others. I cannot speak intelligently on the character of any of those mentioned. I am personally very blessed to have been taught by all of them, and would recommend any wanting further study or messages, check the website links provided.

Distracted much?

With our church plant getting ever-so-closer, we've had to deal with the identity of our church. I've been asked very good questions like "Why would anyone go to your church?" (I know the gentleman that asked, and it wasn't meant in a derogatory fashion, he was really asking "What is going to be different about your church?"...or at least that's how I interpreted it!) Great question! Indeed, why WOULD anyone go to the new church? Well, one major difference is children and youth ministry.

When you look at the vast majority of churches today, they pretty much all follow the same pattern. When you walk in the door, the children go upstairs (or down), the teens go to the room with the ping-pong table in it, the college aged go to another room, and then the adults go to yet another room (or two). In each of these rooms you have a variety of 'leaders' that volunteer their time to try to lead and teach something to each group. Generally, they mean well, and work hard getting prepared for the lesson. They do their best to engage their learners, and often at the end, break off into smaller groups to pray together. Am I right? What's the problem? No problem, unless you disagree with the methodology of discipleship, which in this case I do. You may recall in the post HATER I touched on this with regards to the youth only, but in reality it applies to the whole congregation. A half-century ago, families worshiped and prayed together, but was overcome by sociologists and psychologists that believed people needed to be with their 'peers', so the church began splitting the family with every intention of doing what's best. I feel that trend has led to disastrous results. What I believe is best for discipleship is the family unit staying together, through community groups and the entire service.

*crickets*

"But the children will be a major distraction!!!" There, I said it. How do we solve this? Most want the church to provide a place they can stick their kids in for an hour so they can relax and listen to a well-prepared sermon on 'parenting'...er...'happiness'...er...how to be a better person...er...

I believe we learn to love our neighbor and love God by being together, by worshiping together, by praying together, by living life together. Children need to see this in action, both in the church and at home. Young people need to be challenged by the pastor expositing God's Word, parents need to be challenged to actually parent, by the preaching and teaching of God's Word.

I know this is not popular, I know there are some that won't come because the children will be present in the worship service (I know this because they told me so). Does anyone else see the problem with this statement and attitude? or is it just me?

Tell me what you think, I'd love to hear from you.

Show me the love!

In my devotions today I was struck by the following question; "Do you have relationships with other believers that would enable you to say with Paul (in his epistle to Philemon) that you would be sending away your 'heart' if you were to move or otherwise lose the chance for face-to-face fellowship?" This is the kind of love we are to have for one another, a kind that if we were to lose or send away a person in our congregation, we feel as though we have lost our friend, that we would miss them greatly. All too often with some, we breathe a sigh of relief rather than one of sincere and profound loss. Sometimes it is only a passing observance that a person or family has left, and unfortunately most often (in my opinion) we don't even notice. It all comes down to community.

If we truly live in community with one another, we get to know and understand where each other are, where we struggle, and where we excel. We can pick one another up, and at times, be disciplined by those that know us best. We are to live out our Christian lives with a sincere sense of family. This is both good and bad, as anyone with a large family knows. You may not like your family, but you know them and love them (or at least you should!) The same goes with your church family. It is much more difficult to point your finger and look down your nose at others when you know them well, when you know their struggles and their strengths. You feel much more comfortable approaching a person you love to correct them than you do a 'stranger', don't you?

When I think back to those that have left our congregation that affected me the most, I think of my pastor B.S. His departure left a hole in me that was significant. My 'heart' went with him, and this is hard. The good news is that I recognized that I loved him as we are called by Jesus to love. The bad news is that I also recognized how little this happens in my life when others leave, meaning I did not love them as Christ calls us to love.

How will this recognition affect my walk? I pray the Lord helps me to love others as much as I should, and not just the ones that I like, but for those that I get most annoyed at, and I pray that others will have patience with me as I know I can rub others the wrong way.

Why?

I know there are a couple of you out there that have some theological background that read this pathetic blog, mostly out of shear, morbid curiosity to see what's going to be coming out of my mouth THIS time, but today I mean to ask a question of attitudes and understanding, of what it means to belong to the body of Christ. Are you ready? Here goes...

Why is it that reformed theology has such a bad wrap by non-reformed pastors, theologians and lay-people? Honestly.

I had a conversation yesterday with a man that I look up to, that is a godly man, that I respect and admire very much, tell me that those of the reformed camp are not of 'like-mind' with those that are not of the reformed camp. While I understand there are differences in theology, aren't we all the body of Christ? Isn't this the essence of our like-mindedness? If we all hold to the truth claims of the gospel and the orthodox teachings of the faith, are we not brothers and sisters?

I know that there are the reformed types out there that can be pompous and arrogant, but when pressed the attitudes of the non-reformed aren't much better. By far and away it seems that the problem isn't necessarily with the theology, but with the people that adhere to the theology. Isn't this unreasonable? Illogical? You hate the message because of the messenger? This is like the old adage of "cutting your nose off to spite your face" isn't it?

I follow reformed theology NOT because I'm a fan of John Calvin, but because in my reading of the Holy Scriptures, I am convinced that Calvin was right in his thinking of the scriptures. I am NOT a follower of Calvin, I'm a follower of Christ. I am convicted by the Holy Spirit of the teachings presented in the bible, and I will adhere to those teachings as my conscious binds me to do so.

As we get closer to a church plant (a reformed one) I'm getting the distinct feeling that we may not be welcomed nor worked with. I hope and pray I'm wrong, and I will work hard to not give anyone a reason to dismiss the message because of the attitude of the messenger. John 15:12 states from the mouth of Jesus, "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." I will endeavor to love my brothers and sisters in Christ, even if we differ on some theological issues, and not be arrogant in my proclamation of the Gospel, for I have nothing to boast in except Christ and Him crucified.

Destroyer of books

So Reverend Terry Jones burns a Koran (or maybe a few, I'm not sure of the details). While I applaud his boldness, his actions are NOT Christ-like. There are a few angry and militant Muslims that have put a price on his head, and surely the 'good' Reverend knew it would come. This whole thing puts a black mark on Christianity and doesn't do us any favours as far as witnessing goes. But before we jump all over our brother for his insensitive, aggressive and ill-advised public book-burning, we need to remember that the religion of peace (Islam) is not innocent, and yet our media doesn't say anything about it. If you would like to see what happens to our Christian brothers and sisters worldwide (and other non-muslims) by radical muslims, have a gander here. It's always good to keep a balanced perspective, something our liberal media rarely does. Now, where were we...oh yes, destroying books.

There are two types of people in the world, those that write in their books, and those that don't (can't, won't, *eye twitch here*). I have attempted to do this, as it is something that enables one to remain engaged in the reading, helping one understand the points being made better, and can quickly refer back to at a later date when you want to show off your new-found wisdom and knowledge. Even the brilliant Isaac Watts in his book Logic expounds on the wisdom of writing in your books. He even addresses the OCD types like me when he says "It is but a very weak objection against this practice to say, I shall spoil my book; for I persuade myself, that you did not buy it as a bookseller, to sell it again for gain, but as a scholar to improve your mind by it; and if the mind be improved, your advantage is abundant, though your book yield less money to your executors" (page 74). Isaac Watts had a sense of humour.

I know there are people out there that love to write in their books, I'm just not one of them. There are those that can mark up their bibles for crying out loud! Who DOES that!? I want my library to be pristine, no marks, no creases, no folded pages (ok, I'm not that bad, I fold my pages), clear, unmarked pages. In fact, I may stop reading my books, and simply buy them, put them on my shelves, and look like I'm well-read.

I don't have a problem, it's those crazy people that write in their books that have a problem! In fact, I have a term for you...(see above).

Now, where is my book??

Say what??

After reading a great book on biblical manhood, after attending conferences on how to be a better husband and father, and listening to wiser men than me in this area, along comes R.C. Sproul. I watched session 1 of the Holiness: 2001 National Conference (here), and once again I am reminded of the massive responsibility that God has placed on me. My job as a husband is to love my wife as Christ loves His church (Eph. 5:25-27). I knew this, I've heard it before many times. I just didn't quite understand all that it entailed! Christ had a three-fold office during His ministry on earth; 1)Prophet 2)Priest and 3)King. As a husband and father, I'm called to fulfill all three of these offices in the context of my wife and kids. Let me give a brief synopsis of what this looks like.

Prophet: I need to be the principle teacher of my wife and children. In order to do this, I must be as proficient as possible with learning God's Word and teaching that word to my family. I must be an active learner and teacher in this regard. This requires me to actually read my bible, to understand my bible, and to impart this knowledge to those under my care and responsibility.

Priest: There are two parts to this office, namely the intercessor and sacrifice. I am to pray over and for my family, constantly! I am to give myself to my wife and children. This requires me to put aside some things I want to do and spend quality time with them. This means I need to limit the amount of time I'm doing "church" things, or "school" things or "exercise" things. I need to limit the amount of time I send my children away to "do" things. In order to give myself to them, I need to make myself available to them, not just in a bodily sense, but to actually BE present and engaged!

King: I am the King of my castle. Yea me!... Christ was the servant King, and so must I. My reign is not one of a tyrant, but one that shows mercy, compassion, justness and benevolent love.

If every man would be like Christ, would there be such a backlash against the submissivness of our wives to the husbands authority?

Answer carefully.

HATER!

I have been accused of having a poor attitude toward youth ministry in the past. I would even go so far as to say that most would still use that description on me today. If they weren't so Christian-like in their attitudes, they might go so far as to call me a hater. Will it do any good to proclaim my innocence? Probably not, but I'm going to give it a try.

My problem with many (ok...all of the youth programs I have seen personally) is that they try to be relevant to the youth of today. Sure they try to sprinkle some theology into the mix, but by-and-large they are ineffective at the very thing they are so desperately wanting; young people living and following Christ. What makes me come to this conclusion? If we look at the success rate of the youth programs by following the number of youth who continue in being a part of church after they leave the home, the numbers are abysmal. By many counts the numbers are between 15-30%. I even had the misfortune of hearing one youth pastor who had been doing youth ministry for 25 years have a retention rate of ZERO! Imagine how he felt! Was his program that different from what we see elsewhere? If his track record was so obviously bad, why was he allowed to remain a youth pastor for as long as he did? I'm guessing it was because his youth were having a blast, gathering together in the name of Christ, yet there were no true conversions because they didn't understand the need for repentance. They viewed youth group as a place to go and hang-out for a while with their friends without their parents asking too many questions. After all, how much trouble can little Johnny get into at the local church youth group?

My concern isn't with being viewed as a hater, I couldn't really care less. My concern is and always has been the discipleship of our youth, and ALL those that enter the church doors. Too many churches focus on the wrong things. Some try so hard to be relevant to the youth that they make church all about the youth. Some churches start by the cast-off seniors that have been left behind, and not to let them off the hook either, but many seniors segregate themselves so the church then has to cater to the seniors. We have churches that focus on everything and everybody but who we are to focus on, namely God!

The church does not belong to the youth, the elderly, the young professionals, or any other people group. It belongs to Christ! We should, at all times, seek His approval. One of the 5 sola's is Soli Deo Gloria, meaning Glory to God Alone. If we cater to the sheep (or goats), we are no longer seeking the approval of the One that matters.

Discipleship at every age matters a great deal. We need to ask ourselves if what we are doing is biblical and relevant to the goal we have set before us. If it is not, we need to change it, not out of shame but out of necessity.

I'm still a hater, aren't I...?

Burned out and Fed Up

Have you ever met someone that loved their job, but were 'burned out'? I think we all know someone who fits in this category. They literally worked themselves to death. Leading the charge is the poor pastor. According to Ligonier's TableTalk Magazine, over 1500 pastors leave the ministry every MONTH in the US alone. It's not hard to figure out the reasons why many of them leave, never to return to the ministry that they felt so called into, for it's a very demanding job. You are working with people and their problems, who feel that because you are a pastor, this entitles them to be able to berate you for each and every thing that is 'going wrong' in the local church. While some criticism may be warranted, much of it is not done in a godly and biblical manner, nor is much of it relevant. "But hey, he's the pastor, I pay his wages!" Right. We can talk about the dismal tithing record of "evangelicals" another day.

Our churches today are filled with people that walk in, take, take, take, then leave; usually complaining before they even reach the exits. They expect the pastor to do and be everything to them, when they want it. They expect the pastor's wife to sit in the front (make-up and looking very Barbie-ish to boot), and work just as hard at the church as the pastor does...for free of course!

My beautiful bride is worried about planting a church. She worries that the pressures of the congregation for her to be something she is not, to neglect her family for over-critical sheep, that think she should sing, play the piano, start and maintain the women's ministry, and try to raise godly children will be just too much. She worries that I, as the pastor of the church plant, would also pressure her into being someone she is not. Should she worry? Show me a church that hasn't had to deal with this issue. I think she's got reason to worry, but God blessed her with a husband that has learned through godly pastors and teachers what the qualifications are for elders in a church. Not only should a pastor be 'above reproach', but he also needs to lead his household. If he cannot lead his house, how can he lead a church? If I neglect my wife and kids in the name of the church, I disqualify myself from ministry. If my wife neglects our home and children (in the name of church activity...or any other reason), I will no longer be qualified to be a pastor. We can alleviate much of this problem in the church today by a couple of biblical methods.

First, the body of Christ (the believers) have all been given gifts to build up the body. Through training and overseeing this growth in the spiritual gifts, we as pastors can and should train up the people of the congregation to use those gifts given, thereby taking much of the pressure off of the pastor. Second is for the churches to follow strictly to the qualifications of the office of elder and deacon. If pastors were held accountable to the biblical standards set forth by the bible, then they (pastors) would be much more concerned with the leading and training up of their own families, rather than being tossed to and fro by every idea that the congregation brings to him. It would also ensure that the pastor's wife is doing what she is supposed to do; maintain the home and raise her children, not being the unpaid pastor's assistant. Too many pastors forget that their first calling is to love God, and they can do this best by loving the wives that God gave them.