An Open Letter to Frank Turk

Sir Aaron, as posted by Phil Johnson



his message came to us via e-mail and is posted without editorial revision:

Dear Frank: I know your open letter series has come and gone, but since your last open letter I've been thinking that there was one open letter that was never written but should have. So I took it upon myself to fill that gap by writing this letter to you. I think I started reading the Pyromaniacs blog in 2008 or early 2009. I suspect I'm unusual in that I first discovered Dan Phillips and only after following his blog for a while did I take my first jaunt over to Pyromaniacs. From the very first post I read at Pyro, I was hooked. Fortunately for me, that first post wasn't written by you because, and I hate to say this, of the triumvirate that really is Pyromaniacs, I just didn't get you. I shamefully confess that I did not look forward to days you posted, at least not at first. If my first introduction to Pyromaniacs had been one of your posts, I might have left and never returned. Had that happened, I know you and the other Pyros would have missed me like a horse misses a fly, but I truly would have missed out on some life changing content. But let me be more specific: I would have missed out on posts you wrote that changed my life. When I say life changing, I don't mean it in some amorphous way, the same way a man looks back through time and says his life has changed. I realize we are always changing so it's an easy matter to say "my life changed." And for that matter, one cannot read every blog post at Pyro for nearly three years and remain unchanged. But when I say you changed my life, I mean that I can point to specific posts you wrote that affected my thoughts and my deeds in such a way that it unmistakably altered the trajectory of my life. As much admiration as I hold for both Phil and Dan (which sometimes borders on idolatry), I cannot point to a specific post by either one of them that had as much singular influence as I can with you. I don't recall how I started reading this particular series since it predated any comment I made at Pyro, but your Stay or Go series forever changed my thinking about church membership. More specifically, in your post, Why I Left, I was immediately convicted by your statement: "when my church fails, I am at least partially responsible." Church membership was not a new concept to me and the need to be part of a local congregation was never a doctrine I, in any way, disputed. But until I read your post, my membership was closer to intellectual assent than genuine action. Never before did I accept personal responsibility for the state of the church to which I belonged. So in 2011, when my church had some significant challenges, I didn't mosey on to greener pastures nor did I sit on my hands. I translated my belief into action and took a leadership role that I believe has helped me and helped my local church body. And that, my brother, is something I credit to you, through God's grace. You also have used a phrase in several posts that resonated with me. You've said, "Be in the Lord's house on the Lord's day with the Lord's people." I know it is such a small thing but after a long work week, sometimes it takes just a gentle reminder to get my lazy self out of bed. When Sunday mornings roll around and I'm eyeing the clock from my bed contemplating sleeping past the Sunday service, it is your words that motivate me: "You—Be in the Lord's house today." And it works. It's weird, I know, but there you go. My appreciation for you has grown since I've been reading Pyro, but this last year I was overwhelmed by your generosity towards me, personally. A few months ago, I tweeted you asking if I could email you about something unrelated to Pyromaniacs. You didn't just send me your email address, but offered to let me call you even though you had no idea what it was I wanted to discuss. I don't know a single blogger who would have done the same, and that gesture touched me. So you gushed on and on about Phil and Dan and even the great John MacArthur, but somebody needed to say something about the tremendous work you've done at Pyro and other places. You have truly been a blessing to me and I'm sure to all the other readers at Pyromaniacs. May the Lord continue to bless you and your ministry at Pyromaniacs in 2012. Sir Aaron

---

The Tombstone of a Wife

by Frank Turk

Yeah, OK: many of you are silently rolling your eyes at me for the what-for I have given Strategem in the meta of the last post because you have a story like this one, which I received via e-mail and have doctorized to conceal the identity and particulars from the original e-mail:

I took my family to a perfectly orthodox church after I changed jobs a few years ago, as far as I could tell. The preaching was always about Scripture, -always- from some very plain-jane orthodox perspective. They were not participating in trendy marketing & ministry, and they had a viable church polity – biblical enough to be sure.

As I say, we attended for years, faithfully, because God said to attend a local church, and I don't believe there are many excuses not to do so.

I made the effort to be supportive of the pastor. My wife and I did ministry there. We worked to connect to the families in the church and extended our hand to anyone who would shake it.

But the preaching was only safe – safe doctrine, safe exposition, safe topics, all doctrinally fine but, um, sort of under glass like pieces in a museum rather than things I could take home with me.

The church never reached back to us. The pastor/his family never showed friendship to or concern for us. The pastor would see me sitting in the parking lot with absolutely nothing to do as I waited for 90 minutes for my child's youth group to conclude, and at best he'd wave at me. Never wanted to come talk to me, with me.

Then on the recommendation of a former church member, I joined the men's fellowship st our current church. It was in this connection, that I began to see some light, and entered a new and immensely better phase of my life. Then I attended one service. The preaching was remarkably good, and had what the current pastor lacked: passion. My wife attended next, and was similarly impressed. We began coming.

When we left, I emailed the pastor, telling him we'd left, wishing him well, urging him to use his position with passion and fire for God's glory.

He never responded.

But I'm gathering from your posts that you think I did the wrong thing?

I mean, what do you do with that, right?

I think that, if we're going to only fish out what someone prolly did wrong, we're just a bunch of hypocrites looking for a fight – so let's first see what this person did –right-, which I think is a lot.

First, he didn’t live in his church like it was a bunker – like it was the only herd of Christians in the world, or at least his corner of the world. He had needs as a Christian man which his church didn’t fill, and he wasn't afraid to get filled by associating with other Christians even if they were under a different roof than he normally came to. That's not consumerism -- that being honest. If your church doesn't have an opportunity for you to fellowship with other believers in more than just a coffee- while- reading- LifeWay- on- Sunday kind of way, you prolly need some of that and to seek it out isn't evil. It's self-awareness. Getting Christian fellowship ought to be part of church; when church doesn't do that, seek it out with people who are Christians,

You know: like we do at this blog, except in person. It'd be OK if you knew people from other churches.

Next, he wasn't really looking for the next big thing – wasn't chasing fads or leaving one church for another, or stopping his attendance or attending irregularly because his current church was, frankly, lame. He was faithful to the church he was joined to in spite of being more than a little disappointed in its performance.

And lastly, he can make a clear case that one church was exercising the mission of the church by acting alive and the other was frankly on life-support. That is, one was living out some kind of "calling out" and the other was not really doing much at all. It was sort of the tombstone of a church, which is like the tombstone of a wife -- you can see she was there one time, but you can't be married to a tombstone. Put an appropriate, loving epitaph on it and move on.

Let me put it this way: if I was attending a church where I was teaching Sunday school and having serviceable worship on Sunday morning, Sunday night and Wednesday night, but I found that all my fellowship time and discipleship and real acts of public service for the sake of Christ was under the umbrella of another church, I'd seriously consider changing churches – even if I couldn’t teach at the new church. And the reasoning would be this: I am fruitlessly ministering to this body of people, and I am fruitfully ministering with these other people. My Christian life is actually a life in one circumstance, and no so much in the other.

That's not bailing due to apostasy: that's working with fellow workmen. And that, btw, is what the church is.

You could find out by being in the Lord's house on the Lord's day with the Lord's people this week. You can't find out by glowering at this blog and trying to nit-pick the flaws in my reasoning -- that will only give you a headache, and who wants that?

---

Your whole house, and everything in it

by Frank Turk

OK -- so with about 25 posts on the topic of why you need to belong to a local church and not just stop by a local church -- including all the wacky meta that has accompanied it -- so what? I mean, why the beat-down on people who are frankly not happy about not having a local church? Am I seriously suggesting that these people don't really want a church to belong to?

The provocative answer is: Yes and no.

Now, before you fire off an e-mail to the board of FIRE demanding that somebody take my name out of the Reformed® Lamb's book of Life™ for insulting men and women of good conscience, we have to unpack some of our contemporary assumptions about who we are and why we think the way we do. And one of "our" cultural predispositions in American evangelicalism is premillenialism, especially the kind which wears the big cardboard sign with black hand-painted letters that reads "THE END IS NEAR".

It's that view of things -- especially the view which thinks that because the end of the world is here and we are living someplace between Rev 4 and Rev 19 in a calendar-date kind of way, and the Great Whore is deceiving all kinds of men, including the elect (as if that were possible)-- we sort of default into the view that it's not likely for us, the informed readers of blogs and books by puritans, reformers and Charles Spurgeon, that we shall find a church which, as they might have said of Lazarus, doesn't stinketh.

But here's the problem: from the day of Paul and his life after founding all those churches across the ancient world, the church was never perfect. Go back and read this post by me and look at the state of the churches Paul was writing to. The churches Paul founded were frankly not perfect -- they weren't even really very consistent. You know: it's not like 40 years had passed between the time Paul founded the church in Corinth and when they decided that the Lord's table was really a private party and not a public place where sinners demonstrate their unity in Christ, or where they had, apparently, forgotten the Gospel which is of fist importance.

And Paul's first letter to Corinth didn't say, "Dudes: flee to the hills -- your pastors and elders are apostates." He said, in effect, "remember the truth of Christ and find unity in truth."

So in our right-minded expectation for Christ to come soon -- and it is a right-minded expectation, premil, a-mil, post-mil or grist-mill -- we cannot at the same time look at Christ's church as something which we hold at arm's length.

So yes: I am suggesting that, on the one hand, many of us have (and I think it's accidental and sort of subconscious; I don't think people -mean- to think this way) bought into the "end-is-near" mistake that the church is in a pre-pre-mil state of looming apostasy and we can't be expected to join to that.

But on the other hand, no, I don't think anyone (except maybe Campingites and some other wacked-out cultists) is doing this on-purpose. I don't think you mean to profane the things God has made holy -- I think many people are simply looking for something which has never existed in the history of time and space, and our expectations of others are too high and of ourselves are too low.

That is: we want to find a church that makes us holy and perfect rather than seeing that Christ makes us holy and calls us out to be joined together in spite of the fact that none of us are right now perfect in "the things we do to ourselves and other people" kind of way. We are not the spiritual equivalent of "Mr. Clean" -- Jesus is. He is the one who cleans the whole house and everything in it, not you or your book-laernin', and certainly not the perfection of the pastor at your church. When we get that right, we can get a lot more right in the way we act toward others.

You know: the holiness of the church doesn't come from the holiness of the members. It comes from Christ. I'm sure you've read this before --

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

It's what Christ has done which makes the church holy -- even the mediocre church with the boring pastor, even the popular church with the country-club environment, even the lowly church which is full of poor people and can't scrape up enough money to send a missionary or buy a building.

And let me dare to say something which will enrage the internet version of the Thessalonican mob: even the church which is tottering on the brink of apostasy. One of the real foundational bits of scripture for church-leaver is the section of Revelation which announces the letters from God to the churches in Asia. And before we run through that quickly, it is interesting and important to note that in 2 Tim 1, Paul says flatly to Timothy that "You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me". That's decades before John received the prophecies and messages in Revelation, readers. Around 65 AD, Paul told Timothy that all in Asia have jumped ship.

But then John, at the end of his life, sees visions and hears the Glorified Christ say stuff, has the audacity to write stuff like this:

Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth.

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.

Now, look at all the "us"'s there -- and he's saying "us" to churches which Paul has written off decades before, and to whom he is about to write the letters of warning and condemnation.

That's not to soft-soak the warnings in the next 3 chapters: that to say that even in giving these churches strong warnings, John wasn't ready to say that individuals needed to flee the church. He was ready and able to say that it is for the truth of Christ that we must stand firm, and it is by being the church that we repudiate error.

So before you get to "But I have this against you" or "some there who hold the teaching of Balaam" or "you tolerate that woman Jezebel" or "I will spit you out of my mouth", go back to the greeting John gives and ask yourself if you personally should spit out of your mouth something Christ's blood has purchased.

The question here is a serious one. It requires you to be serious and loving and faithful and obedient before you are passing judgment and shaking the dust off your feet.

And there's one other question I got via e-mail which I want to address, but that'll have to be for tomorrow.

Talk amongst yourselves.

---

Some mixture of error

by Frank Turk

I'm sure a lot of you find most of my posts to be of some mixture of error, but that's not what this VERY BRIEF post this morning is about. It's about this passage of the LBCF, which I have been trying to get to for weeks now:

The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.

And most people read this passage in this way:

The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.

But let me suggest to you that this is the way it was intended to be read:

The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.

Now, why is that impoprtant? It's important because this statement is an affirmation of the necessity of "churches" in spite of the many, many flaws in each indiviodual church.

Let's face it: your church is flawed. No matter which one you choose, you can find something wrong with it which, if you comb the NT hard enough, will cause you to call it bad enough to leave. But the question is only this: at what point do we seek to be obedient to God's word in spite of human mixture and error rather than seeking our church to be immediately a perfect and infallible place where nothing bad ever happens?

Discuss that today, and if I get a minute I'll come back to clean up the comments.

---

My Wednesday Oops

by Frank Turk

Meant to post another 3-pager on you and your poor church, but I got called out oft own by my day job. Instead of reading me, read the London Baptist Confession of Faith on the church, including all the Scripture proofs.

After you get over your pangs of guilt, think about your poor local church some more and try to think about how much better it would be if you stay.

---

How to Feed the Children

by Frank Turk

Yeah, OK: eventually we'll get back to the question of whether the church is necessary for the sake of the Gospel, but the comments from previous posts keep derailing my nice outline.

Somebody who calls himself "dogpreacher" said this in the meta of the last post:

I agree with Cent about "staying" or "leaving", EXCEPT one thing that I don't think was addressed. If you are "staying" (in the manner prescribed)...you still have the responsibility of your children, and DO NOT think your children are spiritually mature enough to sift through the worldliness that is calling itself their youth group. THEY ARE NOT. Nobody elses are either. WHY would you subject them to such?

Hey, your pastor may have to answer to God for allowing that "on his watch", but as far as your children he will be in line behind you.

Oh yeah...FAMILY WORSHIP!

I have a friend who I have known since college, and he and I have a set of filters we run everything through when people say things. It's a sort of Rube Goldberg hermeneutics machine, used to see if someone is trying to hide bad reasoning under conventional wisdom.

Now, before I explain how it works, let me say something explicitly: there's no question that you personally are responsible for your kids – morally, legally, physically, intellectually, and spiritually. You. They are your kids, and God gave them to you – whatever the circumstances – for His glory and your personal holiness and sanctification. Your kids: your responsibility.

Got it? OK – because I don't want anyone reading this post and then hypothesizing that cent thinks that people should be careless or cavalier about their kids.

There are a series of phrases that me and my college buddy look for in someone's very serious moral pronouncements, among them being "safety", "freedom" and "prosperity" or "opportunity". But the one which is probably the most amazing detector of fallacious moral reasoning is the phrase "for the sake of the children".

Because almost anyone will do almost anything if they think their kids' health, welfare, freedom, prosperity, playstation, comic books, or whatever is in jeopardy – we tend to lose our perspective on things when we think our kids are involved. And let me say that we are actually responsible for our kids in a way that most of us are not at all responsible for anything else, so I give everyone a gold star for at least understanding that there's something serious at stake when our kids are involved.

But let's be serious about something else, too: doing something "for the sake of the kids" is not hardly a trump-card moral precept. You shouldn’t break up your marriage "for the sake of the kids". You shouldn’t rob a bank "for the sake of the kids". You shouldn't run up your credit card debt "for the sake of the kids".

But should you leave your church "for the sake of the kids"?

Listen: I want us to start answering this question by understanding something first. At some point, we have to grapple with the statement "I joined a church". To "join" a church doesn't mean I started coming on Sunday morning, and occasionally I drop by for the second-shift service on Sunday night, and I have my name on a roll in a Sunday school class. "Joining" a church doesn't mean "you can find me there from time to time". It means that you are part of the life of that church.

Here's what it says in Acts 2:

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 the 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.

And before anyone takes this post off-topic, I haven't highlighted all the things this passage says, but I have highlighted the ones relevant for this topic.

And let's also make sure we note that this isn’t the be-all and end-all of passages on ecclesiology – but how about if we did at least this much before we went to the spiritual nuclear option of "leaving" churches because we think the pastor is a pawn of Satan? You know: what if we joined our churches for the sake of the kids before we started expounding about how we must leave our churches "for the sake of the kids"?

See – I think it's a legitimate claim to say, "my kids are in spiritual danger because the church I attend refuses to teach kids that the reason Christ is glorious and beautiful is because our sin is so great, and instead teaches that the point of the story of the loaves and fishes is that you should share your lunch." If that is the only spiritual guidance your kids get, you're right: they are in spiritual danger. I'm just not sure you and I mean the same thing.

If that's how you run your family's spiritual life – that is, you expect them to pick it up at church, primarily at church with only your rubber stamp rather than your example – maybe the root problem is not the church. Maybe the root problem is that you yourself have delegated your spiritual responsibilities.

I taught 1st grade boys for a year at our church, and we were using what I thought was frankly-insipid denominational literature that set its sights way below the capacity of these boys to learn. So I decided to upgrade the curriculum by trying to make some broader-picture applications for the boys by helping them memorize two things and fitting those two things into the lessons: the Lord's Prayer, and the names and identities of the 12 Apostles.

When I told the parents that this is what we were going to do, I got the feedback that there was no way the boys could do that – they just can't. The problem is that when I asked the boys if they could name 10 pokemon and their powers and masters, anyone one of them could name 20 – including the homeschool kids.

Because, as I said in the meta yesterday, there's no problem with them seeing that every day.

Another great example is when our youth pastor started teaching church history [!] to his teens on Sunday morning, and suddenly parents started threatening to "leave the church" because he pointed out that we're Protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura, along with the other 4 of the 5 solas. These being parents who, btw, who couldn’t tell you the difference between Beza and Bozo, and have a casual relationship (to say it nicely) with our youth facility and its activities.

So if you're going to come across with the packaged objection, "I'm leaving for the sake of my kids," make sure that one of the things inside that package was that you actually joined for the sake of your kids, and that somehow your joining was demonstrating your spiritual responsibility to your kids.

And I say that because dogpreacher wants to drive-by with the exclamation "FAMILY WORSHIP" – and I think there's a lot to be said for "FAMILY WORSHIP", almost all of it good. If we are really living as Christians, disciples of Christ, we are sort of 24/7 in the thing. You know: I don't just show up to coach soccer twice a week. I sweat our lineup; I think about drills we can work on which will improve the way our team plays. I have a real abiding concern for the new kids who are only getting the minimum half-game playing time that they will have a good experience, learn something, and not get discouraged but will learn to love the sport even though they are not going to get full-game playing time this year. They may not even score any goals – how can sports be fun if you don't get to score?

But if I'm sweating it, and all the kids on my team –don't- sweat it and never touch a ball except when it rolls past them on the field, have they joined the team – or are they merely spectating from on the field? And "FAMILY WORSHIP" time is –certainly- something we do away from church. But the question has to be, "does that take the place of church?"

Is it really an either/or situation? I mean, do we make church life reductive down to our doorstep where our doctrine and practice never has a chance to rub up against someone who might have some kind of spiritual maturity advantage (let alone spiritual authority) over us – so we only pastor our kids and we call that "church"? Isn't it both/and where we (the Moms and Dads) have one kind of spiritual authority, and then we participate in another kind of relationship outside of the home where we ourselves are held responsible for being inside the boundaries of orthodoxy?

In that loop, we're back to the question of "join" before we can bring up the consequence "leave". If you haven't really "joined" your church in an Acts 2 sort of way where you are a consequential member of a community joined in spiritual unity in truth which lives out in real relationship, I think you have a lot of nerve to say you're "leaving". That's not headline-quality news.

If you're leaving "for the sake of the kids", I say leave – go ahead and go. But get joined to a church for the sake of the kids in such a way that you demonstrate to the what joining means.

And all that said, since we haven't said it in a long time, be with the Lord's people on the Lord's day in the Lord's house because you have been called out to be there. If you're going to do something for the kids' sake, do it for God's sake first and show that you understand obedience before you try to exercise authority.

---

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.

---

Why I left

by Frank Turk

After yesterday's meta, it seems to me that a lot of people need help wrapping their minds around the fact that the church is God's plan and that the Christian life is not ever intended to be a one-man sport. And while I thought my metaphor of Coleco electronic Quarterback was a brilliant comparison, apparently many of you have never seen one.

I guess being born after 1985 has its disadvantages. Of course, none of you wake up in the middle of the night hearing that sound in your head from that little pocket QB you had in 6th grade, so one man's blessing is another man's curse.

To help you wrap you mind around this little project, I'm going to line out what a lousy example I am, and then we can get back to things like Scripture and obedience and your personal holiness and so on. See: I can't sit here and tell you that I have only belonged to one church since I was baptized as an adult in 1993 -- because I haven't. My family has belonged to no less than 6 churches in the last 14 years, so on-average we might qualify as church-hoppy.

The major contributor to that, as you might imagine, has been ...

... now see: you thought I was going to say, "lousy preaching and a lack of doctrinal fortitude in the churches because America is an evangelical void full of sad, sappy churches." But that's not what I was going to say at all: I was going to say, "relocation due to work circumstances because my employers have never had the same commitment to my local church that I have." That's a major contributor to my volatile church life, and I'd bet it has been one in many of yours as well.

My friend James White has been on-record several times in his web casts and elsewhere as saying that this is probably not a great reason to leave your local church, and I agree with him for this specific reason: what is the Gospel? That is, is the Good News an ornament in our lives like a plastic fish so we are certified professional capitalists but amateur disciples of Christ -- or are we, as the Bible says of true disciples, sojourners in this world who are passing through it who are committed first to Christ and His kingdom and Gospel, and after that we wind up being good laborers for secular bosses who agree with Paul when he says, "if you don't work, you don't eat"?

I admit that I am a person who has been the former -- for the sake of money and promotion, I have been something of a nomad, and I thanks God that my family and I have someplace we now call a home town where we have been in the same place for 5 years and have actually put down some social roots.
So one reason people leave churches is that they move away. And not all moves are created equal, so I'm going to let you work out in your own mind whether or not your reasons for moving around are valid or invalid, and I'm not really going to answer any "whatadabout me" questions in that regard. You have an obligation to feed your family, and you have to work out whether or not feeding them with steak and lobster and giant turkey legs is necessary, or if hamburger and chicken is as satisfactory, and whether or not there's a local church involved in your life.

A second reason I have personally left a church is that it was dying -- it was in fact dead and I was an immature believer who did not have the equipment or the gifting to be the last man standing there. When we started attending it, this church was a smallish congregation of about 25 families (about 75-100 in service on Sunday), and over the course of 2 years it dwindled down to about 6 or 8 families where there wasn't enough money to support a FT staff anymore. My wife and I had our first baby, the church was a 40 minute drive one-way each Sunday, and we went to church to wind up alternating duty in the nursery with our son and one other child.

We weren't equip to turn that church around, and frankly it didn't really have any inclination that it ought to turn around. It was kinda shambling toward its grave in spite of being in a location near Pittsburg, PA, which gave it access to literally thousands of people in a 15-minute radius. Since we were effectively about to become part of the default PT staff without any leadership, we chose to find leadership -- which turned out to be 10 minutes from our house.

So the second reason -- the only theologically-relevant reason -- we ever left a church was that the leadership evaporated. The church could not govern itself, and the one-man staff was ineffective to train the church how to lead itself, so the church was really just waiting for someone to lock the doors because the lampstand was already gone.

The first reason we left churches was wholly my fault -- my fault due to youthful zeal for professional success and a failure to see priorities. But the second reason was frankly painful, and disturbing to me. I hated that we left that church, but in the end it wasn't so much that we left it as there was nothing left to go to.

And one of the upsides of that experience was the determination that it would never happen again if I could help it. That is, I recognized something that I think many people do not recognize: that when my church fails, I am at least partially responsible for the failure. I wasn't equipped; I wasn't eager to serve; I didn't even know what a church should really look like. I could frame all the apologetic arguments on Earth in 250 words or less, but I had no idea whether the church was even useful -- let alone necessary -- for God's plan for this world.

Frankly, that's pathetic. And one of my reasons for being this intent on talking about this subject is so that none of you make the mistakes I did, and all of us at that little church in a giant city did, because we think a might fortress is our doctrine.

Don't get me wrong: doctrine is necessary: we need to have healthy doctrine, the one Gospel in Jesus Christ who came to save sinners. But that doctrine must cause us to follow the behavior with accords with sound doctrine. And being a member of a church is behavior which follows after sound doctrine.

This post is about to get triple-long here, so I'll stop at this natural break. But before you resort to the meta, thing about this: is the local church necessary for the Gospel to be manifest in this world?

---

Coleco vs. NFL

by Frank Turk

We have this funny word in our Christian vocabulary that appears in our Bibles – namely "church". Webster's dictionary says this about where we get that word:

Middle English chirche, from Old English cirice, ultimately from Late Greek kyriakon, from Greek, neuter of kyriakos of the lord, from kyrios lord, master

Which, you know, is interesting because we use "church" in the translations of the Bible in English to represent the word "ecclesia", not the word "kyriakon" – that is, it is possible that we mean the same thing by saying "church" when the NT says "ecclesia", but the word "church" doesn't come from the word "ecclesia".

Now, here's what I'm not equipped to do here: I'm not equipped to criticize guys (and women) who have spent their lives studying Greek who all agree that "church" is a fine word in English for the Greek word "ecclesia". I accept that this is the word we are going to use and, frankly, ought to use.

What I'm thinking about today is what we mean by using this word.

I realize, btw, that I am on something of a year-long rant about the church, off and on. But listen: Dan's experience last week (which he posted yesterday) is not just sort of disappointing: it's down-right appalling. It's like getting a coleco hand-held football game when you thought you bought tickets to see [insert your football team here to protect the meta from frivolous sports talk] – not only did you get cheated out of what would have been worth coming to, you also have to do all the work yourself now after investing all that time and cash.

The over-arching theme of this series, btw, is that the believer needs the church. You need it. Part of that, of course, is that it needs you, and I have beaten that almost to death. But I was reminded of this theme this weekend as I listened to Dr. MacArthur preach broadly and enthusiastically at DGM's national conference on the theme "Stand", meaning a call to the perseverance of the saints.

Part of "Standing" in the faith is, as the Spurgeon piece sketched out for us this week, not acting like the church is a Baskin Robbins of possibilities – that is, it's not about flavors or "style", and if you get hung up on "style" or flavor (even if it's to go back to some allegedly-ancient style which came into being and went out of being years before your grandparents where born), you're really not about what the church is for.

Let me context this for you – with Scripture, so those of you who don't recognize it will be able to follow me when I resort to God's word. At the end of his life, from a prison cell, probably through some kind of amanuensis, Paul wrote to his disciple Timothy a letter which we receive in Scripture as 2 Timothy. So this letter, whatever else we want to make of it, is Paul's last word to a young man he loved dearly and had discipled in the faith apparently from the start of the young man's faith.

Paul knew Timothy's family – his mother and grandmother, who were themselves Jewish women who had accepted Christ. And if we read Timothy at all, Paul has the highest confidence and love for Timothy – like Titus, Timothy is called Paul's "true son" in the faith.

And in that, Paul's last words to Timothy are important to us as we have to believe that he wrote these things as a farewell.

But as Paul writes, we find some very troubling things in his words. All of Asia, he says, has forsaken him for false teachers; Demas has decided that the world looks pretty good and the Gospel not so much. So in that environment, you'd think Paul would give Timothy the advice any wise man would give: run away from the bad guys and go find someplace else to start a new church – because we have to run away from false teachers, and a church with false teachers is a church where it is necessary to leave.

You'd think.

Instead, Paul says this – if the ESV can be considered Scripture:

do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, for which I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher, which is why I suffer as I do. But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me. Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you.

And again he says this:

Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some. But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity."

Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work.

So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

And again this:

You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and [they] will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

Even as he is ready to be "poured out as a drink offering", as he says himself, Paul calls Timothy to stand firm in the truth and preach and teach what is right in spite of fads and the tastes of men.

See: Paul didn't tell Timothy, "dude, my method landed me in jail, so you have to try something different. Check with Demas as he has found a nice job in the world -- obviously he knows something I don't." He told Timothy to not change and not adapt and not go his own way, but instead to "endure suffering" and "continue in what you have learned" and "depart from iniquity" and so on -- but not to leave the church.

This goes back to my Coleco vs. NFL analogy -- Paul isn't telling Timothy, "Son, just work on your passing game on that little hand-held, because that's what real football looks like. Nobody has to get hurt, right?" Paul is telling Timothy, "Son, I have taken real hits on the field of play, and you are going to take real hits on the field of play. But you are called out not to be a fan or even a mascot: you are called out to play in the majors. And when you play in the majors, you play until the game is over."

Here's why I bring it up: it's because we are not called out of the church to preach the Gospel – we are called out of the world and into the "ecclesia" to preach the Gospel. Standing firm for the truth is standing where? Whatever "ecclesia" means, and whatever "church" is supposed to mean in its place in English, it is something we are called into in order that we may demonstrate who God is and what He has done.

And this is where the football analogy really gets some legs. We're certainly not called out to play a little metaphorical LED version of the game where there's not even a real ball or real players, yes? If we're "ecclesia", I guess we can also admit that we're not just called to sit on the couch and watch the players on our really cool HDTV home theater unit -- we're not called out to be viewers from a distance, subject to blackouts when the stadium doesn't sell out -- because sitting on the couch doesn't qualify as "out". But let me suggest that we're also not just called out to be season-ticket holders who show up at every home-game, or true fanatics that have a ticket and a seat at every pre-season, regular-season and post-season -- because these people just come to the game no matter how personally they take it when their team loses.

We are called out to play on the team and be down on the field.

You think about that, and we'll come back to it.

---

"The Church™"

by Frank Turk



Just was reading this:

The NT cannot answer the question of what contemporary denomination is the Church, because the NT writers didn’t know about any of the contemporary denominations. That doesn’t mean that the NT says nothing about the difference between true and false churches and how to tell the difference between them, and that these judgments can’t be applied to contemporary denominations.

For the record, I would agree that there is not now any denomination that can rightly call itself "The Church™". But here's the problem: was there ever a "denomination" or "hierarchy" which should have been, could have been, or actually was "The Church™" in the sense the person saying what I cited above means to say?

That is, did Jesus found a hierarchical institution?

And should we care?

Here's the first thing I'd suggest about that:

He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

I'd start there because a lot of people would say that this verse demonstrates Jesus setting up one thing -- His church -- and therefore (they might say) all denominationalism is fraudulent.

I think they'd be half-right. Jesus certainly here announces that He will build "my church" -- that is, "μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν". And it's the common, universal translation of "ἐκκλησίαν" to say "church". But "church" in what sense? See: there's no other place in the NT where we might confuse what Jesus is going to do to "build His church" with "erecting an institution" -- because in all the other places, Jesus is talking about calling people out of the fallen world and into the kingdom of God.

That is: Christ's church is an "ἐκκλησία" -- a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place; an assembly. And let's make no mistake: the calling out is done by Christ through the Holy Spirit -- just as it was for Simon, who immediately upon being called Peter by Christ tells Jesus not to get the boys all worked up by saying that the Priests and the Scribes are going to kill Him in Jerusalem.

In that respect, when we use the word "church" in English, we get a little lost because we get confused about whether the text means "those called out by God" or "First Institutional Building with HQ in Memphis, TN". Because in one sense -- the sense in Mt 16 here -- Jesus is talking about the whole assembly of believers throughout the ages.

But there is another sense that "ἐκκλησία" is used, such as here:

To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: 'The words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands.

'I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false. I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name’s sake, and you have not grown weary. But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first.

The opening phrase there -- "Τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐν Ἐφέσῳ ἐκκλησίας" -- uses that word "ἐκκλησία" not to mean all believers, but in fact means the ones assembled in Ephesus. Young's "literal" translates the passage for us "To the messenger of the Ephesian assembly", and while Young's tends to have its own quirks, that's a great insight into what's going on with the word "ἐκκλησία" -- certainly, John intended to mean "those in the church at Ephesus", but did he mean "to the corporate office in Ephesus", or did he mean "to the people called out by faith"?

If he meant the former -- and I'd be willing to hear someone out who wants to say he did -- then the answer the person I cited at the top of this was providing to the question of "The Church™" has some meat on the bone. But if John -- and Paul, and the other NT writers -- didn't mean to name an institutionalized corporation but instead meant to name those called together by Christ and not by constitution or human polity, then the question of who is "The Church™" cannot be answered by denomination.

Instead, it has to get answered in a way that looks like this:

# The universal Church, which may be called invisible (in respect of the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) consists of the entire number of the elect, all those who have been, who are, or who shall be gathered into one under Christ, Who is the Head. This universal Church is the wife, the body, the fullness of Him Who fills all in all.

# All people throughout the world who profess the faith of the Gospel and obedience to Christ on its terms, and who do not destroy their profession by any errors which contradict or overthrow Gospel fundamentals, or by unholy behaviour, are visible saints and may be regarded as such. All individual congregations ought to be constituted of such people.

# The purest churches under Heaven are subject to mixture and error, and some have degenerated so much that they have ceased to be churches of Christ and have become synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless Christ always has had, and always will (to the end of time) have a kingdom in this world, made up of those who believe in Him, and make profession of His name.

# The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church. In Him, by the appointment of the Father, is vested in a supreme and sovereign manner all power for the calling, institution, order, or government of the Church. {section withheld for future discussion}

# In the exercise of the authority which has been entrusted to Him, the Lord Jesus calls to Himself from out of the world, through the ministry of His Word, by His Spirit, those who are given to Him by His Father, so that they may walk before Him in all the ways of obedience which He prescribes to them in His Word. Those who are thus called, He commands to walk together in particular societies or churches, for their mutual edification, and for the due performance of that public worship, which He requires of them in the world.

# The members of these churches are saints because they have been called by Christ, and because they visibly manifest and give evidence of their obedience to that call by their profession and walk. Such saints willingly consent to walk together according to the appointment of Christ, giving themselves up to the Lord and to one another, according to God's will, in avowed subjection to the ordinances of the Gospel.

# To each of these churches thus gathered, according to the Lord's mind as declared in His Word, He has given all the power and authority which is in any way required for them to carry on the order of worship and discipline which He has instituted for them to observe. He has also given all the commands and rules for the due and right exercise of this power.

# A particular church gathered and completely organised according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members. The officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church are bishops or elders and deacons. These are to be appointed for the peculiar administration of ordinances and the execution of power or duty with which the Lord has entrusted them and to which He has called them. This pattern of church order is to be continued to the end of the world.

# The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person fitted and gifted by the Holy Spirit for the office of bishop or elder in a church, is that he is to be chosen by the common consent and vote of the church itself. Such a person should be solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with the laying on of hands of the eldership of the church (if there be any previously appoint elder or elders). The way of Christ for the calling of a deacon is that he is also to be chosen by the common consent and vote of the church and set apart by prayer, with the laying on of hands.

# Because the work of pastors is to apply themselves constantly to the service of Christ in His churches by the ministry of the Word and prayer, and by watching for their souls as they that must give an account to Him, the churches to which they minister have a pressing obligation to give them not only all due respect, but also to impart to them a share of all their good things, according to their ability. This must be so done that the pastors may have a comfortable supply and that they may not have to be entangled in secular affairs, and may also be able to exercise hospitality towards others. All this is required by the law of nature and by the express command of our Lord Jesus, Who has ordained that they that preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel.

# Although an obligation lies on the elders or pastors of the churches to be urgently preaching the Word by virtue of their office, yet the work of preaching the Word is not exclusively confined to them. Therefore others who are also gifted and qualified by the Holy Spirit for the task, and who are approved and called by the church, may and ought to perform it.

# All believers are bound to join themselves to particular churches when and where they have opportunity so to do, and all who are admitted into the privileges of a church, are also under the censures and government of that church, in accordance with the rule of Christ.

# No church members, because of any offence which has been given them by a fellow member, once they have performed their prescribed duty towards the person who has caused the offence, may disturb church order in anyway, or be absent from the meetings of the church or the administration of any ordinances on account of any such offence. On the contrary, they are to wait upon Christ in the further proceedings of the church.

# Each church and all its members are obligated to pray constantly for the good and prosperity of all Christ's churches everywhere, and to help forward everyone who comes into their district or calling, by the exercise of their gifts and graces. It clearly follows that when churches are planted by the goodness of God they ought also to hold fellowship among themselves to promote peace, increasing love and mutual edification as and when they enjoy an opportunity to do so to their advantage.

# In cases of difficulties or differences, either in matters of doctrine or administration, which concern the churches in general or any single church, and which affects their peace, union, and edification, or when any members of a church are injured because of any disciplinary proceedings not consistent with the Word and correct order, it is according to the mind of Christ, that many churches holding communion together do, through their appointed messengers meet to consider, and give their advice about the matter in dispute, and to report to all the churches concerned. However, when these messengers are assembled, they are not entrusted with any real church power, or with any jurisdiction over the churches involved in the problem. They cannot exercise any censure over any churches or persons, or impose their determination on the churches or their officers.

Or something like that. That wouldn't be "denominationalism". That would be something else.

Your opinion may differ. That's what the meta is for.

---

A Brief Monday

by Frank Turk

Phil's out of pocket for couple of days as he finishes up a project at work, and while he says he has a hamper full of stuff he could post, he's willing to admit that when he does post, he is addicted to the comments thread. Who isn't, really?

But that said, or confessed, I'm filling in today for a brief post.

I'm reading the pastoral letters of Paul with my Community Life group, and we're talking about the parallels between 1 Tim and Titus right now. What I like about these two letters together is that they show us a different perspective on the church than the "church" letters like Ephesians, Galatians, 1+2 Corinthians and so on. Those other letter show us how the church -- all the people in the church, all the called-out-ones -- should view itself. The pastorals show us how a pastor or elder should view the church.

That seems like a pretty big "duh", I am sure. They are, after all, the "pastorals" -- they are written from Paul to his pastoral disciples whom he calls (in one way or another) his true children in the faith. But one of the things Paul makes clear is that a pastor has different concerns for the church than Manny Baptist or Moe Presbyterian because he is gifted in a different way than they are.

This is the important part of this brief blog post, so pay attention.

See: Paul's not shy to say that it takes many gifts to have a body which is growing up in maturity, right? or that the church will never stop the process of growing up in maturity until Christ returns and we are made like him, yes? Many gifts -- one spirit. But when he lines out the qualifications for elders in the church (both to Titus and to Timothy), he makes it clear that along with character an elder/overseer must have the gift of teaching.

Elders are not the welcoming committee; they aren't the ones who necessarily are the first ones to meet people in the church. But they are the ones who are willing and able to teach what is right and to identify and rebuke false teaching. Their perspective on the church ought to be that they are guiding all the other gifted people to mutual maturity, and that those who are not going to be guided in and up need to be guided (quickly, clearly, with gusto) out.

It's pretty striking how Paul doesn't say, "you know: it's a journey and we're all sort of screwed up, so who's to say if we're making a mistake about this doctrine or that one. Be kind to your web footed friends, for a duck may be somebody's, um, pastor?" He says instead that those who stray from the teaching are making a shipwreck of their faith.

That is the definition of pastoral concern: keeping people off the rocks which will leave them shipwrecked. Let's be thankful today that there are still men today who are gifted by God to still think of the church in this way.

---

Come Hiatus or High Water ...

by Frank Turk

Yeah, um, my blog is still dark, so that's what I'm calling a hiatus. And for those of you who are following the saga, my weight loss program is getting interrupted by a series of oh-dark-hundred family events which are always the domain of Dad because Mom needs her sleep. I can be just as cranky on 8 hours sleep as I can on 4, so I'm the night watchman in my house.

Anyway, Dan Edelen had posted some criticisms of a piece Phil wrote a while back, and his interaction with me got cut short because of some bad news he received. It was somewhat obtuse of me to pursue that exchange in light of his concerns, but since then he has come back with his own criticisms. I'll take that as a signal from Dan that he's ready to hear some discussion of the views he has presented on Charismatic gifts. I figured this would be a good time to go back to that discussion.

As to Tozer, I'm not writing this blog for TeamPyro. I'm writing it for people looking for the 1st century Church in 21st century America. That's the whole point of this blog. If you feel my posting the Tozer is some kind of backhanded slap at you, you're wrong. I posted it because I'd recently read it, thought it useful, and I did not have time for anything else giving what is going down with my family.

For the record, the -most- amusing part of your blog is its claim to want a 1st century church. Really? A church under severe persecution? A church without the wide distribution of the whole Bible—or any Bible? A church, which, if we are to believe the NT, had problems doing something about sinful members, legalism, cliques, a proper attitude toward the ordinances, and was full of "liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons"? (Cf. 1 Cor, Titus and Galatians, in any order you please.)

I get your intended meaning of the "1st century" thing, but one of the things that most people who talk like that forget is that we are not living for something past, or in view of a past which was far better than what we have today. The real "ad fontes" claim is that we go to scripture to find out what we ought to correct, and then correct that. And then as they say on the back of a shampoo bottle, "rinse. Repeat."

But we should be living for something which we should see as imminent—that is, the return of Christ. That view is what would bring restoration and life to the church—to seek the bridegroom and not some allegedly-better past age.

If you say the Tozer post was not a shot at my objections to your response, I take that at face value.

As to the charismata issue and Paul and Timothy:

1. Paul usually wrote corrective letters. If the people within Timothy's fellowship weren't having problems with the gifts (as did Corinth), why would Paul need to address them? I can name dozens of issues Paul didn't address in his letters to Timothy and Titus. He doesn't give any instruction on the understanding of the Trinity or how to correctly handle the Lord's Supper, yet both of those are critical elements of the Church. If the Lifeblood of the Church is the Holy Spirit, why point out something so obvious unless it was being abused, as it was in Corinth?

The answer to your question here is, "If the church in Crete was being abused by spiritually-deficient men (and it was), it seems obvious to me that Paul would instruct Titus in how to use the miraculous gifts to point to the Gospel since that is the thesis you have affirmed here." If "the Lifeblood of the Church is the Holy Spirit", and the church in Crete was dying, you'd think that Paul would tell Titus to give it a transfusion. That's not what he does: he says, in words to this effect, "Preach the Gospel so that people will live as if it were true".

The thesis I proposed to you was, "The Charismatic Gifts, as manifest today, point people to Jesus Christ." For Titus, the problem was that people were turning away from the Gospel. If the thesis is true, then the obvious, clear, and most vivid way to turn them back (it seems to me) is "the Lifeblood of the Church". If it isn't, please let me know why.

2. The gifts were definitely still functioning when Paul wrote Titus and Timothy.

I was actually hoping you would bring this up. There is no question—none—that Paul and the other Apostles were healing the sick and so on in the time of Titus and Timothy. I wouldn't bother to try to say otherwise.

But if this is true, why are the gifts -at-best- given only a passing mention by Paul, especially in contrast to sound doctrine and the consequence of sound doctrine, which is sound living? The gifts, in your words, demonstrate the "lifeblood" of the church. You'd think something that critical would not be overlooked or taken for granted but heavily relied upon to fortify the mission of the church.

Well, I would think that. You might think something different.

3. Try to prove why someone left something out. Any proof you have is conjecture. Given that the Bible makes no conjecture about the gifts ceasing either DURING the lives of the apostles or AFTER, anything you attempt to insert there is eisogesis. If you wish to take that direction and force the “prove what's missing” route, I'll ask you what I asked Phil to prove: That there has never once been a genuin manifestation of a charismata since the Apostle John died. Good luck, you've got a lot of research to do.

The Bible makes "no conjecture" on this subject?



"As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away."

I think it does make at least this much conjecture. Plainly, this statement by Paul—speaking to the Corinthians about what he calls a "more excellent way" than the gifts of the previous section—says that the gifts actually will cease, will pass away.

In one sense here, I think it is obvious that he means that at some point, if you are speaking in tongues, you're going to stop—maybe just to take a breath—and at some point, a prophecy will be fulfilled and therefore pass away, but love is not a part-time practice. Love is perpetual. That's one thing he means here.

But it is equally obvious that he's talking about the end of signs and wonders—that the signs are for a time only, and not for every moment and certainly not for every age or every single day. "When perfection comes" is a sequential delimiter for Paul's argument, and when he follows that with this—"When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways."—it's plain that he's saying that to be fixated on the signs is immature and must be given up for something greater.

The question is not merely what's missing: it's what is missing and what is instead evident. If the gifts were the thing, the real backbone or lifeblood of the practice of the church, you'd think that Paul would have told the Corinthians, "listen: the Gifts are holy and to be prized and feared because they are literally the manifestation of God. So when the gifts are on, all else is off—and let those gifts point you back to the Gospel." But instead of saying that, Paul says here that obsession with the gifts is immature because they are short-term means. They are passing away.

The question is not just what Paul left out: it is what he says instead which really clears the slate regarding the role of the kinds of gifts you are trying to make into a spiritual gold seal.

4. Paul clearly references in 1 Timothy 4:14-15 the laying on of hand for the impartation of the Spirit (and spiritual gifts) and for empowering for service and ministry as was common in Acts—and just as commonly accompanied by charismata. That Timothy passage sounds darned-near “charismatic” to me. (THAT word “charisma” is also there in the Greek.) Paul also notes that a prophetic word was spoken over Timothy. Or did you miss that?

Wow. That's amazing. I agree—the word in the Greek there is "charisma"—but in what way can you interpolate that to mean "tongues, prophecy, or some other miraculous wonder-making sign"? Doesn't it seem more obvious in the context that the gift Timothy received from the elders by laying on of hands and with a "prophecy" (that is, by an authoritative word of or from God) is the gift of being a teacher or pastor in the church? That's the context Paul is on about here: Timothy should not be discouraged by his youth or let others undermine his ministry because he was has firm foundations to stand on: God's word in Scripture, sound teaching, and the endorsement of the elders and of (apparently) God.

BTW, every single commentator I have found so far agree that the gift Timothy has is the gift of leading and teaching—not some kind of miraculous gift like changing water into wine. That includes Andrew Wommack, who is hardly any kind of cessationist.

Why does this passage have to mean, "and the ability to heal the sick"?

5. Paul only briefly mentions the Spirit six times in the three epistles. Your argument here, if extrapolated, would make it seem as if the Holy Spirit isn't all that important to Paul as a person in the Trinity because he mentions Him so little. Does this mean the Holy Spirit has little to do with the believer or the functioning of the Church? Hardly.

You misconstrue my argument. What is at stake is not whether the Holy Spirit is important: it is whether the miraculous gifts which Paul does not mention at all are the obvious, natural or necessary outworking of the presence of the Holy Spirit.

In that, if Paul is tasking Timothy, for example, on how to select overseers, you'd think one of the key matters would be, "and he exercises his supernatural gift for the life of the church." Seriously: you yourself will admit (I hope) that not every believer has these gifts—some of us only have the mundane gift of administration, for example. But in that, I think it would be unconscionable for you to say that you should have a pastor who has no supernatural gift.

Why doesn't Paul make tongues or healing or prophecy a criterion for eldership? Is having the gift of prophecy that much more obvious than having to be a husband of one wife, or a man with a well-run household?

Frank, the evidence is there for the continuation of the gifts. To me it's unmistakable and clear. In truth, I was taken back by your question because—for the very reasons I address above—it seems so fragile a means by which to build a cessationist argument. In fact, the 1 Tim 4 passages clearly mention the charismata and show them in the very context of their proper use in ministry.

Not even hardly true. Not even barely true. John Gill disagrees with you; Matthew Henry disagrees with you; John Calvin disagrees with you; indeed, even Andrew Wommack—himself a continualist—disagrees with you.

You can try to apply the sticker that says "eisegesis" on me if you like, but first you have to peel it off your own fingers. 1 Tim 4 does not mention the "charismata" (as you mean it here) at all.

As I said before, Jesus commanded His people to minister and He gave them power to do so. That power was given as part of the commission. None of that power has been rescinded, because the commission to us today is the same as it was to the early Church. Jesus's commission remains, as do the gifts.

It's simply a phony conflation to say, "well, if the Gospel is still true, the gifts must still be true and valid." It's a baseless equation. There is no place in Scripture that says that the Gospel will always—in all places, at all time, until the return of Christ—be paired with the supernatural gifts, and it certainly never says that this is the primary or most critical way the Holy Spirit points men to Christ. But it does, in fact, say that the gifts will cease—that seeking the gifts rather than a life which is changed by love is an immature practice.

And listen—you have yet to address my only direct question to you:

Why is martyrdom extolled by Christ as a sure sign of being His true disciple, but doing signs and wonders in His name specifically named by Him as a broad attribute of those whom, in the final account, He will say He never knew? That is: why doesn't Christ tell us in His own personal ministry about the Gospel-pointing ministry of supernatural gifts if they are as important as the Continualist position suggests?

Please reconsider this question, as it strikes right at the heart of the matter of how Christ's gifts to us through the Holy Spirit until the end of all time are actually manifest.

---

More like a working Hiatus ...

by Frank Turk

Sigh.



There's this place in Tulsa known as GUTS Church. I have seen it for myself, and I'd post pictures of it here from the visit TeamPyro made there on a fateful Wednesday night, but our only personal contact with the staff at GUTS was when their media director made Dan (our staff photographer for the event) delete the pictures of the preaching he took at GUTS that night.

This in spite of the fact that the event was broadcast live via the internet that night. So I have the one picture I took via my cellphone that night, three pictures Dan took of us as we walked in (forthcoming), and that's it.

Anyway, Phil commented on this visit in passing once, and I did maybe twice—and in one of the liveblogging threads there have been some commenters who have been vocal about their feelings about GUTS.

This weekend we got one comment that said something else:

I wanted to google Guts church today. I found your blog. I know you barely mentioned it, but I skimmed your article. I shook my head when I saw you were attending a Baptist event. You see I was a Baptist for the first 21 years of my life. In fact I attended a large Baptist church in the Tulsa area. I remember telling two different people that I would not try Guts Church because I was a Baptist and always would be. Almost like I was too good for it. Looking back in those 21 years I always thought something was missing from what I could and should be learning. But I could probably still tell you the lessons that were repeated over and over and over in my Baptist church. I indulged a guy I was dating to attend Guts Church once to try to prove to him that I wouldn't like it. I went in looking for things to be wrong but still trying to keep an open mind. After hearing his sermon and leaving I asked him if he had talked to anyone at the church about me or any of the things I was going through. He assured me he hadn't. So I decided to go back just to make sure it wasn't a fluke that I was able to get something out of his sermons. Pastor Bill said- I am teaching you these things but PLEASE study them for yourself. That stuck with me. I kept going back because the things he kept teaching about were helping me. For once I felt a difference in my walk with God. I joined the church about a month later. I have studied these things for myself. I have discussed the topics and sermons with my devout Southern Baptist parents. I told my mom that no matter what church my family had gone to I do not know of 1 that they agreed with 100% of everything. There is one thing that I am still studying- Baptism of the Holy Spirit with evidence being speaking in tongues in prayer. But that is for me to study, not just listen to someone tell me that its true or false. My point is that I'm so disappointed to see that you being from church are allowing posters to poke fun of Guts Church. I think that from my experience I have learned that unless you study it or try it out more than once you shouldn't have opinions on it. Or even judge it. The posting comments say that you should keep a Christian Manner. I am honestly questioning how some of the "joking" comments are funny? I have a sense of humor but I don't find it funny when it's at someone else's or a church's expense. Please be careful of things said and written. It could easily turn people away from your church and beliefs. I believe it should be every Christian's goal to Make it hard for people around them to go to Hell by enabling them to see Christ in their life. May God bless you and provide many successes in your life. Tu123

Now, there are three aspects of this comment that I think deserve a response, and I'll list them here:

[1] The implication that GUTS church is changing lives.

[2] The assertion that there is Scripturally-fruitful teaching at GUTS.

[3] The complaint that jokes about someone's church are inherently not funny and may be not part of the "Christian Manner".

You with me so far? Yes, I know: you were afraid you'd never get one of my expository apologetics posts ever again, and you have already packed a lunch. Very good for you.

As far as [1] goes, let's be clear about a few things. The first is this: who can really say something bad about an event which is feeding starving kids in Haiti? Who can say anything bad about someone who wants to do such a thing, as far as that event goes? Let me say plainly that GUTS Church's "Tougher than Hell" Bike rally is, in all social and philanthropic ways, a pretty beautiful thing. While public records about such things are hard to come by (the church web site has no significant history listed, and apparently doesn't list press releases), GUTS also did some significant charitable work for victims of Katrina. They take social action work seriously if they take anything seriously.

But the commenter's post was not concerned about the social work Bill Scheer and his church do: it was about the way lives have changed because of fruitful teaching. And that's really [2], but let me say something here under the heading of [1] before we get to the apologetic nuts and bolts. A call to social action by a charismatic leader is not the same thing as Gospel preaching. Suddenly realizing that one has a fairly-shallow ethical life (as we all do when we are between the ages of 19 and 25) is not the same thing as suddenly receiving the word of God for the first time.

Social action and activities are good, and good upon those who do them. They are not the same as the Gospel and in fact can be a distraction from the Gospel in spite of Jesus' plain teaching that good works are the fruit of the Gospel. This is not calling Jesus a liar, or calling into doubt the clarity or truthfulness of Scripture: this is simply underscoring the critical point that all who do socially- or morally-encouraging things are not doing Gospel work.

If you need some Scripture to fortify that for you, my suggestions would start at Luke 18:9-14, where Jesus makes it clear that the Pharisee (which, in His day, didn't mean "hypocrite" but "teaching pastor"), who took solace in being a good guy, was not justified, but the tax collector—who only relied on God's mercy, and knew the depths of his own need and sinfulness—was the one justified that day. Another suggestion would be Rom 1-2 in which Paul makes it clear that the Law's only purpose is to condemn men of sin, teaching us our need for Christ. Yet another would be Gal 5—if it is good works which are the measure of our Gospel-compliance, why does Paul tell us that circumcision (a God-established ordinance and covenant-keeping sign) will make the sacrifice of Christ of no use?

That said, let's think about the matter of Scripturally-fruitful teaching—about point [2]. Let me say first of all that every pastor has a soft day—he's human. So it is prolly impractical to visit someplace once and say, "well, his application of the historical/grammatical hermeneutic grid on the pericope he chose for this message was lacking in epistemic foundation to the text. He's a false teacher." Everyone has one day once in a while where they have to, for example, talk about the missions mission of their particular church, and in that they may have difficulty tying their message to any particular text because they are not talking about the reason we do missions, but the today-fact that these are the missions we are doing: "look—here are our missionaries."

So everyone can have an off day, and the content in that case has to be considered in the context of what the pastor was clearly speaking to.

Everyone with me?

OK. So on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 at the 9 PM sub30 service, we got there late—and found a dance-off not only in progress but in full throw-down. After the music stopped once, to the credit of whoever was MC, I did hear someone say, "remember—let's keep it clean, OK?" So there was no dirty dancing going on, and I'm not personally so much of a prude as to say that dancing is itself an evil in which Christians should never participate.

But we were in what appeared to be the main sanctuary of the main building, and the music was really, really loud (Dan correctly remembers for me that it was Sly and the Family Stone, "Dance to the Music"), and they were dancing off for a cash prize.

After the prize was awarded, (we didn't actually see who got the prize, but Phil was convinced that the girl who did the triple back-flip should have won) a fellow took the stage (there was no way to call it a pulpit as there was no pulpit—only band equipment) and began talking.

Now, you can listen to one version of this sermon—one that's cut off in the podcast, and is from what sounds like the "normal" Wednesday service rather than the "college and career" service—here. And in that, there are some interesting features. For example, there's the opening offer to take credit and debit cards for the offering—which has to be considered in the amazing ability of GUTS church never to fail to ask for money in any context and at every opportunity. There's also this fellow's riff on the OnStar navigational system.

But this fellow—and let's not be coy, it's Bill Scheer, pastor of GUTS—begins "preaching" from Matthew 12. Here's the whole passage, from the NKJV, which was his translation of choice:

Then one was brought to Him who was demon-possessed, blind and mute; and He healed him, so that the blind and mute man both spoke and saw. And all the multitudes were amazed and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”

Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, “This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons.”

But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad."

Um, well, also to be fair, this is actually the passage he cites, and upon which he delivered a message:

Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.

Now, what kind of talk can one deliver on that passage of Scripture? Let me say that if this is all you quote from this passage, you could make any kind of talk you want out of it. And frankly, Pastor Scheer did.

You can hear where he goes with the grownups on the linked audio; with the sub30's, he first dismissed both John Maxwell and the Emergent church in the first breath, then proceeded to give a very Maxwell-esque "leadership" talk. Then he went on to stress the necessity for strong leadership, a great vision, and an interesting bit about how he's a smarter and better parent than his parents were, and how he's also smarter and more worldly than his kids. There was also the part near the end when Pastor Scheer quipped that you can't have church in a coffee house, but then as he dismissed he pointed out that they have a coffee house there in the church, and you could have a cup o' joe on your way out.

BTW, after reading the partial clip of Mt 12:25 to sort of launch his talk, he never came back to it. He had a lot to say about social vision and great leadership—that is, you have to follow great leaders—but he never got back to what Jesus is talking about here, which is the blasphemous blindness of the Pharisees who called Him demon-possessed.

Now, I subscribed to the GUTS podcast to give Pastor Bill a chance to change my mind about his love for Scripture and his willingness to actually preach what it says rather than what he is willing to say. Rather than add a page on what I heard there, I encourage you to subscribe to that podcast immediately and listen to it this week until you have formed an opinion about it. Listen to at least 2 whole podcasts.

In my book, the claim that the teaching at GUTS church is spiritually-fruitful is, in the best case, one woman's opinion.

The last question is whether or not jokes about someone's church are actually funny or part of the Christian manner, and in that I'd like to say that, first of all, Pastor Bill doesn't have any problems making jokes about other people's churches. If we can resolve that problem, we can start the rug-beating of TeamPyro for finding semi-charismatic motivational speeches amusing.

Thank you for asking.

---