A Whale of a Story

Intro

This is the place to comment on "Jonah the Prophet", my sermon from Sunday, October 28, 2007.

Listen to The Sermon
Read Notes on the Sermon
Read the Text (NASB)



I probably took an unorthodox position on Jonah this past Sunday. Essentially, I called him a villain for a variety of reasons. While we could condemn him, we should probably observe that he was a type of all of his countrymen of that day. Countless prophets also illustrated the whole nation's insensitivity to their calling as God's representatives to the rest of the world. And while we could condemn Israel for not doing its job, I suppose we should also honestly observe that we as individuals and we as churches and we as the Church do the same thing. Not an outright "NO" to God's audible voice, but a subtle and lazy no to the Word of God when it says "you will be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and all Judea and Samaria and even to the uttermost parts of the earth. List the ministries of your church and ask what you do for insiders and outsiders.


The Miracle(s)...

Obvious is the miracle of survival within the fish. Jonah calls it a great fish. Jesus calls it a sea monster. Was it a whale? A shark? A dinosaur? A really big tuna? (Remember this was before the ages of high-tech fishing techniques and high populations. Fish would grow larger as they aged given the chance to grow old.) Yet, some Christians, perhaps many, doubt that this event literally occurred. They say something like it is a tale which illustrates the seriousness of the nation's desperate carelessness to God's directives. To be sure, the story of Jonah DOES do this, but I would say, it actually happened. It is enough that it is in God's Word, but to add weight to the claim, Jesus Himself compares His death and resurrection to the actual event of Jonah's time in the fish. I'm not gonna call names, but these people are wrong.

The bigger miracle is that Nineveh repented. We happen to believe that it is God who turns a sinner's heart to Him through the preaching of the Word. It is not the convincing arguments of the preacher. It is not the cleverness of the recipient. Salvation is a work of God from beginning to end. God was certainly busy in Nineveh the day (notice one-day) that Jonah preached. Now on this one-day business. Jonah 3:2 says that the city was large and it was a three day's walk. Meaning, to get into every neighborhood and deliver the message to everyone it would take three days. Compared to Philly, New York, LA, this is a rather small city, but in that day Nineveh was enormous. How long did Jonah stay in town? One day and then chapter four tells us that he left to await their annihilation. Said annihilation never occurred... because they did repent, just as Jonah knew that God would act. So either Jonah was a truly fast walker, or the people responded quicker than normal, or he did his job half-hearted. Knowing what we know of Jonah, I venture to say he did it in a half-hearted way.


Exam Time... Pencils Ready... Begin

So the test for you and I: to whom has God told you: "Go up and speak against so-and-so for their iniquity has come up before Me." What are you doing in keeping with this calling?


And your church? And then don't lament or gripe, but lead them in this!

Emergent vs. Emerging

Symantics or Real Distinction?

I've heard both words floating around and I wondered if there was any difference. Mark Driscoll in this YouTube clip says they are different. He says that Emerging Church is the overall movement and there are lots of little groups in that movement. He says some are pockets are really conservative theologians trying to engage their culture (sound familiar BFC?) but he says there are others that are social gospel, liberal theologians hyped up on the new perspective on Paul (this group labels itself "Emergent").





Research on the Distinction

So I did some research to see who says what about each word.

Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones are high-ups in the Emergent Village, I watched this clip and Tony couldn't stop from saying "words like justice love and gospel mean the exact same thing. Justice IS Gospel, to work for justice to be actively engaged in God's justice in the world means to be gospel people." Clip below:




Enter the Modernists

SO then John MacArthur, very modern, anti-emerging pastor and author comes along and listens to the overall conversation of the emerging church. He isn't happy with it.




He, DA Carson, many many others in the modern Church rail against the emerging movement because they are concerned that the movement is a reincarnation of social gospel. These are men who grew up in churches that fought against liberalism and then became solidiers in the same battle and really won that battle. Now they see they old enemy rearing its head again. I like MacArthur, I really do. I think (especially if Driscoll is right) that MacArthur is in reality not against the emerging church (even though he says he is). Instead he is really against the emergent church.


Should We Wade In?!?

But the question remains: is emerging and emergent the same? Can a BFC Church or the BFC be part of a movement which has under the same large umbrella social gospel types. Just because emergent is a small group amidst a large umbrella of emerging... does it disqualify us from participation in the greater point? I said earlier, I don't count myself as part of the emerging movement. I'm closer than many of the brethren at the ministerial convention, but I'm not in yet. I'm headed that way slowly (so Tim B and others: rescue the perishing!). What I said earlier is this emergent thing (if in fact the two words ought to be distinct) does make me think twice. But if Driscoll is right, it is valuable and "safe" to be in it and not be identical to everyone in it. FIF sang a song: unity not uniformity. That may fit at this point.


Rescue me before I hurl myself headlong!

Be a Man!

Intro

This is the place to comment on "Paul's Closing Reminders", my sermon from Sunday, October 21, 2007.

Listen to The Sermon
Read Notes on the Sermon
Read My Translation
Read the Text (NASB)


Driscoll on the Church's Need for Men
Paul wrote in v13, "Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong." This is the clip I wanted to play in the message. It's just too rough around the edges for my people, but it's true and straight forward about getting men into Church. The whole thing is good, but I am referring to around 4:20 and onward...




and here are some others on the subject by him... looks like he worked with Desiring God.

Macho Man


Why Churches Need Dudes



Why Men Don't Go to Church

BFC and the Ministry of the Word

Intro

So I thought I'd try a vlog for once. Is that what it is called?... a video log, a vlog? Anyway, I want us to think about sermons, the pulpit, the ministry of the Word, and the BFC. A while ago, one of our pastors (It might have been our conference pastor) said while visiting other BFC churches, he'd noticed that few had a Scripture reading as part of the worship gathering. At Camden, we do. But a lot of isolated events recently reminded me of that email and it got me thinking about the effectiveness of the pulpit ministry in our Church.


Mark and John (no, not the disciples)


Mark Driscoll talking about The State of the Pulpit



John Piper talking about the Ministry of the Word



My Thoughts on Expository Preaching

So this is my brief manifesto on why I preach expository. I answer with a question: why did God write the Bible? He wanted our lives to change and be made whole. If God can part an ocean so that His people can walk on dry ground... if God can feed 5,000 men along with countless women and children with only two loaves of bread and two fish... if God really does have the power to change my heart, then He would do it in the way He sees fit. They way He chose was His Word.


Let's Compare Topical and Expository Styles

• In Topical preaching, the pastor tells you his formulas for shaping up.


• In Expository preaching, the pastor explains God's formulas listed within His flow-of-thought.



• In Topical preaching, the pastor can avoid topics he doesn't want to talk about.


• In Expository preaching, the pastor is forced to explain what God means on the subject He brings up.



• In Topical preaching, the pastor shares what he thinks and adds some Scriptures to prove him right.


• In Expository preaching, the pastor lets God's Word do the thinking.



• In Topical preaching, the pastor illustrates his own skills at digging.


• In Expository preaching, the pastor illustrates that anyone can read a book and digest it.



• In Topical preaching, the Word is viewed as a logic jumble that only a skilled technician can dissect in order to find valuable nuggets.


• In Expository preaching, the Word is viewed as simple and understandable and accessible.



• In Topical preaching, the listener has no understanding of why a declaration is made. The listener is expected to accept a statement as undeniable without any more reason than: it is God's Word.


• In Expository preaching, declarations are just as bold, but because the verse, passage, and book are viewed as one logical unit and they are presented that way, the listener sees why a statement was made along with the logical and rationale behind the statement.

Epistemological Humility

While I appreciate Expository preaching, I accept as true the observation made by Dan Kimball in his book "The Emerging Church." He says: the lover of expository preaching cannot find one example in the Bible of a preaching preaching in an expository manner. This is where epistemological humility comes in. I believe my position is the most God-honoring, Scripture-valuing way to communicate and teach God's Word but I am humble enough to recognize how far I can push my agenda and criticize my "opponent."

You aren't really my opponent if you prefer topical sermons, but on this point we do disagree. I love you and the Lord loves you, but your wrong and I'm right. I hope you hear my sarcasm...

Alright, I'm done. Hopefully I gave you something to think about. Peace out.

Emerging Church Follow-Up

Seeing Value Even If We Disagree

Here’s the deal. I try to see both the good and bad in what someone is saying. I really am against the charismatic movement despite some of the positive things I have said of them recently in our examination of the spiritual gifts in Morning Worship. Despite all that could be said of them in a negative light, we must admit that they have done a service to God’s Church insofar as they have forced us all to reexamine the Scriptures on the subject of spiritual gifts. For this, they are valuable. If it is not a stretch (I do not think that it is), I would like to make the same observation here about the emerging church. Despite all the negative things that could be said of them, they are offering to all of us a conversation about the weaknesses of the modern, “scientific” Church. For this, they are valuable.


Where Am I in This Conversation?

Before I get into it, I think it would be appropriate to define myself and my biases before I begin. I am more comfortable with the emerging movement that most BFCers. But I am not part of the Emerging Church because of a lot of the more vocal voices that are unorthodox in the classic sense of the word. There are some great guys in there, Driscoll and Kimball are phenomenal writers, speakers, pastors among countless others in the movement. But there are a lot and the more vocal and center-stage that are out-right heretics. I don't use the word lightly and I won't name names because it isn't my intention to bulldoze someone without the fair trial that I don't have time for here. But, this is why, thus far, I don’t want to call myself part of the movement even though my heart resounds with a lot of what they are calling us into.


Enough, What IS It Already!?!?

Essentially, the Emerging Church is a philosophical movement reacting against the excesses of the Modern Church. And now you might be saying “blah, blah, blah.” Before you start throwing full wine bottles at your computer screen, indulge me. This movement loathes our use of scientific rationale to exegete the Scriptures. They view what the Church has done to God as putting Him in a box. If He is searchable, definable, reasonable, rational, and wholly knowable than He is no longer “worth it.” The intrigue and the seduction of Christian faith is that is faith, reasonable faith, but faith nonetheless. The example that I witnessed which drove me towards the postmodern (or maybe premodern) worldview was a series of events at my college. We had this same speaker, John Franke, come and speak at the Student Theological Society. Many professors attended and after the event, they had a pow-wow in which they denounced the Doctrine of Illumination (which teaches that the Spirit unpacks the Scriptures as the Christian reads, to “guide him into all truth” as Jesus promises in John 16:13). Rather, the professors came to the consensus that it is through the proper implementation of hermeneutics and exegesis (big words for scientific method) which gives the reader the correct interpretations and applications of God’s Word. This is why Tony Jones calls evangelicals “soft Gnostics.” Only those with proper training can induce the meaning of God’s Word. It’s poppycock and any rational Christian should know it.


This is the kind of thing that the Emerging Church is reacting against. Rather than the individual with their proper methods, the Emerging Church values corporate readings of Scripture with time for alternate interpretations within the “conversation.” As all hear and engage the conversation, the Spirit moves the group to conclude the things He wants for them. Can't we say this in the political election process: each person has their say, yet it is "Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind and bestows it on whomever He wishes" (Daniel 4:32). Conversation sounds great, but at the same time, I’ve been in Bible studies where the average IQ (and EQ) was lower than a box of rocks. IQ isn’t everything and I don’t want to be guilty of the aforementioned poppycock, but sometimes conversation is good and sometimes it is bad.


Some of Franke's Thoughts

I like what Franke said about our system of doctrines “if we claim that our theology is absolutely concluded, then we par it with Scripture.” This new movement emphasizes suspicion based on finitude. In other words, no one can be certain unless they are God. In an industry that takes pride in certainties, it is uncomfortable to question commonly held beliefs. Yet all the famous men throughout Church history have questioned. That being said, all the villains in Church history have also questioned.

The Foundation for the movement is the question of knowable Truth. So let’s engage in this concept: “the truth is: there is Truth, but only for God.” In other words, emerging church adherents believe that there is Truth with a capital-T, but that only God can possess it. We can and do hold truthes with a lowercase-t, but while they remain true, they do not measure the same intensity and totality as the Truth as God sees it. Franke said “Even the Scripture itself in our eyes is less full then the same Scripture in God’s eyes. The Church Father Iranaeus talked about this when he wrote “God is light, but like no light we have ever experienced.” John Calvin also said similar things when he wrote “humans cannot comprehend knowledge the way God can.” Tim B tells me this is the Reformed Doctrine of Analogy. From what I can tell from orthodoxy and from my own epistemological humility, it makes a lot of sense intellectually and practically. It explains for me why we’re right and everyone else is wrong. I jest… it explains why the men and women who all love Jesus just as much can come up with such wildly diverging views of faith and practice.

Franke says that in God’s sovereignty, He allowed divergent faith traditions within the Church. Tim B whispered to me “is that God’s permissive will or decreetive will?” Or in other words, did God want that or allow that? Franke says that the core of Christianity doesn’t change with differing cultures, but that just as different cultures need “it” in their language, they also need “it” in their heart expression too. That is my lingo for Franke’s thought. When we translate the Bible, we do it in a way that faithfully both expresses the message of the original language AND impresses the heart of the hearer. And similarly, in the way we “do Church” we need to express the counsel of God and impress the heart of the hearer. God is seeker sensitive. That is why there are four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), two chronicles of the kings (Kings and Chronicles). All express the same events as their competing authors but in a way that is sensitive to the hopes and aspirations of the author’s audience.

Franke asked a tough question in his closing lecture: “does theology change as we converse?” He said it as a statement of fact, not as a question, but professors do that all the time. It is some subset technique to the principle of cognitive dissonance or something, I don’t know. I heard it as a question in my mind. It is true that iron sharpens iron and a brother sharpens his brother, but it is also true that jello doesn’t sharpen jello and idiots likewise don’t sharpen each other. So I suppose the truth (lower case) of the statement depends, which I guess emergents would love to hear that! He referenced three Scriptures and then asked this question: “if the Spirit guides, how can we be so divergent from each other?” Ummm! Great question. Here are the Scriptures:

“We have the mind of Christ through the Spirit who searches all things” (1 Corinthians 2:13, 16)
“The Spirit will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13)
“You need no teacher but the Spirit” (1 John 2:27)

Either He lied, or He is bad at His job, or we are the way He wants us to be. Franke didn’t say as some extremists say “or some of us aren’t really saved.” Franke chalks it up to this phrase used twice in the NT “the manifold grace of God” (1 Pt 4:10, Eph 3:10).


Wrap-Up

So those are some real stumpers. Hopefully my overview got you thinking over the whole issue. Even if you don’t want to embrace the emerging culture, it is my hope that you want to engage the emerging culture. Whether we like it or not, more and more people are thinking this way. Maybe not the people in our churches, but people in the world are thinking this way. We need to know where they are so that we can rescue them.


Alrighty, you know the drill... commence commenting!

What the Reformation is Working Out Today

Introduction: Review of the Outworking

My thesis over the past posts on this topic has been: the spirit of the Reformation is never done. Luther began a discussion that he did not finish. He called into question the authority of tradition over that of Scripture. When tradition taught that one was justified before God through a rigorous process of mortifying the flesh, he read the Scriptures which taught that one is justified by the grace of God. The verse that became the driving force for his departure from the Roman Church was Romans 1:16-17

“I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith.”

He could not get out of his head this notion that God offers us His righteousness for the purpose of our salvation. So this took him and the other Reformers on a path to seeking truth and practice from the Scriptures rather than from status quo.

As I have said before, Luther and his contemporaries did all they could in their day. But in the finitude, they unknowingly held onto many of the practices and teachings of their old culture: Rome. The one concept that Luther began which I would like us to consider is “the Priesthood of All Saints.”


The Priesthood of All Saints

Martin Luther was a professor of theology, Augustinian monk, and priest in the Roman Church before October 31, 1517. As a priest, he interceded for the people before God and brought God’s counsel to the people. The concept of priesthood is central to the Old Testament structure of faith and rightly so, since it was God’s revealed methodology for interaction between God and man in that period of time. The question we need to ask ourselves is: has Christ changed anything in the interaction between God and man?

We need to read Hebrews to gain understanding into the divergence Christianity took from OT Judaism. The book begins with this saying “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son” (Hebrews 1:1). He then tells us in chapter four, “since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews 4:14-16). In the OT era, only the high priest had access to the “throne of grace” which was ontop the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies. Now we all are called to draw before it BOLDLY. The high priest once a year would draw near with trepidation since they always knew if they did “it” wrong, God might kill them like He did with Nadab and Abihu. Now we all are called to approach boldly. We all have access into God’s presence in that spiritual and mystical sense. Peter tells us that we Christians are “a chosen race, A royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy” (1 Peter 2:9-10).

Luther picked up on these distinctions between Roman practice and Scriptural admonition. He told his fledgling movement that they all were priests to God, representing Him to the world. But I think where he and the Reformers failed to apply this teaching, today’s Church is beginning to enact all the nuances of the doctrine of the Priesthood of All Saints. Whether you embrace the charismatic movement or not, I think we can all agree that they have brought the Protestant Church (for that matter, Roman Church) far in its understanding of spiritual gifts and the deployment of said gifts. They have forced us all to reread Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4, and 1 Peter 4, asking the all-important question “what does it mean and what does it look like to practice this?” We can agree or disagree on revelatory and sign gifts, but on the whole, charismatics have forced non-charismatics to read the text. For this, we must praise them.


The Priesthood of All Saints and the Role of Vocational Pastor

I have been asking myself since my ordination back in April (2007), “what sets an ordained pastor apart from volunteer lay ministry leaders?” Traditionally speaking, I am in good company. Biblically speaking, there is not a lot of evidence for (or against) vocational ministers. Read my Biblical Relationship of Elders, Pastors, and Deacons here.

Within the Bible Fellowship Church conference, we see leadership as coming from a group called elders. All pastors are on the board of elders (but the lay elders select which pastors are voting members of the board). So the lay and vocational elders eld the local church. How does and elder eld? What does it mean to eld. Eld isn’t a verb, but I think you understand what I am driving at. How does a pastor differ than any lay elder? Traditionally, a pastor has more real or perceived clout than does a lay elder. But Biblically? Nothing…. Does the Pastor shepherd the church, does the elder board shepherd the church? Let’s look at the word shepherd in the NT. Only twice is the word used in reference to someone other than Christ in the NT. Once in Acts 20 and once in 1 Peter 5.

Acts 20:17-18, 28
“From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. And when they had come to him, he said to them, … ‘Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.’”

1 Peter 5:1-4
“Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.”

Notice who it is that shepherds God’s Church? The elder. The title of the office in both instances is “Elder” and the tasks in both are “shepherd” and “overseer.” Consequently, the English word “pastor” only shows up once in the Bible and it is in Ephesians 4:11 and in Greek, it is the noun form of the verb in Acts 20 and 1 Peter 5 “to shepherd.”


So What?!?!

If Luther was right in saying that Priesthood is a position for all saints than let me word it in modern lingo: “If you are a Christian, you are a minister.” I hate being called Reverend, Minister, and the like. Only God is to revered, all Christians are ministers. Call me a pastor if you need to call me anything (just don’t call me late to supper). Discover how God has wired you to serve His kingdom and get busy! What is the unique role of the pastor? We are gifted to equip you for your work of ministry (Ephesians 4:11-12). But you, me, all Christians are busy in the harvest field, or at least should be.

Let me close with Jesus words on the harvest. “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest” (Matthew 9:37-38).

Just As He Said

Introduction

This is the place to comment on "The Reality of the Resurrection", my sermon from Sunday, October 14, 2007.

Listen to The Sermon
Read Notes on the Sermon
Read My Translation
Read the Text (NASB)


There are Witnesses to the Fact

How many people need to say they saw things in the same way before you say "these witnesses proove that X happened?" Well, it says in verses 1-6 that over 500 men actually saw Jesus physically risen from the dead. Now this is important, it is not that 500 men believed He rose, but 500 men SAW His risen. There are around one billion Christians today, they believe that their Savior died for their sins and then rose fom the dead. But there are also one billion Muslims who genuinely believe in the doctrines of their faith. It's not the numbers who believe that validate the facts. It is the number of witnesses that can testify to having seen the teachings in action.


Our Faith Rests on the Fact

Imagine a Christianity without the resurrection. Imagine all the doctrines are the same but the resurrection is missing. Paul goes down thie rhetorical path for a while with the Corinthian church in verses 12-17. His conclusion: if Christ didn't rise then we are still in our sins (forgiveness didn't happen) and our faith is meaningless. There can be no Christianity without the physical resurrection of Jesus.


All History Culminates in the Fact

From beginning to end, all of history points to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. In verses 20-26, Paul goes into a comparison of Jesus to Adam. Adam, the beginning of human existence brought death to his descendants. Jesus brings life to those who are "in Christ." And so, all of human existence points to the moment when God resolves our sin and death.


The Future Depends on the Fact

The Scriptures say that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. And so our future depends on what Christ has really accomplished on Calvary. Without His resurrection, we have no hope of eternal life. But the opposite is indeed true, He promised that even if we would die, we will still live.

Wrap-Up

What are your thoughts on 1 Corinthians 15?

The Story of the Anabaptists

Introduction

We're continuing to tell the story of the outworking of the Reformation. Today, I'd like to tell how God guided His Church to the truth of baptism.

Luther, Where We Left Off...

Again, Luther opened Pandora's Box, so to speak. He asked uncomfortable question: do we put our trust in the Church or the Scripture when the two diverge? He started at square-one with the core of Christian faith: justification by grace through faith. But he didn't ask the question in all matters and was instead comfortable in his cultural view of baptism. Examining Scripture makes it pretty clear that baptism is a visible sign of the inward work of God's removing our sin and cleansing us from it's guilt. (Pedobaptists, I get your view, I hear you, you're wrong, but whatever...)

Who are the Anabaptists?

The story I want to tell is of a group right after the Reformation got going who took an unpopular position, but God used them greatly and His Church today is forever changed for the better because of their commitment to the Scriptures. I want you to hear the story of the Anabaptists. The prefix "ana" means again in Greek (and it can mean from on high). So in John 3:3, Jesus says you must be born again (or from above). These first generation anabaptists were born as Catholics as were all first generation Reformers. They were baptized as infants by their parents in the Catholic Church. When they read the Scriptures and saw that believers should be baptized and not all people, they began to baptize each other. So they were baptized again (first at birth as Catholics, then at conversion as Anabaptists). They didn't believe in being baptized twice, but they couldn't undo what their parents had done. They were convicted in their study of the Scriptures that only believers ought to be baptized into Jesus' Church.

The Church in Europe had been Reforming from 1517 until 1525 and it really took hold in central Europe. Switzerland was a hotbed for Biblical study and practice. In Zurich especially, Ulrich Zwingli transformed the town into a theological center. Some of his followers began taking unpopular positions on theological matters. Grebel, one of Zwingli's followers was much more extreme than the moderating Zwingli. History tells us that both men disdained Mass, but when the town council insisted in 1523 that it be practiced, Zwingli obliged, while Grebel left. Wikipedia says "These young 'radicals' felt betrayed by Zwingli, while Zwingli looked on them as irresponsible." Men like Conrad Grebel, Felix Manz, George Blaurock, et al began the Anabaptist movement on January 21, 1525 when Grebel baptized Blaurock in Zurich, Switzerland. Only later, in 1536, did Catholic monks, like Menno Simons join the movement.

The Reaction Against the Anabaptists

Nearly immediately, they were hunted down, ridiculed, tortured, and killed. Felix Manz became the first martyr on May 20, 1527 when Catholics arrested and drowned him. But it was their conviction that what they were doing was Biblical that kept them from disowning the faith. Ironically, it was other churches that hunted them down. Granted, these other churches thought that the Anabaptists (who would not baptized the babies born within the Anabaptist Church) were damning their children to hell.

Anabaptists Today

This movement has continued to this day. Most likely, if you are reading this blog, you are part of this movement. Who are the Anabaptists today (at least on the question of baptism)? Mennonites, Brethren, Quakers, Baptists, Bible Churches, Amish, and mostly all of the Evangelical Church are all members of the Anabaptist movement.

Wrap-Up

Why was the Anabaptist movement born? Because Luther had asked the question one decade earlier: do I trust in the Bible or the Church when the two diverge?

The Outworking of the Reformation

Introduction

Since it is Reformation Month, culminating on the last day of October when we remember Martin Luther, a Augustinian monk and Professor of Theology at Wittenburg University, I wanted to spend some time together thinking about the outworking of the Reformation. In other words, my belief is that this select generation (mid 1500's) pushed the Church in a direction that is beyond what they intended BUT was what the Spirit of God intended.


Luther's reFormational Principle

Here is the reasoning. When Martin began reading the Bible and found inconsistencies between the doctrine in the Word and the doctrine in the Church. His position was that we must believe the Scripture rather than the Councils and Traditions. It is ironic, however, that he still read many of the Scriptures with his Catholic glasses. For example, he didn't for the longest time seek marriage though he encouraged many of his former monks and nuns to marry. Finally, however, he did wed. Another example would be his view of the sacraments. Both the Eucharist (communion) and baptism were imported from Catholicism with some minor alterations in the Eucharist (and he still called it that).


Application of the Principle

So now for some application of this principle: the reformation began as a principle that continues to this day and into the future. Luther started at square-one and proceeded from there. What happens in all our lives is that there is some guiding principle, some formative philosophy that drives us to alter our behavior. The principle applies to all of life, but we are only able to work on some of the things that need reforming. Luther started with what he felt was central: the mode of justification. But his starting culture, namely the Roman Church, still held sway over his comfort zone for other issues like baptism of infants.


Comfort Zones Hold Us Back

He was so comfortable within the Roman view of baptism that I don't think he saw it as inconsistent to hold justification by faith and baptize the unjustified. But the generations after were able to continue where the preceding generation left off, constantly, slowly, reforming the Church to a more Biblically shaped one. Again, when we start with the question "what does the Bible say?" it is much different than the question "what has been done?" or the question "what is nice or meaningful to do?"


For Us

So, what is unBiblical about our generation's Church? What is in need of reforming? What in your walk with the Lord is in need of reforming? It began in 1517 with some rumblings before it. But the aftershocks will never stop.

BFC-MC Emerging Church Follow-up

If you're wondering what we did at Ministerial Convention, lemme tell ya. I would love to tell you, but my good friend Tim Bertolet already did it. He and I attended together. He is the pastor at the Mount Pocono BFC.

Read Tim Bertolet's Thoughts on Dr. Franke's presentations.

So this is what I'm going to do... I'll read his 3 blog entries this coming week and then post any additional things I had to chip in here AND as a coment on his stuff. Fair? I guess.

---

It's October 17, 2007

OKAY, so I finally got around to it. Sorry, sorry, thousand apologies, sincerely. I meant to do this really for you and for me. So here it it: My Follow-Up Appointment with the Emerging Church.

---

If Solomon lived today he'd say "of the reading and writing of blogs, there is no end" (Ecclesiastes 12:12).

New BFC Logo

Here it is, the moment we've been waiting for. I know that my hand drawing back in April didn't do any justice, so try to look at this with fresh eyes.

When you compare the old and new logos, think of these two things:

1) Bible Fellowship Church - the name and elements of the name
2) The Vision Statement - "We, the Bible Fellowship Church seek to become an expanding fellowship of churches united to make disciples of Jesus Christ."

So think and compare and embrace:

New Logo	Old Logo

So let's hear what you have to say about it!

BFC-MC : The Emerging Church

Well, we're off to Ministerial Convention. We'll be sleeping at my wife's folks tonight. Rachel's mom is going to watch the kids Tuesday and Wednesday. This will be the first time Rachel and Evelyn, our youngest, will be apart through the night and the second or third time Rachel and Nathaniel, our oldest, will be apart through the night. Early tomorrow morning, we'll be driving up to Pinebrook for the convention.

The agenda is a conversation on the Emerging Church which will be led by Dr. John Franke, a professor of theology at Biblical Theological Seminary. Franke has led the seminary to enganging the issues of postmodernity, missional theology, and the emerging church. There are of course many opinions on these issues. Some say that to even talk about postmodernism is to tread across orthodoxy into heresy. Personally, the jury is still out for me, but I DO think we should not be afraid to engage in a conversation on these issues. We should be eager to examine what is happening in the church culture and the greater societal culture and make plans to minister to the lost in a more successful way.

A Methodist brother in the minstry told me his church hired a consultant who has been studying Delaware culture for some time. According to my brother, only 16% of Delawareans have gone to church in the last 2 years. There is no doubt, even if the study is off on numbers, that God's Church is not reaching the lost in this world. Why wouldn't we talk together about how we can do better in our mission?!?

Using Your Gift to It's Full Potential, Part One

Introduction

This is the place to comment on "Using Your Gift to It's Full Potential", my sermon from Sunday, September 30, 2007. It ended up being Part One since I yapped too long.

Listen to The Sermon
Read Notes on the Sermon
Read My Translation
Read the Text (NASB)


Tongues and Prophecy

I get it. We don't do these things in our church, in the evangelical church. I get it. All week long, I wrestled with how and even why to present this text. I really genuinely felt passionate about the introduction to the sermon. WE CANNOT BE A MODERN THOMAS JEFFERSON. We cannot blot out things that don't apply to us. Just because we don't practice these gifts and just because we happen to believe that they have actually ceased from the roster of the Spirit's gifts doesn't mean God's Word is useless in this passage. So let us uncover the deeper principles that can transfer to the using of any of our gifts. AND THEN let us use our gift to it's full potential.


Wrap-Up

What are your thoughts on 1 Corinthians 14?