Open(ish) forum: Why are you where you are, churchwise?

by Dan Phillips

I'm trying to finish up my reading of Mark Driscoll's Death by Love, and hope to have a review up here Thursday. In the meanwhile....

We've had vigorous discussion about church ministry, church attendance, staying in churches, and leaving church. Now I want to ask our august readership this question:

Why do you attend the church you attend?

Before you launch, read these explanations and limitations:

1. This is only for Christians whose church affiliation affirms the Biblical fundamentals of theology proper, Bibliology, and the Gospel. (That would exclude JWs, Roman Catholics, Hindus, Scientologists, Christian Scientists, Moslems, Mormons, Animists, Eastern/Greek Orthoborg, and anyone else I find I have to exclude as we go. But it would include pre/post/amill, pedos and credos, Arminians and Calvinists, dispies and CTers, charismatics and people who really do believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, and a thronging mass of others.)
   
2. It is also only for Christians who are not sinning against God by refusing to be involved in a local church.
3. [UPDATE] Please do not make disparaging remarks about identifiable ministries or pastors from your past.
   
4. I want to know any or all of the following:

• Why are you in the denomination you're in? or
• Why are you in an independent (i.e. non-denominational) church?
• How did you find the church you attend?
• What specifically led you to attach yourself to the church you attend?
  
• Why do you stay?
• Under what circumstances would you leave?
  

Have at it.

---

Wednesday filler-upper

by Trinketman, aka Frank Turk

Dan had a brilliant post yesterday, as usual, and of course Phil's tubing video is hillarious, so to give your brains a rest today I thought I'd do a Wednesday post which doesn't start WWIV -- about what I'm reading this week.

Before we get to that, for those of you who don't have an electron microscope, this is what the note on the "out of office" post says:


Which, of course, doesn't help one bit, does it?

The telegram says, "Having fun in New Jersey. Glad to be out of snow. You guys go ahead and open the blog on 4Feb08. I'm going to stay away for another week. Phil J."

And I find is a little weird, having grown up in NY, that NJ doesn't have any snow on 5 Feb 08 as I am certain it has snowed in the Jersey area as late as April. However, Punxsutawney Phil did, in fact, see his shadow, so it's all in play now. Yet another contributor to global warming.

OK – so to keep you people at bey until the boss comes home, I wanted to inform you of a very interesting book that has sort of flown under the radar of the blogosphere since its publication in 2006 through IVP: Exploring Protestant Traditions: An Invitation to Theological Hospitality by W. David Buschart. It's sort of a fat book, and because it's IVP some people may think it's actually an academic book. It certainly has enough footnotes to be some kind of textbook.

I bring it up because this book would be a good thing to add to your library. You don’t have to buy it from me, and when you read it I am sure you'll find something to sort of snort at for one reason or another – because everyone, of course, comes to a subject like this from one bias or another.

W. David Buschart (Ph.D., Drew University) is associate dean and professor of theology and historical studies at Denver Seminary. Denver has a decent doctrinal affirmation, and for those of you who don’t know, it is historically a conservative Baptist institution. This isn't a volume produced by some kind of ecumenical hooligan who wants to ask the proverbial question, "can't we all just get along?"

Dr. Buschart's treatment of the 8 Protestant traditions he covers (Lutheran, Anabaptist, Reformed, Anglican, Baptist, Wesleyan, Dispensational, and Pentecostal) is very fair – including his treatment of the Pentecostal family of traditions, in which he tends to define the tradition by its more moderate advocates rather than by, um, what appear to be the majority of its practitioners.
So what's in it for you, right? I mean, that's why you read this blog: feed me. I have my birdie-mouth open Frank: stick the worm in there and let me have a fat, happy tummy.

Here's what's in it for you: a little peek outside your theological silo. Listen: because the evangelical landscape is so washed out and watered down, and because you can't really tell the Joely-O's from the Dan Kimball's without a scorecard and list of hair stylists anymore, this book sort of salvages each tradition examined from its own sloppy housekeeping to spell out why they think and do the things they (theologically) think and do. And think about this: if you're one of those people who can't find a church to attend, this book could help you figure out how to find a church to attend which, maybe, isn't in the tradition you grew up in, but still resides someplace inside 3-Sigma of your doctrinal tolerances.

Personally, I think it's one part of the antidote to a lot of the stuff "emergent" types want to tell themselves about what they're doing. "Reclaiming traditions"? Shouldn’t you know something about those before you try to trot some of that stuff out again?

That's all I got. Nice to see you, too.

---

The danger of confessions

by Dan Phillips

One of the great things about a good, Biblical confession of faith is that it underscores the unity of a body of Christian people, confessing the one Lord, one faith, with one mouth. It should reflect the fact that the Lord does not liken the church (if I may speak anachronistically) to a pool table, where individual balls roll around in myriad different directions at the same time, only occasionally bouncing off one another. Rather, He likens the church to a body, featuring both diversity and unity (1 Corinthians 12:12).

Having said that....

Reading through John in Greek I noticed something not obvious in modern English translations.

This man [Nicodemus] came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him." 3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:2-3)

Nicodemus says "we know." Jesus replies, "Truly, truly I say to you," σοι (soi), the second person singular pronoun. Nic says "we"; Jesus says "thee." Jesus will not allow Nicodemus to hide amongst a crowd. He singles Nicodemus out, and deals with his soul, one on one.

Nor is this the only time that Jesus will in effect turn a "we" into "thee."

After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, "Do you want to go away as well?" 68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." 70 Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil." 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him. (John 6:66-71)

Peter says "We have believed, and we have come to know." Jesus says, in effect, "Oh? One of that 'we' is a traitor, Peter. One member of the consensus from which you're drawing such comfort and strength is a devil. So what if your 'we' turns into 'me,' Peter? What then? Where will you stand, if you find yourself standing alone?"

So while I find much help, encouragement, and instruction in the great confessions, I have to remember: Satan may sift the body of which I am a part. I may find myself alone. Will I be able to say "I believe, and I have come to know"?

And when I stand before the throne, in one sense I surely will be alone. Then it won't be a question of what "we" believed, confessed, did, or were. The first person singular pronoun will predominate. I had better be able to say that

whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith-- 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead (Philippians 3:7-11)

---

L'Abri or not L'Abri

by Frank Turk

I have a really, really long post which is from something that happened last week, and I'm scrubbing it hard because it's a topic which deserves a hard scrub. And I have another which is part of an inside joke here at TeamPyro which I am in the process of writing. And Phil has a great post linking to a person who's obviously got his head and humor tied on right, so a bumpin' we will go.

But Luke (of "Luke and Rachael" fame in the meta) has said something which I think deserves special attention.

It seems to me that TeamPyro could learn a thing or two from the L'abri model.

Here's my initial reaction to that statement, and I urge you to think about it and then add something constructive to the topic in the comments.

Apparently L'Abri is participating in something like ministry, and this blog in particular is not -- and that's an interesting view from a guy who may or may not be a friend of Emergent but who is taking up for the cause of so-called "missional" church work.

I was going to comment that it's a little weird that pastors who cuss from the pulpit, borrowing music from the least morally-concerned part of secular culture, accepting ritual scarring and piercing, and giving a pass to public drunkenness are all seen as "acceptable", but blogging -- that is, blogging in a way which people will read and take notice of -- is seen as a violation of mission. However, I'm going to ask a question instead.

L'Abri doesn't feed the hungry or clothe the naked in any kind of consistent way. Should they abandon their work to do that work because the latter form of work is apparently more like what Jesus would do?

---

Is "Messianic Judaism" a Good Idea?

by Steven A. Kreloff

A Rare PyroManiacs Guest Post

A Note from Phil Johnson: Almost two years ago, I posted some remarks raising the question of whether Christians who drop the vowel points during the writing of G-d's name are really showing reverence to H-m. I pointed out that the practice actually seems superstitious and contrary to what Jesus taught about what it means to take the name of God in vain. It strikes me as an unwarranted intrusion of Jewish tradition which (in a way) impinges on Christian liberty. It has the look and feel of subtle Galatianism to me. Dan Phillips (long before we were blog-partners) tag-teamed off that post with a brilliant one of his own. It was one of Dan's early interactions with me which later led to his becoming a card-carrying PyroManiac. Anyway, many of the people most incensed with me about that post were involved in (or on the periphery of) the movement known as "Messianic Judaism." So at the time (was it really that long ago?) I asked my best friend, Steve Kreloff to weigh in on the subject of contextualization in Jewish cultures and the dangers of over-doing it. Steve sent me the following guest-post, which I have been holding ever since. I'm posting it today because in the wake of Frank's trilogy of Steve-Hays-style broadsides from yesterday, the torpor at the blog is almost palpable. So I asked Frank's permission before bumping his Flood-o'-arguments®. His reply: "Yeah, whatever. Who knew people with the gift of tongues had so little to say?" So, ladies and gentlemen, please meet the man who has remained my best friend in the world for the past 35 years, Steve Kreloff. Steve is the polar opposite of me in almost every way conceivable, except that we share a common faith in Yeshua Ha' Mashiach and a common commitment to the truth of His Word. Steve is a Jewish believer, having come to saving faith while in college. He has pastored Lakeside Community Chapel in Clearwater, FL., since 1981. He can be heard weekly (soon to be daily) on radio or via podcasting, thanks to Verse by Verse Ministries.

number of years ago, when my son was young, we attended a baseball game. Not only was my son a baseball fan, but he was also an avid collector of baseball cards. When we arrived at the ballpark, though, I noticed that he seemed more interested in looking at the pictures of the players on his cards than in watching the ball players on the field. In my astonishment I asked him, "Why are you looking at the pictures, when the real living players are standing right in front of you?"

What my son did with baseball cards and players, many Jewish Christians today do with their faith. Embracing a concept known as Messianic Judaism, these Jewish believers emphasize Old Testament laws and practices (such as dietary laws, feasts, and Sabbath days) as the way to please God. Yet Paul referred to these kinds of observances as "shadows" pointing to the reality of Jesus Christ (Col. 2:16, 17). The Old Testament presented many shadowy pictures of the coming Messiah in the form of ritualistic laws and ceremonies. These shadows were never intended to be a permanent fixture of Christianity. Along with the rest of the Mosaic Law, these pictures were designed by God to be "our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come we are no longer under a tutor" (Galatians 3:24, 25). Just as it is foolish for a someone to be enthralled with pictures of ballplayers rather than the players themselves, so it is inappropriate for messianic believers to focus on outdated pictures about Messiah rather than the reality of His presence.

This attraction to Old Testament messianic pictures is not new. The early church faced similar problems with Jewish Christians who had a difficult time pulling away from the many practices associated with Old Testament Judaism. In response to their reluctance to let go of their old religious ties, the writer to the Hebrews devotes his entire letter to presenting Jesus Christ as superior to a wide range of pictorial symbols found in Judaism (such as the high priesthood, Moses, the Old Covenant, and animal sacrifices). Instead of encouraging these Hebrews to remain within their comfortable religious practices, the inspired penman pleads with them to abandon these customs in favor of loyalty to Jesus Christ.

Although the Bible clearly defines the dangers of mixing Old Testament rituals with New Testament truths about Jesus (creating a legalistic form of Christianity), many Jewish believers continue to be attracted to forms and style of worship found in Messianic Judaism (i.e. messianic synagogues). In light of the popularity of Messianic Judaism, Jewish Christians should be aware of the unbiblical nature of this movement and the dangers involved in associating with it.

A Theological Danger

The greatest menace posed by Messianic Judaism is that, by encouraging its followers to diligently observe Old Testament laws, it obscures the foundational truth of Christianity, which is justification by faith in Christ. Though many within this movement are born again and would affirm that their salvation is based upon Christ's substitutionary atonement, yet their emphasis upon Old Testament ceremonial laws gives the distinct impression that the observing of these laws are necessary for salvation.

Indeed, there are some within the messianic movement who teach that Jewish believers are obligated to observe all the Old Testament laws. They would in fact associate their salvation with keeping these laws. Yet, this was the very problem that Paul addressed in his letter to the Galatians. He sternly rebuked them for replacing the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith with a false gospel of salvation by law. He called their rejection of grace for law "a different gospel" (1:6) and a distortion of the gospel of Christ (1:7). For receiving such a perverted message he referred to them as "foolish and bewitched" (3:1). And those who preached such an erroneous message he called "accursed" (1:8, 9). He wrote, " . . . knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified"(Gal. 3:16).

Those within the messianic camp must consider the critical importance of affirming the doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ. In keeping with the message of the New Testament, they should stop clinging to laws and practices that can never justify them before God.

A Ecclesiological Danger

One of the great truths of the New Testament is that the Body of Christ is made up of both Jews and Gentiles. It is an unbiblical concept to have a local church that is distinctively Jewish or Gentile (by necessity the early church in Jerusalem consisted of all Jews because the Gospel had not been presented to the Gentile world). Thus, the nature of messianic synagogues—with their unique Jewish distinctions—violates the very spirit of fellowship among believers of all backgrounds and cultures.

The Apostle Paul told the Ephesians that Christ has reconciled both Jews and Gentiles in one body through the cross (2:16). Through His death on the cross Jesus Christ abolished all the Old Testament ceremonial laws that made Jews distinct and separated them from Gentiles (2:15). As a result He has "made both groups (Jews and Gentiles) into one" by removing all spiritual distinctions between believers (2:14, 15). While maintaining ethnic and social differences, the Bible declares that "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). By encouraging messianic synagogues, Messianic Judaism promotes division in the Body of Christ that is contrary to the teachings of the New Testament.

Rather than establish a distinct Jewish assembly, local churches should bring together both Jews and Gentiles in membership. To remove Jewish believers from Bible-believing churches is to essentially rob the Church of the richness of fellowship God intends Jews and Gentiles in Christ to enjoy. All spiritual fellowship should be based upon our relationship with Christ—not our former religious backgrounds.

An Evangelistic Danger

Adherents to Messianic Judaism believe that those identified with messianic synagogues make better witnesses to Jewish people than Gentiles from a Bible believing local church. However, the Apostle Paul told the Romans that his goal in ministering to so many Gentiles (he was the Apostle to the Gentiles) was to provoke Jewish people to jealousy (Romans 11:14). In other words, he felt that the best way to arouse Jewish interest in the gospel was through Gentile Christians. When Jewish people observe Gentile believers having a relationship with the Jewish Messiah and loving their Jewish Bibles, they often are provoked to a jealousy that eventually leads them to Christ.

Ironically, most Jewish Christians (including those within messianic synagogues) were led to Christ by a Gentile Christian. Messianic synagogues do a great disservice to the Jewish community by encouraging local churches to delegate Jewish evangelism to them. The Great Commission commands all believers to make disciples from all nations and nationalities—and this includes Jewish people. By believing that messianic synagogues are uniquely equipped as the sole experts in Jewish evangelism, local churches are in danger of neglecting their biblical responsibility to witness to Jewish people.

Jewish believers in Christ offer so much to the Body of Christ. They are often zealous and passionate about their faith in Messiah. Their presence and involvement in local churches, along with their Gentile brethren, testify to the world of the transforming power of the gospel of Christ.

Reference for this article came from: "Do We Need Messianic Synagogues? Biblical, Historic, And Pragmatic Issues" by Dr. William C. Varner (The Master's Seminary Journal-Spring 2003).

Steve Kreloff

---

"Men... de" on denominations

by Dan Phillips

Every Greek student — which should be a set including all pastors who read this blog, plus — knows the men...de construction. It's the way a Greek writer says, "On the one hand... and on the other hand." Like, "Men, Viggo Mortenson was really great as Aragorn; de, he can really, um, not come off so bright."

I've got one of those on denominations.

Men -- On the One Hand.

I see the sense of denominations. I really do.

One big criticism of anti-denominationalists is that denominations are divisive. However, that can only be harmfully so among denominations. If members of denominations decide that only their denomination is 100% right, and everyone else is in the outer darkness, this is harmfully divisive. How many really, formally do, however?

My late father liked to chuckle about the church in which he grew up. I won't identify it... beyond speculating that "Church Organist" would never have been on their yearly budget.

Dad chuckled because his father always insisted that theirs was the only true church. All the others were "just denominations." So, we concluded, they were the only non-denominational denomination.

Exclusivist denominations can be harmful among denominations. But within them?

If you oppose denominations because they're divisive, what would you propose in their stead? Every Sunday, debate afresh over what the meaning of Communion is? Every time someone has a baby, debate over whether to "baptize" that baby, and if so, how to do it, and what it would mean? Every Sunday morning service, debate over whether you even have a pastor or not, or whether you have to have at least seven of them, and whether he/they should preach, or whether everyone should just pop up and pop off as he "feels led" -- and whether the brethren should be joined in this by the sisteren?

Having some sort of denominational standard actually promotes unity—within that denomination.

Now look, I know there are many shades of denominations, and ways to be independent yet (somehow) associated. In my view, there are strengths and weaknesses to virtually any structure you propose. The former would include the fact that pooled resources can form bases for more endeavors, the possibility of accountability and doctrinal form/stability, and so forth. The latter would feature "Weakest Link" phenomena, mission creep, an oppressive or ineffective degree of organizational control and discipline, and the like.

Well, except your denomination, I'm sure. All strengths, no real weaknesses. Right? Right.

But my point, as I said, is that the concept actually promotes unity in its way. Ideally, we'd all be 100% right about everything, and would 100% agree about everything. Some of my readers may think they fit in the first category. If they were to admit it, the Comments section would soon prove that the second does not yet obtain.

This is not the ideal, but it is the way it is. Agreement like that will not be seen until every one of us gets a passing grade in Remedial Theology 101 at the start of the Milliennial Kingdom -- or, if you prefer, the Grand Eternal Happy Blur, or The Long, Long More of the Same, or whatever it is you're looking forward to.

So how do we approximate Paul's call to "be united in the same mind and the same judgment" (1 Corinthians 1:10)? Denominations are one way to do that. So your Presbyterian church doesn't have a big argument every time the pastor wants to spatter a baby, and your Baptist church doesn't have a schism every time a baby is born because the pastor won't agree to attach religious significance to getting the little feller wet. You're at peace, you're agreed, you get along. It's all-good. Considering.

Plus, as I alluded, denominations can enable more widespread works. Denominational financial support can support a small church in a small desert community, or start a new one in an town without a Gospel witness. Denominations can start seminaries or other Bible colleges that honor their core convictions.

In my personal observation, those fiercely opposed on principle to all denominations and anyone in them have Personal Issues. Akin to the folks who try to find their way around Scriptural commands to be involved in a local church and submit to its leadership, they just have unresolved authority issues. They haven't come to peace with Romans 13 and related truths, and see themselves as lone tumbleweeds (and a higher class of tumbleweed, at that), rather than members of a body.

These aren't noble iconoclastic reformers. They're just childish, spoiled, self-indulgent rebels who haven't embraced the Ephesians 4:1f. vision. They need to deal with that sin of categorical insubordination and self-righteous isolationism (Proverbs 18:1). They need to get their imperfect selves into an imperfect church, and start growing and serving with all the other imperfect, redeemed sinners.

Full disclosure. I wish I could be denominational. I really do. I wish I knew of one in which I just fit perfectly. (Maybe you'll point me to one.)

I love the church I attend, and its leadership. Christ is honored, God is glorified, the Word is preached wonderfully and passionately. But — God love 'em! — it's a Presbyterranean church. My convictions differ with the denominational stance on a number of matters.

So, though I'm nominated yearly for leadership offices, I can't serve. The pastor, who I love dearly, has given me many opportunities to preach, and I do other ministries. But there is, as it were, a stained-glass ceiling. I knew it going in (-- hello? "Presbyterian"?) , and that's the way it has to be. Absolutely no hard feelings about that whatever.
But I envy folks who can wholeheartedly be just Presbyterian, or _____ Baptist, or one of the other major franchises. They fit in, they can sign the contract, they buy into the whole program on church government, doctrines, and everything. It's all laid out, in the ______ Confession, or what-have-you. Must be cool. And there are some in which I could fit -- but I'll just say not in our neck of the woods at present. And in my past pastoral experience, I wasn't able to "hook up" with one of those, successfully.

Not yet. But I'm hopeful.

All that to say that I don't start out with an anti-denominational chip on my shoulder.

But there's still the de.

De -- On the Other Hand.

For one thing, name me one Christian denomination more than fifty years old that hasn't either drifted, or plummeted, left, or marched inexorably towards the faux-"right" of hidebound traditionalism.

The Southern Baptists are notable because they are an exception to the former. However, I think all SB's who comment here will agree that, even there, all is not completely placid and united on the true essentials.

And then there's the alcohol thing.

So, what are the "major Christian(oid) denominations"? We'll all immediately think of the darlings of the lamestream media, the vaunted Big Three "Mainline" Denominations: United Methodists, United Presbyterians, United Church of Christ (who really, really need to change their name); and usually the Lutherans and Episcopilpalpalians, as well. These can just about always be counted on formally coming down on the anti-Biblical side of any pressing issue.

What would Wesley think, good and godly man that he was? Knox? Luther? One hopes that their heavenly bliss is not disturbed by awareness of the smarmy, vicious defection of which the institutions they were instrumental in beginning.

Even within sound denominations, denominational unity can be a two-edged sword, can't it? If the denominational stance is not very specific, there is room for a lot of mischief; if it is quite specific, there isn't much room for personal growth, and the panorama is more of a microrama.

Let's say (forgive my generalizing) that I have a pastor-friend in Denomination X, who agrees with their stance on Z. (Imagine Z as something consequential, but not Heaven/Hell essential.) I have a different conviction. So I talk with him, study the Word with him, and have a friendly debate. Let's say that he becomes convinced that the Scriptures teach otherwise than he has held. Otherwise than Denomination X holds.

What have I done for him?

Well, whatever else you can say about his personal growth, one thing I've done is I've lost him his job. He'll have to resign. His denomination isn't going to change their stance on Z just because he has done so. If he tried to make them do so, he would be a schismatic.

So he, his wife, his twenty-seven children, his horny toads, his cats -- all out on the street, and he as denominationally homeless as I currently am. He'll stand on street corners holding a sign that says "Will preach for food" on one side, and "Gee, thanks, Dan!" on the other.

Summary: there is no summary. I have no solution that isn't numbingly simplistic, or just dumb. Want to hear one idle thought? All decent, Biblically faithful denominations should have a "sunset clause." They should just fold, every fifty years. Everyone gets fired, has to go independent or... or get a job. Maybe they could then start back up -- but only with people who will sign the statement of faith.

Nah, that's no good. Too many loose strings and details.

What if everyone got kicked out of his denomination once a year? Then everyone would have to ask himself, "Do I believe the Bible teaches this because I'm an Epiptopresbymethobaptopalian... or am I an Epiptopresbymethobaptopalian because I believe the Bible teaches this?" And some denominations would die (—and good riddance!), and some stalled people would get growing seriously?

Naw, that's a dumb idea too.

So I guess we just have to muddle by with what we've got: imperfect, redeemed sinners pooling their resources and giving their utmost to know and serve a perfect Redeemer, to keep His truth central, and not to be unnecessarily unpleasant about it.

---