Irresponsible Shepherds Bring Desolation

Posted on May 14, 2011 Written by Mark McIntyre 4 Comments

Ed Stetzer recently wrote an article regarding the decline of the United Methodists. This decline is not unique to that denomination, other “main-line” denominations share this experience.

These denominations have been in the news for abandonment of standards that held sway in Christendom for 2000 years. For example, The Presbyterian Church USA recently enacted rules that will open up ordination to homosexuals. As bad as this is, I would argue that this failure is a symptom of a larger problem.

The larger problem is the abandonment of Scripture as the authority upon which the Church should build its belief and practice. With the rejection of the inspiration of the original manuscripts, the church has lost her moral foundation. With the claim that Scripture is man-made comes the notion that Scriptural commands and principles can be set aside at will. This is done to the detriment of the church.

The pastors and leaders in these denominations, and those who have trained them, must bear a majority of the responsibility for the decline. By rejecting Scripture, they have also rejected Jesus Christ, no matter that they still use his name. Those who reject Scripture are irresponsible shepherds who are not providing proper spiritual care to their flocks.

Yes, I am aware of the attempts to explain that the Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality. In their attempts, these shepherds perform exegetical gymnastics to stretch words into meanings that the writers and original readers never would have understood. This ploy has been in play since the beginning and is a variation on the theme of “did God really say?” (Genesis 3:1-7)

I recently read these words in Jeremiah 12:10:

Many shepherds have destroyed my vineyard;
they have trampled down my portion;
they have made my pleasant portion
a desolate wilderness. (ESV)

God, through Jeremiah, condemned the shepherds of Israel that led that nation into rebellion against God. As the verse above states, that rebellion turned the Nation of Israel into a desolate wilderness. Rebellion against God and his commands and principles always carries negative consequences. Just as when one is on the top of a sky-scraper, one ignores gravity to his peril.

Later on in Jeremiah 23:2, he writes;

² Therefore thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who care for my people: “You have scattered my flock and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for your evil deeds, declares the Lord.

As in ancient Israel, the shepherds today will be held accountable for what they feed their sheep. James 3:1 tells us that teachers will be held to a higher standard. God has given the gifts that enable the shepherds to lead and he expects that those gifts be used wisely and for good purpose.

The point of this is not to bash the main-line denominations, but to encourage those who are committed to the study, teaching and application of Scripture to stay the course. To care for the flocks that God has brought into your congregations requires that the flocks be fed good spiritual nutrition which can only be found in Scripture. Anything else is junk food at best and poison at worst.

If there is any temptation to stray from accurately teaching Scripture, I’d like to remind you of the words of Peter when asked if he was going to leave Jesus. When Jesus asked Peter if he would leave him, Peter responded, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (John 6:68)

The Apostle Paul instructs us to “hold fast to the word of life” in Philippians 2:16.To do so will reverse the decline.

Remember that the drowning man needs a life preserver, not more water.

Pilate – Asking The Question for the 21st Century

Posted on May 12, 2011 Written by Mark McIntyre 1 Comment

“What is truth?” is the question that Pilate asked Jesus at the conclusion of his interview. Was this question asked in an effort to push aside what must have been a very uncomfortable meeting? Or, was this a real question, coming from one who had seen and been wounded by the collision of world views and cultures?

In our society, it feels awkward to be asking this question. In many circles it is common knowledge that truth is what can be observed and measured. If we can’t see it or measure it, then it doesn’t exist. Using this definition, God or anything supernatural cannot exist.

Yet, there are so many aspects of our existence that don’t neatly fit into this “reality” box. Where does the sense of right and wrong come from? Is is just a biochemical thingy happening in our brains so that we are conditioned to respond positively or negatively? Is our biochemistry like the OS that controls the hardware? Or, is there something else there that the biochemistry cannot explain?

I remember a co-worker once had a bumper sticker that said, “If you don’t pray in my school, I won’t think in your Church.” She thought this was hilarious and poignant. It is only funny if you believe the underlying assumption that to believe in anything other than what can be observed and measured, is fantasy and illogical.

Where has this assumption gotten us? I am not a fan of labels because often the label means different things to different people, but the label that comes to mind is postmodernism. I am not trained in philosophy, but I take postmodernism to mean a way of thinking that has rejected the notion that man can fix anything (Modernism). Modernism was a rejection of the idea that God can fix anything. Therefore we now believe that nobody can fix anything or perhaps it is not even broken.

Where in the past, philosophers struggled with questions of virtue and truth, it seems to me that Postmodernism denies that there are any virtues (with the one exception of tolerance of anything but Christianity), and questions whether there is any truth.

Call me an optimist, but I see good news in all this. For all the people decrying organized religion and boldly proclaiming that there are no moral absolutes, I have yet to meet one who lived that way. In every argument beginning from the sandbox, one or both of the combatants are likely to say “that’s not fair.” There is an inherent sense of fairness, or of right and wrong.

Where does this come from if not from God? I’m sure that the atheists will come up with some explanation, they would have to because this moral sensibility is observed in all humanity. Do you think that those who claim there are no moral absolutes would refrain from calling the police after their house has been robbed? Taken to its logical conclusion, a belief in no absolutes would lead to totalitarianism or anarchy.

As the various sources of truth are debunked and debated, there stands Jesus. In John 14:6, he claimed to be “the truth.” You can believe the claim or disbelieve the claim but to deny that he made it isn’t an option. You have to make a choice.

Standing in the Light – Four Considerations for Defending the Faith

Posted on May 9, 2011 Written by Mark McIntyre Leave a Comment

While Driving this morning, I had a chance to listen to an Apologetics 315 podcast featuring an interview with Peter Kreeft. If you have not subscribed to the Apologetics 315 podcasts, I strongly suggest that you do so if you have any interest in Christian apologetics. Brian Auten does an outstanding job of interviewing apologists in a way that is informative yet avoids technical jargon.

In this particular episode, Peter said something which struck me. He was answering a question about what to do when interacting with someone who is asking questions intended to put off the apologist. In other words, what do you do when someone really isn’t interested in considering the claims of Jesus Christ.

Kreeft’s response was that in being a witness to Jesus Christ, we are not called to win arguments. We are called to “stand in the light.” In other words, we should not be focused on backing the non-believer into a philosophical corner, but should be seeking to be a testimony to the active work of God in our lives.

Shortly after hearing this phrase, I turned off the podcast to think about this phrase for a while. Four aspects of standing in the light came to me.

Jesus, in Matthew 5:14-16 tells us that believers are the light of the world. This light is not self-generated, but is the glory of God shining through us as we submit to him. If I am not shining with God’s light, it is because I am dulling the brightness through my own self-will. As I surrender to God and am conformed by the renewing of my mind (Romans 12:1-2) then I will shine with God’s light.
We are to stand in the light. Thirteen times in the ESV, the phrase “stand firm” is used. For example, at the end of Paul’s list of the spiritual armor, he tells us in Ephesians 6:13 that the purpose of taking up the armor is so that we might be able to take our stand or stand firm. We are not to give ground.
To stand in the light, we are not to run ahead or lag behind the light. In other words, we are to be at a place in our walk with Jesus that we are sensitive to where he is leading. Remember what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 3:6, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.” (ESV) Paul did not try to produce growth when his responsibility was only to plant. Be sensitive to the role that God is giving you to play and then do it.
To stand firm implies good footing. This reminds me that Bible reading and reflection are necessary to be a good witness to the claims of Christ. Wrestling with our own doubts and lack of knowledge are also critical to being used by God in the lives of others. If I understand who I am before God and what God has done for me, then I will not get dismayed when the person I am speaking with resorts to argument and ridicule.

I’m sure there are more aspects to this. Would you care to add any in the comment section below?

Church Membership – A Response to Matt Chandler

Posted on May 7, 2011 Written by Mark McIntyre 23 Comments

Full disclosure update: As of 2012, I no longer attend a Calvary Chapel. While I still feel that church membership is not mandated by Scripture, I am now convinced that membership is beneficial because the member makes a clear commitment to be accountable for the church and be in support of the church.

A friend of mine, @kksine, asked me to read and comment on an article by Matt Chandler entitled Is Church Membership Biblical? which was published on the 9marks.org web site.

The question is a valid one: should there be a formalized process for determining who is and who is not a member of the local fellowship?

I agree with almost all of what Matt Chandler writes, my response is intended to provide clarification rather than rebuttal. We share the same goals but choose slightly different paths to get there. This is a preference issue and we have freedom to have or not have a formalized membership process in the local body.

Clarification #1 – Formalized Membership Process

Scripture does not mandate, nor does it preclude a formalized membership process. The verses cited in the article identify what should be done, but do not specifically indicate that a formalized membership process is necessary for compliance.

In 1 Corinthians 12:12-31 and Romans 12:4-8, where Paul uses the analogy of the Church as the Body of Christ, it is not necessary to infer a formalized process to determine who is a member of the body. In a sense, any believer who attends a local fellowship is a member of it, in that he is a part (the most basic sense of the word member) of the body of Christ.

I attend a Calvary Chapel which does not have a membership process. In Calvary Chapel, we have elders who make decisions with regard to church polity, we have church discipline, we have submission to the ruling elders [Update: The largest reason we left Calvary Chapel was because it is not elder ruled. There is an elder board but they are there to support the pastor in his decisions. Calvary Chapel has an episcopal form of government with the pastor holding the power.] and we know who is associated with our body. We seek to be obedient to Jesus Christ as a body and we seek to follow the Apostle’s direction as to how the local congregation should function. All are done without a formalized membership process.

Those who attend our fellowship on a regular basis have a sense of belonging and understand that to continue belonging to our fellowship, a submission to Jesus Christ, Scripture and the elders is required.

Clarification #2 – The Goal of Membership

The goal of membership is not stated in the article. Is the goal to determine who can vote and who cannot?

I can find no direct support in Scripture for a congregational form of church government. What I do see in Scripture is that the elders are to rule and lead the church. Scripture gives no indication that church members should be allowed to vote on church policy, the calling of a pastor, electing elders, etc.

Congregational government requires formalized membership as a means of controlling who can vote. If you want congregational government, you have freedom to do so, but you cannot make a case that Scripture demands this form of government.

Clarification #3 – Accountability and Church Discipline

In the article Matt seems to assume that without membership, church discipline would be impossible. I’d like to assure him that this is not the case.

I would turn this around and ask what he would do with someone attending his church without being a member who gives evidence of living in sin. Would he confront the sin? Or, is it only those who go through the formal process who are confronted? Do you allow the “sinner” to continue attending and only confront the issue when he comes forward for membership?

We have found that church discipline works without membership. When an issue comes to our attention, it is confronted. Typically what we find is that the one confronted either repents and works toward change, or he stops attending or goes to another church.

Clarification #4 – Maturity and Membership

Matt assumes that membership is necessary for a believer to progress toward maturity.

I agree that associating and belonging to a local fellowship is an expectation that Scripture places upon us. I also agree that belonging to a local fellowship is necessary for optimum spiritual growth. I do not agree that a formalized process and the signing of a document are necessary to have this sense of belonging.

In our fellowship, we see people who sit under the teaching of Scripture, interact with other believers in small groups, serve in the body and progress toward maturity, all without a formalized membership process.

Conclusion

There is nothing wrong with having a formalized membership process. Scripture does not have anything negative to say about this that I can find. If your fellowship functions in this way, I am happy for you.

My point is that it is not mandatory to have this formalized process. Many local church bodies function according to Biblical priorities without this process.

This is a preference issue and if you prefer membership, I’m totally OK with that.