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.

It Ain’t About the Numbers – 6 Thoughts Toward Staying on Track

Posted on May 5, 2011 Written by Mark McIntyre 2 Comments

I have found that in having an on-line presence, it is easy to get caught up in a numbers game. How many followers do I have? How may hits have there been on the blog? What is my blog ranking?

In our connected world, we have what seems like an infinite supply of data at our disposal. There are scores and rankings for every aspect of social media and the blogosphere.

With all the information available, it is easy to get overwhelmed and become distracted from the original purpose for having an on-line presence. Not only can I become overwhelmed and distracted, I can waste a lot of time comparing myself with others.

My purpose in having an on-line presence is to encourage people to begin and then deepen their relationship with God. To stay true to that purpose, I came up with 6 reminders to keep me from being consumed by an unprofitable focus on numbers.

I am not doing this to build a personal following. I am doing this to bring honor to Jesus Christ. See 1 Corinthians 10:31.
When I compare myself to others, I am distracted from my mission to make disciples of Jesus Christ, not disciples of me. See Matthew 28:19-20
I am called to please God and be in obedience to him and not be concerned with pleasing men. See 1 Thessalonians 2:4. By seeking to please men, I may compromise what God wants me to write.
I must focus on providing worthwhile content rather than trying to manipulate people into a response. See 1 Corinthians 2:2-5
I must be animated by a love of God and a genuine agape love of other people. Without that love, I’m just making noise. See 1 Corinthians 13:1-13. My efforts must be for the benefit of others and not for my own.
My goal is to bring people into spiritual maturity, but maturity is hard to quantify. The numbers don’t tell the whole story.

Rather than being distracted by the numbers, I need to be still before God (Psalm 46:10) and listen for his voice in the midst of the noise around me.

What do you think? Care to add to the list?

Living Water or Broken Cisterns – A Choice for Western Society

Posted on May 4, 2011 Written by Mark McIntyre 2 Comments

Nature abhors a vacuum is a proverb that came to me as I contemplated Jeremiah 2:12–13 recently:

¹² Be appalled, O heavens, at this; be shocked, be utterly desolate, declares the Lord, ¹³ for my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns that can hold no water. (ESV)

This prophetic statement was made to the Nation of Israel who had rejected God’s principles for living and had replaced worship of the Living God with the pagan rituals of the surrounding nations.

Anyone who has spent time in an arid climate understands the importance of water. A source of water is the first necessity in choosing a place to live. A spring, creek or river which flows year round would be the first choice. Living (moving) water is fresh and clean, and if it comes from a spring the water is cool.

A cistern, on the other hand, collects the water when it rains and the water becomes stagnant. As the water sits, microbes and insects grow in it and dust collects. It is water, and it will keep you alive, but is not nearly as pleasant as flowing water.

But notice that God makes reference to broken cisterns that can’t even hold water. It is not that the Israelites had chosen a viable alternative source for what they need. They had rejected God and replaced him with empty rituals that provided no benefit.

In 21st Century America, there is a renewed and more vigorous attack on the Judeo/Christian principles upon which this country was founded. The “new” atheists would like to remove thought and speech about God from public discourse. Religion is viewed by them as an old fashioned idea that has outlived its usefulness.

The popularity of books by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins is evidence of how many in our society have adopted this premise. Yet, have the readers of these books thought through the implications of this choice?

Remember, nature abhors a vacuum. If we reject God and exclude him from our society, something will replace him, but what? Where will we find our guiding principles? Who or what will prevent totalitarianism? What will the “new atheists” give people as a means of determining value?

It is my opinion that if the Western culture continues the rejection of the Judeo/Christian God and his principles, society will succumb to one of two types of totalitarianism.

The first option is an atheistic totalitarianism such as fascism or communism. It is no mystery as to why atheism is the religion of the communist states. The communists build upon the concept of Darwinism; the strong dominate the weak. The “state” becomes the guide by which all decision should be made. Choice and freedom are greatly reduced or eliminated and conformity to the state is enforced.

The second option is a religious totalitarianism such as that of Islam and Sharia law. This is probably the more dangerous and likely option because of the devotion that Islam engenders. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world because of its militaristic foundation and its goal of universal conquest.

How will atheism stand up to Islam? I have never been aware of any atheist that was passionate enough about his atheism to strap a bomb on his body and die a martyr. This is commonplace (if misguided) in Islam.

The third and best option is for us to return to the God upon whom our country was founded. It seems to me that the only places where freedom of expression and freedom of belief have been in operation have been places where Christianity once held a dominant position. That freedom is the living water that we crave. Why reject that freedom when bondage is the alternative?

Do we really want to reject the one system that engendered freedom to pursue systems that take it away? I hope not.

What do you think?