A holy day — not a pretty day

by Dan Phillips

Justin Taylor links to a shocking video. It depicts Jews preparing, then slitting the throat of a sacrificial animal, and gathering its blood.

You watch it, hearing their ritual in rapid Hebrew, not understanding. But you have this feeling of dread, a horror for what you know is coming. Odds are that you had never quite seen the like, as I hadn't. But you feel it coming, you watch perhaps with a hand to your mouth, wanting to look away, but stopping yourself. The struggling victim, no clue what is coming; bound, prepared, shaved, given some liquid (sh'teh! sh'teh! — "Drink! Drink!" a speaker urges in Hebrew).

Then the blade slashes, the blood spurts and is gathered, and surprisingly quickly, the victim's struggles subside.

This was God's ancient pedagogy. From the very start, He taught us all that sin called for shed blood. He showed this to Adam and Eve in the Garden (Genesis 3:21). Somehow Abel knew it (Genesis 4:4). Shed blood meant death (Genesis 9:6), and shed blood was the means that Yahweh instituted, for covering and paying for sin (Leviticus 17:11, 14).

This was God's pedagogy for the nation of Israel. The sight that so shocks us in the video is a sight every Israelite was exposed to from childhood, by divine design. Had they heard Yahweh, had they listened and learned, they would have known: sin-blood-life. Sin can only be atoned for by innocent life, life is in the blood, blood brings life and forgiveness. Violent death of an innocent victim, a substitute on whose head the offerer presses his hand, transferring, marking it as his substitute.

Yet all those animals never really finish the job. God forgives the believing worshipers... but then they have to bring another victim. And another. And another (Hebrews 10:1-4, 11).

Then God tells Israel that these animals would one day be summed up, fulfilled, in one grand Substitute, a Man who would die for His people and bring final and lasting peace and atonement (Isaiah 52:13—53:12).

That Man comes. Many reject Him, many do not. He dies. God removes the Temple. No more sacrifices according to the prescription of the Law are even possible. As if embarrassed (but not humbled), the nation fabricates substituted traditions, works, programs, rituals. The reality has come, but they keep trying to pencil in shadows.

It is like a child that ignored its entire childhood instruction. Blood is necessary for atonement; it would be offered, it has been offered. But the lesson was not heard.

Don't feel smug, Gentile reader, Christian reader. From our own numbers, from professed "evangelicals," there are plenty who just as badly — more badly — miss the point.

Imagine that, instead of watching a video of an animal's death, you somehow saw this day, nearly 2000 years ago. Imagine that, instead of that animal, you were watching Jesus Christ at last night's supper, at prayer in the garden, arrested, subjected to mock-justice, condemned. Imagine you were watching him being beaten and whipped, and led away.

Imagine the sick, nauseated, worsening clench in your gut as you saw Him stagger off, carrying the cross. You want to tear your eyes away. You want to make it stop. You want to scream "Stop! STOP! This is wrong!"

Yet He goes. He hangs. He bleeds. He dies. He is buried.

Why such an ugly, horrid death? Why, if penal, substitutionary, blood atonement were not indispensable for our salvation? Do we dare shake our heads at Jews who don't "get" the millennia of instruction?

Best not to mock, while such folly is tolerated in our numbers.

Alas! and did my Savior bleed
And did my Sovereign die?
Would He devote that sacred head
For such a worm as I?

Refrain

At the cross, at the cross where I first saw the light,
And the burden of my heart rolled away,
It was there by faith I received my sight,
And now I am happy all the day!

Thy body slain, sweet Jesus, Thine—
And bathed in its own blood—
While the firm mark of wrath divine,
His Soul in anguish stood.

Was it for crimes that I had done
He groaned upon the tree?
Amazing pity! grace unknown!
And love beyond degree!

Well might the sun in darkness hide
And shut his glories in,
When Christ, the mighty Maker died,
For man the creature’s sin.

Thus might I hide my blushing face
While His dear cross appears,
Dissolve my heart in thankfulness,
And melt my eyes to tears.

But drops of grief can ne’er repay
The debt of love I owe:
Here, Lord, I give my self away
’Tis all that I can do.

Isaac Watts, 1707

(There is a companion-piece up at my blog)

---

How to stay well

by Frank Turk

Because our readers are the smartest in the universe, my last post (not the one about leaving, but the one where I implemented the electronic QB metaphor) instigated this comment from a canny reader:

I understand what you are saying here, but aren't Paul's instructions here to the Pastor? How are they applied to the church member who doesn't have any authority over what is being taught in a church?

We're trying to figure out where that line is - we're in a church that on outward appearance(and in the pulpit) is Biblically sound. However, the youth group is leaning emergent - Nooma videos - ditching teaching the Bible in favor of student-facilitated "relevent" discussion about "edgy" topics, i.e. piercings, tattoos, Harry Potter, Halo; using secular music for "worship"; "authenticity" seems to be the highest value. (sorry about the excessive use of quotation marks! The EC's re-definitions mandate it!)

We've had to pull our kids out of most activities (more so for our younger daughter who is less discerning) The sr. pastor agrees that the EC is dangerous, but trusts our youth pastor. We've already been removed from teaching positions for not drinking the Kool-aid.

I guess what I'm asking is what does it look like when a person not in authority stays? Understanding that it's not stylistic differences but perhaps teetering on the edge of heresy (depending on what you think of Rob Bell I guess) (I vote yes). Does one just sit quietly, hoping and praying the leadership will eventually "get it"? Does one keep earnestly pestering the pastor? Inform the other parents? I guess the confusion springs from the church authority issue. I am still under the authority of the senior pastor (and the youth pastor for that matter). How exactly does that all flesh out?

This is the rubber and the road part of this high-falutin' theology- love- grace- church- unity- truth talk.

When you stay – and that's the first key: when you stay – your first responsibility is humility. Now, let's not get all broken up about this word – because it is a perfectly biblical and sound word, and we have to understand what real humility is.

Real humility begins here:

In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said:
"Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!"
And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"

The place where humility starts is before the throne of God where you realize, as Isaiah the prophet who actually spoke for God directly realized, that you are really not much in the face of a Holy God.

The ESV sorta loses something here when it translates Isaiah's lament "I am lost". I like the KJV and NASB of course, but the NLT really goes for the gold when it says, "It’s all over! I am doomed, for I am a sinful man." That's the –sense- of Isaiah's lament: the knowledge that your fate is entirely in God's hands, and unless something happens (meaning: unless God does something) you're completely shot – no chance for recovery.

Your pastor may have just gone from being average Pastor Pete with an average evangelical theological IQ to being a spiky-coiffed, wrinkled-shirt, Chris Tomlin-looking coffee drinker (no offense Chris: I realize you're a musician and we have to cut you some slack)(I guess)(you have to admit that this is what "those guys" look like, though, right?) who is now showing and quoting Nooma videos, video clips from adult prime-time TV, citing eastern mystical books and questioning whether orthodoxy is a proper pastime for a church instead of art shows, concerts and parties. That is frankly –his- problem before the three-times holy God who causes angels to cover their eyes.

Your problem before this God is that you are in the same boat -- unless God does something. Paul sums that up to the Corinthians by telling them that they are, on the one hand, just like the filthy sinners in their city. But, on the other hand, they are called out and made temples of the Holy Spirit -- such ones they once were, but now ...

So right-minded humility is an A-list virtue for stayers. But does that mean you are just sitting there in your place as they replace the pews or chairs with meditation mats, paint the walls black, replace the hymnal with "space music", and begin the chants to Kali-Mah or whatever? Is that a function of humility?

Yeah, no. "Humility" says, "I am a sinner saved by grace." But humility – if we follow Paul's example, and Isaiah's example, and frankly Jesus' example – doesn't let people get over just because they are just as spiritually and morally messed up as I am.

After humility, you have to take some stock of your own contribution to the problem. That's a natural consequence of recognizing that you're a sinful person – and it's not meaningless self-flagellation and phony conscience-baring. A church doesn't go south like this overnight, or even in a few weeks. It happens by inches, and by letting the pastor do what a pastor will do when he's not in a group of men who are accountable to each other and to the church.

Serously: a pastor who is left on his own will take matters into his own hands – and he'll go the way that seems right to him. If he has fellow workers who are invested in him who are not paid staff who are also challenged by him and willing to challenge him, that's a healthy leadership environment – and frankly the environment the Bible says there should be in leadership.

But do you show up one day after the pastor comes out the south end of "Stylish Eye for the Pastor Guy" and tell him, "dude, I'm all for you. Now let me talk to you about what a theological air biscuit Sunday's message was"?

I want you to think about this: if you're at work, and suddenly someone starts paying special attention to you, and says they are your friend but all they do is tell you want a bad job you do, will you be open and teachable, or will you be suspicious and defensive?

So why would a pastor be any different? The place to start this process is by being in service with your pastor in church before trouble starts, and if you aren't in a position to do that, you have to start by showing your theology first before leading with your lips. You might also consider that Paul makes a strong point in 1 Thes 5:12 that you should know your leaders -- which, again, implies a long-term relationship prior to any potential trouble.

If you want your pastor to be a pastor like the ones Paul told Titus to establish, you have to be the kind of person that Paul told Titus to make in the church – and if you don't know who or what those people were, go read Titus 2. If your pastor is correctable at all, it –should- be by people (and let's be honest: I think it ought to be men) who are not merely spectators at the church who want to boo when they think the play was bad.

Humble, faithful, and to keep the list a manageable 3 bullet points I'd suggest that you also be clear. By that I mean, on the one hand, that you not simply stand around smiling and nodding or frowning and shaking your head in a sphinx-like way. But on the other hand, I also mean that you not muddy up the water of this matter by making everything an emotional dust-cloud.

You know: being part of your pastor's accountability process isn’t like blogging. If we're going to use the Electronic QB example, blogging is really a lot more like Coleco electronic QB than it is like anything else. Obviously being part of a church is not like playing Electronic QB all by yourself. You have to play on a field that is something less self-referential than a monochrome screen which doesn’t even line up a full offense or defense and all the action really takes place inside your brain. But then it's also not like playing Madden NFL where the action looks somewhat-amazingly real and you can even hear John Madden saying what a great (or lousy) team you have. You have to play on the team, next to other people who are going to sweat and get dirty and demonstrate skills which will allow the coaches to call plays and design new plays without neglecting the rules of football. You can read 2 Tim 2 if you need some scripture exhortation on that.

But I say that to say this: say what you mean in the way you mean it. Treat your pastor like he's a person and not a red dot in a plastic box or a 3D rendered version of a real person. Even if he's going the wrong way for a season, your responsibility is not to stick him so that you have a really amazing replay for the highlight reel: your job is to bring a brother away from sin.

A brother. Isn’t it crazy that James was willing to say, "My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins"? You're not handing your pastor a scathing movie review when you have a concern about doctrinal directions – you're trying to turn a brother away from sin. And for those of you who like Bible continuity, you could think about how Prov 17:17 applies as well.

Staying looks like you're staying – not like you're in some kind of provisional status. And before you plunge into the meta, read the other posts and comments I've made in this series to keep yourself from repeating questions we have already answered.

---

The Jell-o Parable

by Frank Turk

I'm going to lead off with my goofy analogy so that when I invoke it in the post, below, I hope you'll have had time to, um, digest it and not be distracted by it. That should make Phil happier about my distracting analogies, anyway.

Think about Jello for a minute. Jello looks a lot like dust when you open the packet, and if you blow on it, it will dust up your kitchen real good. And just like it is, Jello out of the packet is not good for much. It's a lousy dessert that way, even if you have room for it.

But Jello is a colloid -- a substance that consists of particles dispersed throughout another substance which are too small for resolution with an ordinary light microscope but are incapable of passing through a semipermeable membrane. In English, that means that Jello plus water equals something which is solid enough to be called a solid without actually being a solid.

Jello plus water hangs together. In order to actually be Jello, it has to do what Jello does. If it's just a lot of dust in a bowl, nobody's going to want to add fruit to it. Nobody's going to say, "dude, that would be great with some whip cream". Nobody's going to layer it into a fluted glass with pudding and try to dress it up for a fancy party. Jello not hanging together in water is just sweet-smelling dust. It's only good for the trash.

Whew. I feel better already.

Yesterday's post lifted from Mark Dever is actually part of my series on how to read the Bible, but only as an example of what happens when you do such a thing. You know: because the question will now come up, "hey: why make such a fuss out of church membership? Jesus didn’t keep a roll for the Disciples; the early church didn’t keep a roll. Aren’t you demanding something extra-biblical when you say that people ought to have their names on a list someplace?"

It is extra-biblical – but by that I mean "has more than the average amount of Bible in it" rather than "it doesn’t appear in the Bible".

The reason is simple, people, but you have to do more than roll out of bed to take a stab at it. The modern method of church membership may be more, um, modern than what we read in the book of Acts, or in Titus, or in Timothy, or in either letter to the Corinthians, but the intention -- especially as spelled out by Dr. Dever – is clearly the same intention of the NT. That is, to keep the faithful together, in doctrine and in relationship, in order to demonstrate something which is called out of the world.

Now, honestly: not a lot of churches are doing this. That's why 9Marks exists -- to exhort the local church to be a church and not a club or a civic organization. But why all the fuss? Isn't it OK for people to like Jesus and all that and then have a place where they do daycare or have parties or whatever? Can’t the church just be nice and that be enough? And can't I just have a church in my house with my wife and kids and call it even?

Um ... no.

The reason is that we must not only read our Bibles, and then understand our Bibles: the reason is that we have to do what our Bibles say to do. The Bible is not an ornament for the Christian life. Carrying one in your purse or on your PDA or whatever is not some kind of passport or shibboleth. That does not make you a Christian. The Bible is something that we are given in order that we become a people who have something much more than a secret.

And this church thing is a great example of this matter. I have an internet nemesis who has a propensity for hacking at Baptists unfairly (and he shall remain nameless to reduce the number of controversies in one post), but he makes one good point even if he takes it too far: what Christ calls us to do through the Bible – particularly through the New Testament – is not to be a church of one, or even of one family. The Bible tells us explicitly that we are to be joined together to other believers, even when there is some controversy involved.

If you want examples, look at Acts 2 for a starter:

"Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

The example here is what I would call the seminal example – the one which is the first of the kind.

And here, people are not just saved and then run off, or saved and handed a scroll like they just got their wish fulfilled by the Wizard of Oz. These people are joined together and added to the number and had all things in common.

"That's all well and good, cent," says the guy who left his church because his pastor was preaching from the Gospel of Jabez, "But after all, these people were following the Apostles who were writing Scripture and prolly weren't all that confused over what the Gospel was or was not. My pastor was preaching from the Gospel of Jabez, and I tried to tell him, but he didn' wanna listen to me."

Indeed. Let me say that you are right to leave a place where the Gospel is not only not welcome but is actively being stoned when people bring it up. But you are not free to be a Christian without the church. See: one grain of Jello makes a lousy dessert, and one lone Christian can make no witness of the church at all. One grain of jello in a dessert cup full of water can never be Jello per se, and one Christian hunkered down against the forces of all the worldly evils is not a church or part of such a thing.

In the Book of Acts, we have so many examples of the church coming to grips with the fact that people don't always agree. Take this for example:

Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.

And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith.

Now, think on this: the apostles were saying, in effect, that they were simply not going to wait tables. They were not going to take on food distribution rather than the ministry of God's word. So their solution was to establish some guys who would make sure that those who could not stand up for themselves would have someone to stand up for them.

Which seems pretty good, right? But what happened in the first place happened while apostles were running the church. Injustice was happening in the church when the guys Jesus chose to be his witnesses were left to run things in what seems to be the first pass at this church stuff.

Listen: if the apostles could have a church where people were treated badly, you probably will, too. The question is if that's enough to go shop around for someone you like better, or can you meet with the leaders of your church to seek a resolution to the problem?

And there are other examples in Acts – Acts, people! The first 30 years of the church! Think about the council at Jerusalem (isn’t eating meat offered to idols idolatry?), or the controversy over Paul's conversion (can we let a man who was a murderer and a blasphemer evangelize gentiles?), or the controversy over evangelizing gentiles (has Peter lost it? These people are unclean!). And the one example where two church guys separate in a tiff – Paul and Barnabas (Barnabas who was his only friend to start with; Paul the guy writing the NT through the Holy Spirit) – we can deduce from the rest of Paul's writings that he regretting this in the end, and thought he did wrong by Barnabas and Mark.

None of these things caused splits in the church – and even worse things, like the Galatian controversy, or what was going on in Corinth after Paul established that church, were not subject to the admonition, "brethren dude: get out of Dodge. That place has gone belly-up."

The admonition is stay and contend for the truth with the whole Gospel, both doctrine and life. And if we are honest with ourselves, that's the admonition we receive in Scripture about our lousy churches in America and we ignore it for a self-righteous choice to stay at home.

If you want to know how to read Scripture, the last step is implement what you find there. Do the doing. A faith without works is a dead faith – and that includes your faith, if it is without the works of faith.

Don't "yeah but" me: there's a vast difference – an ocean-sized difference – between being in a church that suddenly ordains a [place the disqualifying sin here], redefines sin and denies God's wrath, and being in a church where the pastor with a hard heart would rather preach about the "end times" as they are unfolding in Iraq instead of Christ as Victorious Lord of Lords and Worthy lamb upon the Throne. The latter may be watering down lime jello to try to stretch it out, but the former places rat poison in cherry jello and calls it fruit cocktail.

Know the difference. Read your Bible in order to obey the whole thing, or stop kidding yourself and just join a club where the reading isn't so invasive.

---

Memorial Day, a day late

by Dan Phillips

I've been out of town, and my betters here at Teampyro are busy, so I offer you this brief thought.

As Memorial Day approached, I found myself focused on this simple truth: every bit of freedom we Americans enjoy was bought and paid for by the blood of men and women, and those willing to shed their blood.

That I can write these posts without being jailed for seditious ideas, or tortured and killed for reproaching the "Prophet" Mohamed; that my family can worship publicly in the church of our choice; that I can call some portion of my earnings mine; that I can vote in open elections — these and countless other freedoms are mine because of blood. You who preach the Word here, week in and week out, do so because of blood shed or risked.

Philosophers philosophized, theoreticians theorized, speakers spoke, writers wrote, and preachers preached. But until some people put their "Lives, [their] Fortunes and [their] sacred Honor" on the line to secure the actualization of those ideals, no actual liberty was secured. And it has only been preserved to the degree that we still have it because men and women have pledged their own lives to its defense.

So our family honored those sacrifices at a service in a cemetery yesterday.

But as a Christian, all this talk of freedom purchased by blood makes me think of Jesus and His sacrifice. Perhaps the similarities and contrasts could be developed further in a less hurried post, but I immediately think of these, and offer them to you:

• They died to secure and/or preserve temporal freedom; He, eternal freedom
• Some of them died with no immediate effect; by His death He actually "saved sinners"
• Some of their deaths may have been tragic mistakes due to flawed policy or tactics; He died according to the eternal, infinitely wise, just, and perfect plan of the Triune God
• When they died, they had no guarantee of success; He died "for the joy set before Him"
• Their lives were taken from them; He had the authority to lay down His life, and the authority to take it up again
• Their graves are marked by crosses, headstones, flags; He has no grave, having risen bodily and ascended to the right had of the Father
• Some use the liberty their deaths secured to sin more flagrantly; His death breaks sin's bonds forever

If you haven't, thank the vets you know for taking the risk that Memorial Day could have been about them, and tell them you thank God that it wasn't. (Thank you, vets!)

But also thank your Savior and the Captain of your salvation, for His perfect atonement for sin, for having given all He had to secure your freedom not just now, but forever.

---