The "War on Christmas"

Well, Christmas has come and gone.  I had a great day with my family yesterday and trust you did as well.

I intended to get this post written and up on the blog before Christmas, but as you can tell, that didn't happen.  I figured I better get it done today as my window of opportunity is vanishing with many using today or the weekend to take down their Christmas decorations.

With Christmas over, I guess we will be spared the typical media reports of a war on Christmas for another year.  I have to tell you that I get so tired of hearing these reports.  Conservative news show hosts spend the days leading up to Christmas stirring up Christians over a supposed war on Christmas.

If you go to the American Family Association's website, you can find their "Naughty or Nice List."  On that list they group stores into three categories: 1) those that are supportive of Christmas, 2) those that are neutral on Christmas, 3) and those that are against Christmas. 

They base the list on the advertisements put out by the store and whether they say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays."  That way, by using their list, you can know which stores to shop at this Christmas and which stores to avoid.

Maybe I am not supposed to say this, but it doesn't bother me a bit that pagan store owners would instruct their employees to tell shoppers "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas."  In fact, maybe it is a good thing.  I think maybe it draws attention to the fact that Christmas is a Christian holiday and not just about Santa Claus and gifts.

Fox News has even had Santa Claus himself on their morning show to defend Christmas.  I can't help but ask if this is really helpful.  What are we defending?

I think we all need to be reminded that we, if not careful, are sometimes guilty of getting wrapped up in everything other than God during this time of year.  I would even suggest that in getting wrapped up in the "War on Christmas," we may really be defending an idol rather than our Creator.

On December 15, I preached an advent sermon from Genesis 1:1-5.  You can find it here.  Genesis 1 may seem like a strange place to go for an advent sermon, and in some ways it is.  However, I think we all need to be reminded that everything, not only Christmas, is all about God.

For it is God Who created everything for His glory.  It is God Who became flesh and dwelt among us that we might be reconciled to our Creator.  It is God Who is worthy of all of our worship forevermore.

May God set our affections on Him this holiday season and on into the New Year!  Happy Holidays!

Let No One Despise Your Youth

1 Timothy 4:12 is right up there with Jeremiah 29:11 and Philippians 4:13 among the most misused verses in Scripture.  All three are often found on coffee mugs, bumper stickers, and Christian t-shirts.

You can find the words of 1 Timothy 4:12 plastered on church youth rooms everywhere.

1 Timothy 4:12

Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.

The interesting thing is that when I hear the verse recited, it is often apart from the second part of the verse.  Everyone loves the first part.  It is so encouraging.  "Let no one despise you for your youth!"  What a great motto!

The attitude of many when reciting this verse is, "Don't look down on me because I am young."  Often it is not the person's age that is causing them to be looked down on but their actions.

Unfortunately, many forget the second part of the verse.  No one wants to be looked down on.  No one wants to be ignored or thought less of because of their age.  But very few want to live their lives as examples for others.

Paul was not writing a youth group curriculum when he penned these words, though the verse is not without application for teenagers.  He was addressing his son in the faith, Timothy.  Timothy was a young leader in the church at Ephesus.  He was likely in his thirties when Paul wrote this letter.

Paul wanted to encourage Timothy not to allow his age to be a hindrance to his ministry in Ephesus.  God had called Timothy to lead His people there.  If God did not consider Timothy's age to be a problem, Timothy shouldn't consider it to be a problem either.

But how was Timothy to assert his leadership?  What would it look for him not to allow anyone to despise his youth?  Does this mean Timothy was to stand up and say, "I am the leader here and you will do what I say"?  I don't think so.

Paul tells Timothy to be an example to the believers in speech, conduct, love, faith, and purity.  The church at Ephesus had a responsibility to submit to the leadership of their young pastor.  However, Timothy also had a responsibility to earn the respect of those older than him by being an example to the believers.  He was to lead by example.

The words of Paul in this verse are extremely relevant for me.  God has seen fit to call me to pastor his people at Drakes Branch Baptist Church at a very young age.  I read the words of Paul in the first part of 1 Timothy 4:12, "Let no one despise your youth," and I know they are for me.  But how do I do that?  How do I lead people who are older than I am?  I am to do this in the same way Paul instructed Timothy in the second part of the verse, by being an example in speech, conduct, love, faith, and purity.

That isn't easy.  It is much easier to say, "I am the leader, now follow me," than it is to give people a reason to follow.  May we all recognize that we are leaders of someone.  May we all lead by example in speech, conduct, love, faith, and purity.

Local Church Autonomy and Church Discipline

This post is a continuation of a previous post on local church autonomy.  That post can be found here. 

I recently completed a four sermon series on church membership.  The first two sermons in the series dealt with Matthew 16 and 18 respectively.  You can find them here and here.

In Matthew 16, Jesus promises to give Peter the keys of the kingdom.  By extension, the keys are given to the other apostles, and by further extension they are given to the church.  We know that we can extend Jesus' statement in Matthew 16 to the church because of Matthew 18 where Jesus, in referring to the church, uses the same phrase that is found in Matthew 16, "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

How does the church exercise the keys of the kingdom?  By binding and loosing.  How does the church bind and loose?  I would submit that the primary ways the church binds and looses are through church membership and church discipline.  In fact, it is church discipline that Jesus deals with very clearly in Matthew 18.

Jesus lays out four steps for church discipline in this passage.  Steps one and two of church discipline can be carried out among fellow believers without the influence of the church body as a whole.  However, steps three and four necessitate the involvement of the church as a whole.  You cannot tell it to the church without getting the church involved.  Neither can you remove a person from the fellowship of the church without the church getting involved.

Sadly, church discipline is a biblical practice that has been neglected in most Baptist churches in America for a long time.  Curiously, these same churches hold firmly to the doctrine of local church autonomy.

In what ways is the church autonomous?  I would submit that one of the primary ways that the church exercises its autonomy is through church discipline.  Church membership is all about our commitment to one another.  We are responsible for each other.  The writer of Hebrews says that we are to "stir up one another to love and good works" (Hebrews 10:24). 

There is something special about the relationship between two members of the same local church.  It seems that the difference in relationship between two members of the same local church and two fellow believers who are not members of the same local church is related to church discipline.  I can exercise formal church discipline over a member of my local church in a way that I simply cannot with a fellow believer of another local church.

I would further suggest that this is one of the primary ways in which the church is autonomous.  There is no board outside the local church that has this kind of responsibility for the lives of the people in the church.  This responsibility belongs to the local church.  It is through practicing biblical church discipline that the local church exercises her autonomy.

Local church autonomy and church discipline are two very important and interconnected doctrines that must be preserved if the church is to fulfill her mission in the world.

I am indebted to Jonathan Leeman of 9Marks for the excellent thinking and writing that he has done on church membership and church discipline.  Some of the ideas found here have certainly been developed in my mind by reading his works.  I heartily recommend the little books Church Membership and Church Discipline.

Local Church Autonomy and Doctrinal Deviancy

The autonomy of the local church is an essential element of Baptist ecclesiology.

Unfortunately, I sometimes hear people use the doctrine of local church autonomy to defend a church's decision to act in a manner inconsistent with Scripture.

My thinking on this issue was initially prompted by some relatively recent events among Baptists in Virginia.  In September 2012, Ginter Park Baptist Church (GPBC) in Richmond, VA ordained an openly homosexual man.  The Baptist General Association of Virginia (BGAV) promptly made a decision to remove GPBC from its membership if the church did not leave voluntarily by the end of 2012.  GPBC chose to stay and the BGAV removed the church from its membership.

Then in March 2013, the Richmond Baptist Association (RBA) held a vote regarding whether to sever ties with GPBC.  When the votes were tallied, GPBC was allowed to remain a part of the RBA by a small margin.  This caused many conservative leaning churches to leave the RBA.  The RBA association has since faced the daunting task of making significant budget cuts due to lost funding from the churches that left.

This has resulted in many Baptist associations in Virginia, including my own, giving consideration to the question of what they would do were they faced with the same situation.  As a result, I have been a part of a number of conversations with fellow pastors related to this issue over the last nine months or so.

The argument that I keep hearing offered by some of my moderate colleagues deals with local church autonomy.  While they personally believe that homosexuality is clearly identified in Scripture as sinful, they are unwilling to say that we should break fellowship with churches that hold a different view such as GPBC.

This is frustrating for me, to say the least.  I think this argument is based on a false understanding of local church autonomy, but my frustration is much deeper than that.  Local church autonomy is important, but it is not more important than doctrinal fidelity. 

I was motivated to think more about this issue yesterday by someone who was attending our new member's class at church.  We were talking about Baptist distinctives.  He suggested that doctrinal deviancy is one of the fears related to local church autonomy.  Who will keep the local church in check when she begins to wander from orthodoxy?

He is absolutely right.  Though I did not immediately draw a connection to the GPBC situation during our class time, I later realized that this is exactly what I have been considering for nine months.

I think what we see throughout the New Testament is that though the local church is autonomous, she is not isolated from other churches.  The local churches in the New Testament were interconnected.  The Apostle Paul, though a planter of many churches, was not a member of every local church.  That didn't seem to stop him from offering a very severe rebuke at times.  I realize that the office of apostle has ceased, but that doesn't mean the responsibility of local churches to one another ceased with it.

I am a staunch Baptist.  However, I cannot and will not allow local church autonomy to trump the clear teachings of Scripture.  If we are to continue holding to our doctrine of local church autonomy, as we should, we cannot allow that to mean that local churches are free to do whatever they please apart from confrontation, especially when it is in direct conflict with the clear teachings of Scripture. 

In my next post I will attempt to draw a connection between my understanding of local church autonomy and the church's responsibility to exercise the keys of the kingdom.

Reformed Rap and Pragmatism: Part 2

In my last post I wrote that I am hesitant to accept the pragmatic arguments being offered in favor of reformed rap.  It is not that I disagree with their conclusion, but that the same argument can be used to affirm all manner of practices that ought not to be affirmed.  I promised to follow that post up with another post giving the reason for my hesitancy.  You can find the previous post by clicking here.

As I was recently reading a blog post that was written in response to the NCFIC panel, I thought, "I have heard this pragmatic argument before."  As I thought about it for a minute, my memory was jarred.  It was at a recent meeting of pastors in my area that I heard this same argument.

No, we were not having a discussion about reformed rap, though that would probably have been very entertaining.  We were having a discussion about whether lost people should be invited to go with us on mission trips.  Some of the pastors, me included, were arguing that the purpose of a mission trip is to take the gospel to lost people.  Lost people cannot take the gospel to lost people.

Others were arguing that lost people like to serve too, and we may have the opportunity to share the gospel with them as we serve alongside each other.  One of the pastors at the table chimed in with a story from a previous mission trip he had taken.  He went on to explain that there was a man that went with him on that trip who was not saved prior to going on the trip.  While on the trip, the man heard the gospel and was saved.  God used that trip in this man's life to bring him to repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.  Praise God!

The pastor went on to argue that since God had used that trip in this man's life, we ought to be willing to take lost people on mission trips with the hope that they will witness something different about the Christians they are serving with, hear the gospel, and be saved.

I praise God that He used that trip in this man's life to bring him to salvation.  However, that does not mean that we should make it our practice to invite lost people on mission trips.  The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the argument.  There are a whole host of reasons that we should not take lost people on mission trips of which I cannot get into here as it is beyond the scope of this post.

Pragmatism is not a good primary argument.  We must study the Scriptures to determine what God has to say about a particular issue, not just what works.  God has given us His Word and it is useful for faith and practice.  I do not mean to suggest that pragmatic questions are never helpful.  Often they are, but they must never supersede the teachings of Scripture.  Many of those responding to the NCFIC panel would have been on much more solid ground had they appealed to Scripture primarily and pragmatism only secondarily.

We must be very careful about the arguments we make in favor of the positions we support.  It may be that our position is correct but that our argument for that position is deeply flawed.  We should carefully consider whether the same argument that we are using in one context for something good can be used in another context for something bad. 

This is the kind of precision we are called to as believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Reformed Rap and Pragmatism: Part 1

You may be aware that a panel at a recent NCFIC event unanimously denounced reformed rap (Lecrae, Trip Lee, Shai Linne, etc.).  Of course, they don't really know what reformed rap is since one panelist spoke about having Toby Mac on his iPod.  You can find the video from the panel discussion here.

As you might imagine, this has created quite the stir in the blogosphere among evangelicals.  It has elicited blog and Facebook responses from at least three presidents of SBC seminaries, Paige Patterson, Al Mohler, and Danny Akin.  In fact, the pastor of an SBC church that is in the NCFIC network, Voddie Baucham, has made clear on Facebook his dismay over the statements of the panelists.  You can find the blog posts by Paige Patterson and Al Mohler here and here.

I enjoy the work of guys like Lecrae, Trip Lee, and Shai Linne.  I am thankful for these brothers.  As I sit here typing this, I am wearing my Lecrae t-shirt that my wife bought for me on my birthday.  My intention here is not to address this controversy directly. 

What the controversy did for me though is cause me to think about another issue.  The argument made by many of the people responding to the NCFIC panel goes something like this, "God is using reformed rap to reach people with the gospel so it must be okay."  This is a very pragmatic argument.  I have no doubt that the first part of that statement is true.  God IS using reformed rap to reach people with the gospel.  However, the second part of the statement, though true in my estimation (i.e. reformed rap is okay), does not necessarily follow from the first.

The first biblical example that comes to mind is the story of Joseph.  Isn't the story of Joseph so rich with application?  Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery in Egypt.  A few chapters later in Genesis, we discover that following a period of great abundance, a famine is to fall on the entire land.  Pharaoh responded to this news by putting Joseph in charge of storing up enough food during the years of plenty to feed the people during the years of famine.

Then in Genesis 42, who showed up in Egypt to receive some grain?  That's right, Joseph's brothers.  The ones who had sold him into slavery were now asking him for food.  What we discover is that this was all according to the sovereign plan of God.  Joseph's brothers had committed a great evil by selling Joseph into slavery.  However, what Joseph's brothers intended for evil, God intended for good by preserving the line of the Messiah from starvation.  Joseph's brother, Judah, was the many times great-grandfather of Jesus.

Does the end justify the means?  I think not.  It was still sin for Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery.  We cannot say that something must be good just because God takes it and uses it for His glory.  As I have said already, God IS using reformed rap for His glory.  I even agree that Christians ought to embrace reformed rap.  However, I am not comfortable with the way many are making the argument.  It matters not just that our conclusions are right.  Our arguments must be right as well.  Pragmatism must not rule the day.  I will explain the reason for my hesitancy in my next post.

What do you think?  Does the widespread use of pragmatic arguments trouble you as well?