Archive for the 'Theology' Category

One Christian Libertarian’s View On Gay Marriage

Norman over at LibertarianChristains.com fielded a question today about gay rights. His answer is worth the read. In sum:

not forbidding certain behavior should not be conflated with not approving of certain behavior. Being permissive of lifestyle choices does not entail me agreeing that the lifestyle choice is morally right before God. Such non-agreement is my religious perspective, and thus cannot be used as a rationale to coerce others. To me, this is the essence of being socially tolerant: though I disagree with a behavior I shall not raise an aggressive hand against it. I would use a similar argument to defend any non-aggressive behavior even if I believed it to be wrong.

This indeed is the linchpin on this issue between more statist Christians and Christian libertarians. Both views see homosexuality as a sin, an abomination before God of which we do not approve, condone and indeed as Christians we hate that sin (as we hate all sin). But only the former believes that we must (in order to be consistent) go a step further and engineer society by force, using the police and threatening to MAKE people conform to our religious views.

The Marriage of Church and State

This entry is part 1 of 3 in the series Defending Secularisation

For Americans, today is the celebration of the American colonies declaring freedom from their European owners. The problem with this is that it has become a common thing to celebrate within the church. My main concern is that church worship is supposed to be dedicated to the worship of God and Christ, not a government.

Perhaps the most telling reasoning behind this marriage is one that confronted me recently. Recently, I commented that today I get to go to church without needing to worship the State. An old friend replied that one should be thankful to the State for the freedom of worship, even if it cuts into the time one spends worshiping God and Christ.

Yet this is exactly the kind of civil religion that ultimately harms the church. Over the next few posts in this series, I will argue that the separation of church and state that we find in secularisation. Through secularisation, Christians have greater freedom to worship God because there is no pretense to glorifying the State before, with, or after God. In other words, a secularised society is better than one in which State and Church is married.

In this respect, American Christianity is largely backwards in its love of civil religion. I wish to analyse the theological underpinning of this marriage, showing that the marriage of Church and State has developed out of a poor understanding of Christian theology. It is only through a secularised politics that Christian theology will grow.

Worth the Watch: Christless Christianity

I finally made it through the hours of video available from the “Christless Christianity” conference held by RC Sproul’s Ligonier Ministries. The whole thing is free online.

The material of the conference goes through the entire litany of false Christianity – everything from more obvious gospels based on prosperity and self-will, to those which I myself have seen creep into mainline conservative evangelical churches (and my own life): gospels of self-help, therapy and “just loving Jesus.” The conference is a supreme reminder of the importance of doctrine – and right doctrine at that.

Finally, the material ends quite aptly describing the solid biblical nature of reformed theology. I couldn’t help but be touched when the last two speakers described what it was like to come into the knowledge of good, consistent, biblical theology about God’s grace. One of the speakers had a similar b***ground to me; being saved in a pentecostal church, moving to an Armenian mainline evangelical church, and finally finding the doctrines of Grace and seeing the whole basis of his Christianity moving away from being about him and what he’s done / should do to being about God and what he has done.

Even for those who have not yet accepted Reformed Theology, the material is a great measure for what kind of gospel might be in your life or your church. It’s a call to a return to the basics of the gospel and a putting aside of the extra baggage we’ve attached to it.

Another Example of The Beauty From Christians Forsaking Copyright

I found this video on Bob Kauflin’s blog. It’s an incredible reminder of the grace of God:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbTK-mKxrAc[/youtube]

But, guess what? This video violates copyright.

If copyright were enforced strictly this video would not exist.

It is in the church’s best interest to free up the creative gifts that God has given to men for the profit of all, and cease to put up barriers of intellectual property. We cannot centrally plan God. No pastor, no local church, no movement of churches has a monopoly or say in how God is going to direct the creative work of his universal church.

As Christian creative artists we need to let go of the illusion of ownership over God’s gifts to us, stop peddling the word of God and follow John Piper’s example at Desiring God and put out our labour for the kingdom without barriers.

Read more in-depth articles on this topic in the two part series on Worship and Intellectual Property:

Dealing With Disappointment in the Church

For those who have been through the process of a church change, may be thinking about it or might need to think about it someday (this basically means every Christian at this point) then this resource might be useful. Kevin DeYoung who authored Just Do Something, which I haven’t yet read, but from the reviews seems to put the correct emphasis on issues about “the will of God” has put together some great (short) blog posts about how to deal with a church that is disappointing:

Leaving a church is never something to undertake lightly, and humility is essential. Essential. These posts have some useful questions to ask yourself and hopefully can lead to resolution and change first before the nuclear weapon of “that’s it, we’re leaving” is dropped.

How Many Evangelical Christians Have Been Neo-Conned

The Austrian Scholars Conference 2010 has now concluded and the paper by Dr Kevin Clauson on “Why Evangelicals Don’t Like Austrian Political Economy—But Should” is essential listening for just about any Christian. Dr Clauson was kind enough to send me along a draft to make writing this article easier. Please feel free to read it (NOTE: THIS IS A DRAFT COPY, posted with permission from the author). Also, listen to the paper (30 mins.).

Clauson has spent time both at Liberty University (22 years, most of them as head of their Government department) and also in the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential campaign – so he knows what he’s talking about.

The framework for the argument is laid out by first establishing key definitions:

An evangelical bases his thinking on scripture first (not tradition, not a pope, not natural law). It is, at minimum, an adherence to innerrancy in scripture, the sinfulness of man, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ, the resurrection.

But Clauson goes further to note that several non-theological concepts have been added and adopted almost universally among evangelicals:

  1. A vaguely defined adherence to “political conservatism”
  2. Social issues (immorality of abortion, gay marriage, etc..)
  3. Certain immoral behaviours should be regulated by government (alcohol, drugs, pornography…)
  4. A support for a “free market” (but a lack of knowledge as to exactly what that is, and a lack of concern about monetary policy)
  5. Reverence for the Constitution (again, though a fairly abysmal knowledge of what the Constitution actually says)
  6. A “Strong defence” (which can mean a global military presence, especially in the Middle East)
  7. The US is morally obligated to support Israel

Clauson then makes the statement that builds the crux of his argument: that evangelicals, based on their own theological criteria, should actually find some common ground with Austrianism. If Evangelicals would start from their main, and primary frame of reference: that scripture should be of first importance, then they would actually be more sympathetic. Clauson argues that Evangelicals need to examine their bibles closer.

However, the main reasons why evangelicals have problems with Austrianism (and many libertarian views by extension):

Many Evangelicals confuse “sins” and “crimes” in scripture. A simplistic reading of scripture has lead to many evangelicals applying broad, sweeping conclusions about sins as crimes. The bible calls many things sins, but it does not necessarily call all sins crimes (of course areas such as murder, theft, etc… are clearly defined in scripture as crimes). There is no biblical justification for making those sins which the bible does not also call crime, into state-enforced laws against sin. Again, this is derived solely from scripture and fits within the fundamentals of the evangelical worldview. Clauson:

Substantial freedom may not always be “pretty” (on the societal level—churches and religious organizations would certainly be free to deal with such behaviors, and others, within their own private domains), but it is not necessarily unbiblical, according to the Bible itself, the authoritative guide for Evangelicalism.

Continue reading ‘How Many Evangelical Christians Have Been Neo-Conned’

Why Can’t We Just Call Ourselves “Christians”?

I would love to have built a thesis on this, but I haven’t so I’m posing it as a question.

If I take a smattering of my facebook friends, for example, there are a wide variety of responses for what religion they are. Now I know these people are Christians, but for some reason, they feel the need to put stuff like this:

  • “Bond Servant of Jesus Christ”
  • “Jesus is my Savior”
  • “Jesus loves me THIS is know!”
  • “nothing but the blood of Jesus”
  • “jesus”
  • “Christ is my Saviour and my God”
  • “God Follower… It’s a relationship not an empty religion”
  • ‘In relationship with Christ and dependant on grace”

Let me start by saying that I don’t think this is morally wrong or even wrong in any sense. But I want to know why it is that we can’t simply call ourselves Christians. Is that not what we are? We hold to a certain common theology and a basic view of the gospel. How can people who go to the same kinds of churches and generally believe the same things have so many different names for what they believe?

It may sound nice to call yourself a “God Follower” – but is our Christianity really part of our own personal expression? Is it the same kind of thing as a political label, the name of our pet or a band name? Is our Christianity something we name and define, or is it something that exists outside and beyond us?

I would love to have a discussion on what is going on here – maybe nothing is going on and I just need to be told to not be such a cranky old man. Either way, let’s engage this.

Should We “Obey Those Who Rule Over” Us? – A Short Commentary on Hebrews 13:17

Part of the problem with being a Christian who is also a libertarian, unless one goes to a pretty unique church, is questions (either from one’s self or others) about just how the anti-authoritarianism inherent in libertarianism meshes with the bible. In my personal devotional time yesterday, I came across one of those passages which can provide Christian libertarians some trouble:

Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you (Hebrews 13:17 NKJV).

This verse does not seem to leave any room for interpretation. It definitely appears to make a strong case for both obedience and submission to “those who rule.” There is no question that a Christian reading this passage would have to conclude – yes, we must obey and submit to those who rule over us.

But who are “those who rule?”

The ESV and the NIV use a slightly less secular sounding word: obey “your leaders.”

I then busted out my Greek New Testament and Lexicon and looked up the word. The Greek word used is “ηγουμενος” and it is exactly the same word used in verse 7 and is translated in both places as “a chief officer in the church.” This gels well with verse 7′s qualification of the roles of “those who rule:” they speak the word to us, demonstrate faith to us and have Godly conduct.

So the answer is that we should obey and submit to the leaders mentioned in Hebrews 13 – because these leaders are our pastors and elders in the church. That authority is a voluntary authority for the sake of order in God’s church, and God holds them accountable. This may not be a verse commanding obedience and submission to secular rulers, but it does remind us of God’s order in the church and his wisdom and care in putting men in pastoral authority to provide as teachers, leaders, servants and examples to us in our Christian walk.

Tips for Leaders and Pastors on Being Approachable

My wife sends me some great stuff in the old email. This article on how leaders and pastors can be more approachable was especially challenging and insightful.

I’ve led worship for eleven years and in two churches, and I can say that approachability has been one of those areas that has frustrated, confused and perplexed me. How is it that a person can be interacting with a church almost every Sunday, for almost as much time as the pastor himself, and yet experience completely varying amounts of intimacy with others in the congregation? At the same time, I have met different leaders in churches and some just seemed “aloof” and the idea of confiding in them or seeking their help for real, important issues seemed discouraged or unwanted.

Many leaders conceal a proud attitude under a demeanor of humility, which is not the same as actual humility. One of the many evidences of actual humility is the inclination to “consider others better than yourself,” which results in valuing their thoughts and interests as highly as your own (Phil. 2:3-4). A closely related evidence of humility is to sincerely welcome critique and correction, no matter who brings the “observation” (Prov. 13:10, 17:10). Therefore, wise leaders regularly meditate and pray about the “pride and humility” passages in Scripture (see Prov. 11:2, 19:20; Isa. 66:3; 1 Pet. 5:5-6), asking God to help them put off self-confidence, pride, and every hint of arrogance, and to put on a humility that genuinely welcomes questions, suggestions, criticism, and anything else that might aid us in the process of presenting ourselves before God as empty vessels, so that we might be utterly dependent on and fulfilled in him, which is the essence of true humility.

It’s easy as a leader to assume that simply because we lead in some way that we simply are approachable. This article along with a few other teachings and resources (CJ Mahaney’s Humility among others) has been a real eye-opener for me, enabling me to learn more about cultivating an attitude and mindset which promotes deeper and more effective ministry. It was even more (“fun” – is that the right word?) to go through this book along with another man, whom I could trust for honest feedback and critical, loving suggestions about my own life in this area (next, we are going through this book, and I am absolutely squirming with dread/excitement).

The Local Church

This entry is part 6 of 6 in the series Christianity and Covenants

Christians and Their Local Church

First of all let me state that it is essential for Christians to be part of a local church. Christianity is not merely an individualistic, solitary pursuit of God – but the gospel compels us to seek and save the lost in our community and also to support, encourage and challenge other Christians. While advances in technology and transportation have enabled “the local church” to comprise people living in wider and wider geographic spaces – it has not yet made it such that Christianity is “beyond” the need of local fellowship, support and service.

The internet especially has made it possible for many pastors and pastor-like figures to minister to people all over the world. Yet could, say, John Piper or Rick Warren provide me accountability and encouragement like my local pastor or small group leader?

Pastors exist for more than just teaching. They also serve a role in counselling and contributing to the discipline of church members. But this is not because pastors are in a position of hierarchical authority – but authority for the sake of order. The agreement between pastors and members (and there should be some kind of explicit agreement – a relationship between pastors and “church attenders” is often ambiguous and weak) is one where the member agrees to submit to the pastor’s authority for the sake of order and where the pastor agrees to care for and accept some responsibility for the discipline and growth of a member.

Pastors, however, need to be supported. Church members should support their pastor financially so that his basic needs are met and he can make his living from the gospel. Yet the church also is not a jobs program. The giving in the early church was to support the gospel and to help the poor. Members should not feel obligated to give for extravagant marketing, “outreach” programs which have unclear goals and dubious methods or to support unneeded staff and purchases. Churches should be open about their budgets to enable members to scrutinise and evaluate how their money is being spent (and it is their money).

Serving in the Local Church
Serving in the local church has been a topic that has been clouded by the principles of government and business. It has become hip for churches to hand out fancy titles to people serving along with recognition and various forms of ego-stroking. It is also difficult for church members not to assign status and rankings to various kinds of service: things like teaching, leading worship and other more visible opportunities are favoured while cleaning, Sunday School and preparing coffee are seen as less important. But serving is serving – and we are not serving an organisation which ranks us and values us according to the “level” of our service – but we are serving God, who we cannot impress or earn favour from.

Serving in the local church can take a lot of forms – and need not necessarily be in some “official” capacity on a Sunday morning. Opening up one’s house for students or other families can be ministry – as can helping someone work on their house. The local church is a collection of people – not a building or set of leaders. Serving these people is serving the church.

What The Local Church Shouldn’t Be Doing
A good old friend of mine used to pastor a church in Idaho somewhere. He told me once about a woman in his congregation who had been wanting to see her neighbour saved. She called the pastor one day, telling him that he should come over and speak to the person about the gospel. The pastor informed her that it was not his job to evangelise for her – it was her neighbour and her responsibility to be sharing the gospel. The woman was not happy.

This pastor’s response may have been a little crass – but it was correct. Part of the entitlement mentality brought on by the explosion of material wealth in the western world has affected even this most basic Christian institution – evangelism. Christians are too busy with their careers, friends, family and church responsibilities to evangelise – better leave that to official church “outreaches” or, even better, just invite people to church and maybe they will just “get it.” Personal, one-to-one evangelism which expresses individual care and attention to sinners is too much work in today’s world. Economies of scale now requires these people to get the gospel en masse in church services, community events, holiday services or concerts.

But it is not the job of pastors and other church leaders to do evangelism for Christians. It is their job to equip Christians to do these things themselves (Ephesians 4:12).

Evangelism for a Christian is not asking someone along to church or some other activity. It is not taking someone out for dinner or having them over. Evangelism is sharing the gospel – it is speaking the words of the gospel in compassion to individuals. Church members must not expect that because their church puts on events for the public, they are exempt from actually sharing the gospel with people. The local church also needs to be focussing more resources on teaching and encouraging people to share the gospel themselves, not wasting money and resources building up lifestyle-evangelism practices.

Financial Support of the Local Church
How we support the local church, and indeed, whether we even should, is tied back to the question of why a local church exists. The local church is not a jobs program, a business or a representative actor for what Christians should be doing on their own. It is, however, a collective gathering of Christians, administered by pastors, for corporate worship, ministry and teaching, a source of material aide for poor Christians and a resource to support Christians in evangelism.

This model requires some financing, and Christians should be giving to undergird such a resource. But the local church is in no way comparable to any Hebrew institution which was tithed to, nor is the local church God. The local church is the primary means for God to work in the life of a believer so it should be getting funded in corresponding priority. I believe that the bible gives only a few “rules” about how the church is funded – as one is able, voluntarily, cheerfully and in grace (2 Corinthians 9).