• Pastor’s Conference Take-Away: As Baptists we must navigate a narrow way in order to proclaim God’s Word to today’s people. Greg Laurie said in his message a line I’ve heard him say before, but that bears repeating. “Relevance to the culture does not mean irreverence.” Laurie’s message announced to the convention a very narrow path between speaking to the culture and faithfully proclaiming the gospel.This narrow way seems to also have been in Mike Huckabee’s mind as he seemingly proclaimed the end of the unspoken alliance with the GOP and the SBC. In his message he declared simply that as Baptists we must support no party, but positions that agree with Bible.
• Day One Take-Away: The SBC leaders want to avoid the Calvinist/Traditionalist (non-Calvinist) divide in the convention instead of directly engaging it. Yes the committee made a report; an unofficial, non-binding, non-affirmed report. While I understand that the leadership desires to keep us as unified as possible, we are a congregational body. We either divide or unify as the congregation or in this case convention votes. With all due respect to the Calvinism committee and Dr. Page, we needed to vote to affirm or deny their leadership in this area. ( I have other thoughts that I do not have space to include here. )
• Day Two Take-Away: A good resolution must provoke a response in order to speak to a need. Three resolutions come to mind in this regard. First among those would be the resolution on the prevention of child abuse. This resolution met an obvious need, but when the resolution committee left out resolution author Peter Lumpkin’s language about denominational leaders he rose to the floor to amend. The resolution on mental health may well have flown under the radar or run roughshod over those who rose to amend it. Being one of those who rose to amend, the resolution forced me to think carefully about the issues it brought up as well as my convictions in order to offer an amendment. Finally, the Boy Scout resolution surprised no one. Even so, its high profile nature forced all of us to address its wording with care.
• Overall Take-Away: Will we be a Convention of Great Commission Christians? Danny Akin’s convention sermon pointed out the clearest question that our Convention needs to answer. Do we actually live as Great Commission Christians or do we simply talk about the Great Commission? If we are Great Commmission Christians, then we will happily walk the narrow way that our Savior walked before us, in order to proclaim God’s Word to our world. If we are Great Commission Christians, then we will not shrink from taking a vote to clarify how we cooperate to preach the gospel, even if a difficult but necessary debate may ensue. If we are Great Commission Christians we will seek to have the needs of our day and burdens of our brothers challenge us to apply and proclaim God’s Word to the situations at hand.

Spartanburg Herald Stoller Column

After reading the column it seemed good to respond to this column with a few thoughts about Mr. Thompson’s observations, and also offer an overall though about the task of faithful gospel churches. We should all take note of some of Mr. Thompson’s observations.

• No doubt, the methods of the modern “anything goes” church have not produced the revival that anyone hoped. This should convict us that church growth is not the same as being a faithful disciple-making church.
• The fact that churches no longer guide or influence our nation should put on display the utter ineptitude of the church to guide other institutions. This should convince us that God called the  church to disciple and discipline individuals not institutions.
  

  Light the church with Neon? Anything Goes

• The past thirty to forty years has seen the church youth group our children into spiritual death. Separating youth and children from the rest of the church does not make disciples! Without youth, adults lose vital energy. Without adults, youth lose vital truth.

As a pastor, nothing grieves my heart more than the thought that I might sidetrack or shortchange “the pattern of sound words” that I received. 2 Timothy 1:13-14 tells me that my greatest duty is to repeat, not alter or make more attractive the words I receive, guarding this good deposit entrusted by the Holy Spirit to me.

Having said that, one of the constant struggles I have encountered comes when I must challenge either the unacceptable modern conceptions of church as well as the unacceptable traditional conceptions of church. Neither of these options faithfully displays the New Testament church, primarily because the apostles and elders of NT Church tailored their church to pass on the teachings of Jesus to their age as well as any age.

Change the Church Sign? Nothing New Goes.

Should we listen to nothing that Acts tells us about the practice of the early church? No. Can we learn from their pattern of church? Yes! I do not buy the “descriptive” rather than “prescriptive” distinction which some theologians claim about Acts. They say Acts merely describes what the church did, not prescribe what our churches should do. I understand that we cannot recreate 1st century Jerusalem or Corinth. We can however, draw from the way they addressed their context biblical practices that should characterize the ministry of the local church. We can further support these biblical practices when we discover them explained in the rest of the NT.

If we admit that certain biblical practices please Christ more than others, then we must say no to many good modern ideas and traditional activities. Only the necessary things which please Christ should remain. To Mr. Thompson’s point, I do not favor an “anything goes” church. After all this type of church should really not be called a church, since the Scriptures and the Spirit no longer guide the worship. Even so, I also do not want to merely return to the old traditions of church from the past 50-100 years. This “nothing new” traditionalist church also sacrifices the Scriptures’ principles for favorite hymns, practices, attitudes, and members (primarily those who pine after “better” days).

The sign of a faithful church… Pleasing Christ by making disciples

That which I desire to devote my life and ministry towards follows the pattern of “sound words” received by the Scriptures. We need to focus on being faithful to the necessary elements of a local church and seek to pass those on to the next generation. That kind of biblical church both reaches out to people with Christian love and builds them up with God’s Word. This church makes disciples as did Jesus in order to produce a lasting family of faith. This kind of church necessarily pleases Christ.

Mr. Thompson’s says, “If you approve of and practice things that are clearly forbidden in Scripture, where is the faith?” To that I heartily say, amen. Even, so we must press on to further say, “If you do not approve of and practice things that are clearly commanded in Scripture, where is the faith?” I would hope that Mr. Thompson would amen that statement. We desperately need churches in which “Everything That” Goes pleases Christ. 

The aftermath of our modern Boston Massacre.

In just a few hours our president plans on holding a non-denominational inter-faith service to help the country and the city of Boston cope with the effects of the massacre left by the bombs exploded.

Certainly such a service should be held, however, when the officials cannot even agree on whether this should be treated as a crime scene or a terrorist attack how can such a service help us cope?

This sort of confusion over the issues points to a greater moral confusion in our country. Does this matter? Yes! We deal with a crime scene by collecting evidence for a trial and justice through our penal system. We deal with a terrorist as an enemy combatant without such legal privileges and due process. What we call an event determines how we respond to it. In a world where right and wrong consistently blurs to the point where we cannot accurately call an event like the one in Boston terrorism, it is no wonder that we cannot agree on other more complicated and personal moral decisions.

The headlines this week read “Marathon Terror”. I can think of no better way of describing a life without a clear understanding of right and wrong or good and evil. We must be able to label activities and events as well as intentions and thoughts in order to adequately deal with them and cope with the aftermath. If we label a serial killer as sick we imply he only needs a doctor. If we label him as misunderstood, then he only needs a platform to help us to understand him. If we label him as a menace to society, the only thing he needs is to be secluded from society. Only when we call a man a sinner can we introduce him both to justice and to the Savior.

Pastor & Chief?

Unlike some, I applaud the president and other officials in our government for realizing the need to help the citizens of Boston and our country cope with this Terrorism. Even so, I fear that without a clear understanding of how we label the actions of men, we are moving towards a religion of the state.

With such a religion of the state, the president operates as “pastor & chief” (thank Andy Stanley for the designation). In the non-denominational multi-faith service that the president officiates, his moral and spiritual labeling for an event officially destroys religious liberty. The moral and spiritual narrative that people hear comes from the president’s televised lips. What can the words of an ordinary pastor do to compete with his official word?

When the President holds such a service and does not allow every religious speaker to give his interpretation while himself being silent, he automatically takes the position of “pastoring” the nation. How many will hear him call for justice to be served and offer sympathy to the victims and assume that this adequately addresses these attacks? In a post-Christian culture with many religions and atheism(s) represented what do Christians do when the President, a professed Christian does not explain sin and salvation the way that we do? Should we be opposed to the “tolerant” religion of the state that comes up with a unique system of justice and atonement based upon the words of the “Pastor & Chief”?

I think of one verse that can help us here. Matthew 22:21 says “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Rome celebrated the emperor as the divine god who had all earthly authority. Taxes, respect and even worship were due to him. If Caesar said to pay the tax; Rome coined the money, hired the tax collectors and the citizens paid the tax. Caesar’s words, image, and authority determined for Rome the right response. The refrain “Caesar is Lord” became the early church’s main point of contention with Rome since they confessed “Christ is Lord”.

To be sure, we are not in the same place as ancient Rome, however the early church formulated their response to Caesar based on the Jesus’ answer to this question asked to him. Jesus made it clear that Caesar answered to God. Why? God, by his own authority declared man’s creation. He stamped man with his image. He further issued his Word to give his standards. Finally God offered his own system of justice for sin. The only payment for sin is death and the only way to avoid the penalty is perfect life. Christ’s perfect life and horrific death is offered as the substitute for all sinful mankind. Further God in Christ has the authority to forgive and grant to sinners payment for their sin. Any authority Caesar had or our president has is a mere reflection of God in Christ’s ultimate authority.

It is here that the Christian gospel offers something far greater than our “Pastor & Chief” can ever offer. America will either prosecute or eliminate the culprits of this terror. Even so, our nation will not likely ever judge whether or not President Obama or any of the millions looking onto this terror acted rightly at this time. Even if America never apprehends the culprits Christ will judge them perfectly. Our Savior, Jesus will judge all sinners for their known transgressions or their secret indulgences. The only way to receive his forgiveness and payment for sin is to repent, surrender, and reverence Christ as Lord.

Reminding the world that “Christ is Lord” offers us true comfort, since in Christ’s ultimate, all-expansive judgement, no one escapes justice. Some will pay their own penalty with their death. Others will turn away from the rule of their selfish desires and turn themselves over to the rule and reign of Christ. Even from “Marathon Terror” Christ can show himself to be in charge as he saves and forgives repentant sinners while judging rebellious sinners.

This also allows us to hear our “Pastor & Chief’s” words and decisions and heed them. Why? We know that he answers to God for his leadership while we answer to God for our respect and obedience to earthly authority as servants of God. Further when the President does not accurately speak about sin, suffering, and the Savior we an offer the gentle, respectful reminder to ourselves that “Christ is Lord”. We do not have to judge the President, the Lord will.

Some of you will balk and say, “What if a President wants to prosecute and execute those who speak about sin and about the Savior?” My answer is the same. “Christ is Lord.” If in this life we as believers must be thrown into the fire or into the lion’s den for what we believe about the Lord Jesus, we know that in the end He will judge us righteous and our tormentors as worthy of condemnation. If we know Christ as our Lord, then we do not have Marathon Terror. With Christ as Lord we are ready to run the Marathon for Him in spite of the Terror.

Give and Take

This week we return to Matthew in our Morning Worship hour. As I began my final preparations for the coming message, the way Jesus sets up the parable in Matthew 21:33-46 caught my attention.

Why? Look at the picture to the left. How many people do you think understand their relationship with God as this type of “give and take” relationship? In this picture you can see that one guy appears to hold the rope better and be stronger. The other guy is no pushover since he helps keep the rope taut. As is often the case, this sort of tug-of-war between near equals will leave both persons on their bottom. Is this the type of relationship we have with the Lord? Does the Lord need us to keep the rope taut? 

The first few verses of Matthew give us a slightly different picture of our relationship with God. The relationship in view is that of a share-cropper with an owner. Look at the picture to the side. In this picture you see a key and a tenant’s agreement.  The owner gives the tenant the key so long as he gives his word that he will live by the agreement. This agreement normally has some sort of payment that the owner will receive at harvest time, however he does not forcibly take the payment, he passively receives what the tenant gives to him. If the tenant takes the payment that he owes the owner, the owner will take the tenant’s key and legal right to make a living. There is no equality in this relationship. The owner is ENTITLED to payment. The tenant must EXPECTANTLY await the owner’s due date.

How does this apply to our lives as believers? As believers we must constantly guard against the thought that we are entitled to God’s grace. His yoke is so easy, and burden so light that we can often forget that He does expect that believers will expectantly devote themselves to pleasing Him. Note with me that in the first verses the owner, not the tenants builds everything needed for a vineyard to operate and workers to live. Christ makes the same arrangement for believers. Like the Master in the parable, Jesus requires the whole crop in its season.

Don’t believe me? Read through the whole parable again. The master’s requirement is not a percentage of the fruit. The master’s requirement is not the majority of the fruit. The master sends his servants asking for the entire crop. Even the Jews recognized this in verse 41.

Thus, believers, do not think that your life is your own. If you genuinely believe…

• You do not have the right to indulge in some secret sin activity l(ike pornography, theft or embezzlement; drunkenness from alcohol, pain killers, or some other sort of drug).
• You do not have the right to ignore acceptable sins (like gossip, anger, envy, covetousness, lust, slander, or pride).
• You do not have the right to live in public, unrepentant sin (which becomes evident by events like arrest, known cohabitation, filing for divorce, getting caught for cheating or stealing, or public heretical testimony on social media like Facebook) without having servants of God address your sinfulness.

Even so, as believers, we also realize that our Lord is a God of grace! If you genuinely believe…

• You can expect that no matter how great or how small your harvest of righteousness actually is, the Lord cares more about your devotion than your yield.
• You can expect that the Lord will not ignore your needs since he desires that you produce increasingly greater good fruit so that men can glorify the One who provides for you.
• You can expect that the Lord’s servants will support and encourage you since you help them to serve the Lord too!

Perhaps we don’t have all the story. Romans 5:17 includes one more small phrase which may serve to resolve our concerns. Romans 5:17 says that we reign through the one man Jesus Christ. So how do we reign over the flesh, the suffering, the challenges, and the temptations in this life? We reign over them every time we choose the action that we know will please Christ instead of the action that will please ourself. Choosing to please Christ does not mean that we simply delay our gratification. Choosing to please Christ means that our joy comes when Christ expresses joy at the faith we have in him. In no uncertain terms, pleasing Christ becomes the motivation for all that we do.

The tearing down brick by brick of what seemed to be an impassable wall of separation between faith and politics cams as a most telling change for me as I watched the 2nd inauguration of President Obama. From a spiritual standpoint, President Obama’s inaugural address shifts how he speaks about the issues most important to him. While in years past he may have spoken about these issues as the right thing to do, it seemed that the President and those supporting him made a concerted effort in this inauguration to recast his key issues with a moral appeal from a spiritual source instead of someone’s expert opinion or the popular will of an electorate. Let me illustrate this with a few of the major sections of the speech.

• The role of Government -
  “For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth…
  My fellow Americans, the oath I have sworn before you today like the one recited by others who serve in this Capitol, was an oath to God and country, not party or faction – and we must faithfully execute that pledge during the duration of our service.”
• Entitlements -
  “We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American, she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own. We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time…
  But while the means will change, our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American. That is what this moment requires. That is what will give real meaning to our creed…
  We reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future… The commitments we make to each other – through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security – these do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great. “
• Environment -
  “That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure – our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.”
• Security -
  “We are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war, who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends, and we must carry those lessons into this time as well. We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law.”
• Equality -
  “Just as it guided those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth…
  Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well… You and I, as citizens, have the power to set this country’s course.

With these words, the President has adopted a language that casts his major ideas as the response to the injunctions of a higher power, to whom we must all answer. Further, he does not assume that these answers form a perfect response, but one that certainly puts these spiritual principles into practice. In many ways this appeal to God is the exact same one that many of the President’s most ardent opponents have used to criticize him. Instead of the President arguing against such appeals to God from his opponents, he has instead torn down the wall of separation between his opponents and himself.

The legacy of the President remains to be seen, however the challenge he issued forth to biblical Christians cannot be ignored. For some his accommodation to speak in a more spiritually appealing way will be enough to sway their opinions. Others will ask, “How long can we persist with pragmatic responses to biblical commands either personally or politically? How long can we claim that the manner of our response is not as important as the fact that we responded to God’s commands?” The President’s answer comes in today’s words,

“Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time – but it does require us to act in our time. For now decision are upon us, and we cannot afford delay. We cannot mistake absolutism for principle or substitue spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. We must act knowing that our work will be imperfect.”

The real difference between biblical Christians and those who like the President espouse pragmatism, is not that we do so in response to a Higher Power’s commands. The difference comes in that biblical Christians see both the inner reason for action and the actual action as vitally important to a Holy God. Thus we CAN afford to settle centuries-long debates, and delay action until we are certain that the actions we take will please the God whom we serve.

To read President Obama’s inaugural address click here.

Anyone who has read about the Biblical Counseling Movement will know that its origins come as a direct response to the secular psychological approach to counseling. Even so, it also came as a reaction towards the integrationist approach to counseling inside Christian circles. This approach tried to tie together psychological data with the biblical data claiming that each one came from an equally truthful footing.

Biblical or Nouthetic counselors rejected this approach due to the uncritical way psychological conclusions found acceptance without considering how they challenged foundational biblical assumptions. For this reason, upon hearing the topic of this DMIN class reported as “Biblical Counseling of Problematic Emotions and Addictions” and glancing over the textbooks on the syllabus, suspicion quickly crept into my mind.

Even so, I realize that Jay Adams, the founder of the Biblical Counseling Movement said in Competent to Counsel,

I do not wish to disregard science, but rather I welcome it as a useful adjunct for the purposes of illustrating, filling in generalizations with specifics, and challenging wrong human interpretations of Scripture, thereby forcing the student to restudy the Scriptures. However, in the area of psychiatry, science largely has given way to humanistic philosophy and gross speculation.

Here one finds a balanced and helpful approach to the stated goal of the class I recently took. Dr. Adams seems to make clear that the observations of psychology should find use inside of Biblical Counseling. The conclusions and thus treatments of psychologists which we know as psychiatry deserve only the strident, fair-minded critique of Biblical Counselors. That said, let me quickly make note that while Adams’ position seems clear, far too many Biblical Counselors practically ignore or degrade psychology and psychiatry all together.

To that, I must scream guilty as charged. The greatest benefit of this class occurred as it helped me to chart a way out of the choppy waters of intellectual assent to psychology’s worth, but practical aversion to interaction with psychological knowledge. In essence the class helped me to develop an Apologetic for Biblical Counseling. In my next post, I hope to detail what that apologetic looks like.

• It was in the summer of 1993 that the Lord saw fit to save my soul. By October of 1994 I became a member of Mon-Aetna Baptist Church. Thus in the next two years I will celebrate consecutively the twentieth anniversary of my new birth and membership in the body of Christ.
• In December of 1998 I began to date Caroline Peeler. In May of 2001 she officially before God and witnesses changed her name to Caroline P. Owensby. In 2013 we continue our fifteenth year of dating and twelfth year of marriage. All to the glory of God and testament to his sustaining grace in an age when many couple our age do not make it to marriage or would already be divorced.
• It was in March of 2002 that the church I served as youth and children’s director saw fit under the Lordship of Christ to ordain me to the gospel ministry. Thus as I close 2012 I have firmly entered into my second decade of ministry.
• In September of 2007 Enoree FBC called me to be their pastor by the grace of God. In 2013 I celebrate the important milestone of a sixth year pastoring the same flock of God among me.
• In May of 2012 the Lord opened the door for me to begin my doctoral work. In 2013 I continue the classwork required.
• In July of 2012 we welcomed our fourth (and final) child by birth into our family. We still look to the growth of our family through the eventual marriages of these precious four and the birth of their children. We also would never discount the opportunity the Lord may grant to display a witness to his adoptive love, however we know our biological family has been completed.

In the midst of so many blessings from the Lord, I must remind myself in the words Paul uttered in Philippians that I have not yet laid hold to the greatest prize that lies ahead. Thus my resolution for 2013 will be to press onward to the upward calling of Christ Jesus, in each of these areas remembering that the Lord does not desire the flashiest but ever faithful steward of God’s rich blessings!

Letting the Shepherd Lead,

SRO