Jonathan Leeman-9 Marks Ministry
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Church Membership
"The Christian life must be lived through the local Church because that's what Christ has made us--members of His body. To claim that I belong to the church without belonging to a church is equivalent to claiming that I have been granted Christ's righteousness without seeking to put on that righteousness in ethical living. The imperative necessarily follows the indicative. We're called to the authority and discipline of a local church because we have submitted to the authority and discipline of Christ (e.g., Matt. 18:15-20; 1 Cor. 5; Heb. 13:17). Indeed, to say that Christians should belong to a local church merely because it's advantageous to living the Christian life misses the point that the church body is now part and parcel of a Christian's very identity. An adopted son attends the family dinner table with his new brothers and sisters not just because it's good for him, but because that's what he is--a member of the family."
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Deacons
Next Sunday morning at Covenant of Grace we will be receiving deacon nominations in anticipation of calling and ordaining our first deacons. This post is in anticipation of that exciting event.
God is a God of order and purpose. This is not a remarkable statement; the evidence for this is clearly revealed in creation (Rom. 1:19, 20). His design and purpose is not limited to the act of creation; it permeates every facet of human life from government to family. As a part of God’s design He has provided order for His church. God’s design for the church, when obeyed, effectively provides for both the spiritual and physical nurture of the body. Today I want to look at the way in which God provides for the physical needs of His people through the office of deacon. Certainly we must all look for opportunities to care for one another but God has also established this particular office to ensure that the practical needs of the body of Christ are being met. Today I will look at the establishment of the office and I will consider the kind of men that are equipped and called to this glorious mission.
The office of deacon rose up out of practical necessity; the church was growing both in number and diversity. The gospel was spreading and people from every tribe, tongue and nation were being united together by faith. As all of this was occurring it became evident that someone needed to ensure that those who had physical needs were being cared for. The particular problem facing the church was that the native Hebrew widows were receiving provisions while the Hellenistic Jews (those who had adopted the Greek language and culture) were not (Acts 6:1). We are not told why this oversight occurred only that it did. We also know that caring for widows ought to be seen as highest priority within the church (1 Timothy 5; James 1:27). The apostles respond to this situation by affirming the responsibility of the church to care for these widows. But they also taught the congregation that they themselves needed to be about the business of preaching and prayer not serving tables (Acts 6:2, 4). The apostles then managed this situation by instituting the office of deacon (Acts 6:3). It is true that the term deacon is not used in this context but the word deacon, “diakonos,” means servant and service is clearly what is being discussed. What kind of man was qualified for and appointed to this duty? What kind of man should we look for today as we seek to appoint deacons?
Members of the body (Acts 6:3) – as the body of Christ, the church needs to care for one another. We should not expect someone else to care for the members of the body in need nor should we farm this responsibility out. It is the body that needs to care for the body.
Men of good reputation (Acts 6:3) – there are a number of ways this could be understood, but lets just consider a few. These are men who are respectable, upright and just. I also think this means that they have to have a good track record of caring for the needs of the body. They need to be men who are clearly interested in serving their fellow believers.
Full of the Spirit and wisdom (Acts 6:3) – obviously this indicates that they need to be Christians. But is goes farther than that, they are not to be novices to the faith nor lacking understanding. They are men of spiritual maturity and discernment.
Men of knowledge and understanding (Acts 6:7-7:53) – one of the deacons highlighted in Acts is Stephen. Stephen demonstrated a tremendous knowledge of the word of God. In fact, Acts 7 is a wonderful Old Testament survey. While the primary responsibility of deacons is to look after the physical needs of the body they must also be men who are accustomed to the word of truth.
Men who are committed to Christ and His kingdom (7:54-60) – ultimately Stephen gave his life for the cause of Christ. Deacons are men who are committed to Christ and commitment to Christ is clearly seen in commitment to His church.
May God grant to His church men of godliness and integrity, willing to serve the needs of the body for the glory of Christ and the good of His kingdom.
God is a God of order and purpose. This is not a remarkable statement; the evidence for this is clearly revealed in creation (Rom. 1:19, 20). His design and purpose is not limited to the act of creation; it permeates every facet of human life from government to family. As a part of God’s design He has provided order for His church. God’s design for the church, when obeyed, effectively provides for both the spiritual and physical nurture of the body. Today I want to look at the way in which God provides for the physical needs of His people through the office of deacon. Certainly we must all look for opportunities to care for one another but God has also established this particular office to ensure that the practical needs of the body of Christ are being met. Today I will look at the establishment of the office and I will consider the kind of men that are equipped and called to this glorious mission.
The office of deacon rose up out of practical necessity; the church was growing both in number and diversity. The gospel was spreading and people from every tribe, tongue and nation were being united together by faith. As all of this was occurring it became evident that someone needed to ensure that those who had physical needs were being cared for. The particular problem facing the church was that the native Hebrew widows were receiving provisions while the Hellenistic Jews (those who had adopted the Greek language and culture) were not (Acts 6:1). We are not told why this oversight occurred only that it did. We also know that caring for widows ought to be seen as highest priority within the church (1 Timothy 5; James 1:27). The apostles respond to this situation by affirming the responsibility of the church to care for these widows. But they also taught the congregation that they themselves needed to be about the business of preaching and prayer not serving tables (Acts 6:2, 4). The apostles then managed this situation by instituting the office of deacon (Acts 6:3). It is true that the term deacon is not used in this context but the word deacon, “diakonos,” means servant and service is clearly what is being discussed. What kind of man was qualified for and appointed to this duty? What kind of man should we look for today as we seek to appoint deacons?
Members of the body (Acts 6:3) – as the body of Christ, the church needs to care for one another. We should not expect someone else to care for the members of the body in need nor should we farm this responsibility out. It is the body that needs to care for the body.
Men of good reputation (Acts 6:3) – there are a number of ways this could be understood, but lets just consider a few. These are men who are respectable, upright and just. I also think this means that they have to have a good track record of caring for the needs of the body. They need to be men who are clearly interested in serving their fellow believers.
Full of the Spirit and wisdom (Acts 6:3) – obviously this indicates that they need to be Christians. But is goes farther than that, they are not to be novices to the faith nor lacking understanding. They are men of spiritual maturity and discernment.
Men of knowledge and understanding (Acts 6:7-7:53) – one of the deacons highlighted in Acts is Stephen. Stephen demonstrated a tremendous knowledge of the word of God. In fact, Acts 7 is a wonderful Old Testament survey. While the primary responsibility of deacons is to look after the physical needs of the body they must also be men who are accustomed to the word of truth.
Men who are committed to Christ and His kingdom (7:54-60) – ultimately Stephen gave his life for the cause of Christ. Deacons are men who are committed to Christ and commitment to Christ is clearly seen in commitment to His church.
May God grant to His church men of godliness and integrity, willing to serve the needs of the body for the glory of Christ and the good of His kingdom.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
“The Courage to be Protestant” by David Wells
I have always appreciated David Wells; he is a skilled theologian and an insightful observer of the society and church. His acumen is most clearly revealed in his four volume work, beginning with "No Place for Truth or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology," chronicling the changing face of American evangelicalism. These books are insightful and one could argue that they have even proven to be prophetic. His newest book, “The Courage to be Protestant” lives up to his previous works and ought to be required reading for every Christian. He explains that it started as a summary of his previous four volumes, but took on a life of its own. It does indeed stand alone as a book that must be read.
The opening chapters are a survey of the historic development of the modern evangelical church. He begins by demonstrating how “classical evangelicalism” has faltered due to “two inherent weaknesses.” The first weakness he identifies is the church’s shrinking doctrine. He argues that the church is no longer defined by what it believes but by what it does. He states that Christianity has been “reduced simply to private, internal, therapeutic experience.” He also identifies a number of reasons for this, they include a desire for relevance, an adaptation to culture and finally simple pragmatism. He believes that this loss of doctrine has lead to a second weakness in classical evangelicalism, the loss of knowledge concerning what it means to be the church. The church, he insists, has been replaced by various para-church organizations that are targeted to reach the needs of religious customers.
He goes on to explain how the decline of classical evangelicalism has resulted in two divergent strands within evangelicalism: the marketers and the emergents. He believes these two groups are a consequence of and a reaction to declining evangelicalism. Both groups are seeking to fill the void left by classical evangelicalism. He does not believe that these represent good developments. Both groups only serve to further drive the evangelical church away from its biblical and historical roots.
The majority of the book is an analysis of these three divergent groups in light of five doctrinal themes: truth, God, self, Christ and the church. Wells seeks to explain how each of these streams of evangelicalism understands these five doctrinal themes. It would be far too difficult to summarize all of his arguments so instead I will close by highly recommending this book. It is not written as a lament but as a call for the church to strengthen the hands that are weak and the knees that are feeble (Hebrews 12:12). I strongly encourage everyone to read this book. It will change the way you understand your calling as a member of the body of Christ.
The opening chapters are a survey of the historic development of the modern evangelical church. He begins by demonstrating how “classical evangelicalism” has faltered due to “two inherent weaknesses.” The first weakness he identifies is the church’s shrinking doctrine. He argues that the church is no longer defined by what it believes but by what it does. He states that Christianity has been “reduced simply to private, internal, therapeutic experience.” He also identifies a number of reasons for this, they include a desire for relevance, an adaptation to culture and finally simple pragmatism. He believes that this loss of doctrine has lead to a second weakness in classical evangelicalism, the loss of knowledge concerning what it means to be the church. The church, he insists, has been replaced by various para-church organizations that are targeted to reach the needs of religious customers.
He goes on to explain how the decline of classical evangelicalism has resulted in two divergent strands within evangelicalism: the marketers and the emergents. He believes these two groups are a consequence of and a reaction to declining evangelicalism. Both groups are seeking to fill the void left by classical evangelicalism. He does not believe that these represent good developments. Both groups only serve to further drive the evangelical church away from its biblical and historical roots.
The majority of the book is an analysis of these three divergent groups in light of five doctrinal themes: truth, God, self, Christ and the church. Wells seeks to explain how each of these streams of evangelicalism understands these five doctrinal themes. It would be far too difficult to summarize all of his arguments so instead I will close by highly recommending this book. It is not written as a lament but as a call for the church to strengthen the hands that are weak and the knees that are feeble (Hebrews 12:12). I strongly encourage everyone to read this book. It will change the way you understand your calling as a member of the body of Christ.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Clearing things up
I have had a couple of dear brothers express concern that I might be going too far in my analysis of Sarah Palin’s nomination; so out of respect for them and the wisdom they have provided let me make a few things clear: You need to know that these posts do not constitute the official church position of Covenant of Grace. I am also not trying to tell people how they need to vote—your conscience must be your guide (the principles of liberty and charity must be upheld). However I am trying to faithfully exercise my calling as a preacher and teacher of God's word (you won’t however hear me comment on the presidential election from the pulpit—that time is reserved for the exposition of Scripture). But as a preacher and teacher I believe that I have a duty to speak up and provide biblical answers to the questions of the day; Luther once said that if we do not speak to the issues facing us we are not being faithful. Sometimes I may say things that are unpopular and controversial – I am not trying to stir up dissension; I’m interested in the church being a light in this culture and that is going to require doing some hard work and asking some hard questions. And finally I understand that I may be wrong, you need to know that these posts are presented in humility and godly fear.
All of that brings me back around to the principle question I have been asked by these men; is this a biblical issue? I believe that it is. When I read Scripture I see that God has ordered society a certain way; this order was not coincidental, but a part of God’s design. I also see that our responsibility as Christians is to hold to this design and pass it on to future generations. There are a number of passages that I believe confirm this truth but let me just highlight one. Paul tells Titus:
“Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.”
This passage certainly seems to teach that God wants woman to be workers at home; loving and submitting to their own husband and loving their children. The consequence tied to this passage is profound; that the word of God will not be dishonored. I know that there are certain circumstances that require women to work outside the home and I do not believe that these women are sinning in doing so. But I don’t think that is the case with Sarah Palin – she is not doing this out of necessity but by choice. We have to admit that that the office of Vice President is both important and time consuming—I believe it is naive to assume that this won’t affect her ability mother her children.
My primary concern however is with the overwhelmingly enthusiastic evangelical response to her nomination. This seems to be an indication that we in the church don't understand or affirm this basic design and are drifting further and further from the biblical standard as articulated in passages such as Titus 2:3-5. Not only that we don’t seem to know that we are drifting. This is why I believe it is a biblical issue that is too important to be ignored. I understand that many are voting for McCain/Palin because of their desire to vote for a pro-life ticket that has a chance to win. But for me this brings up another issue (I’ve always been a bit inquisitive) isn’t there a deep seeded and unbreakable tie that exists between feminism and abortion? Isn't on demand abortion a consequnce of the feminist movement? To be clear I define feminism as a desire to move away from “traditional” standards. I would see these standards as the ones articulated in passages like Titus 2:3-5. Sarah Palin is a member of a feminist group (albeit a pro-life one) and has shown that she does not feel bound by “traditional” standards; that being the case is it possible to embrace (or even begrudgingly accept) feminism in order to affirm ones commitment to the pro-life movement? Is it possible that this position will eventually crumble under the weight of contradiction?
I firmly believe that it is possible for the church to actually change the world and put an end to the culture of death propagated through abortion, while at the same time affirming God’s design for the home. The great news is that it is something that cannot be deterred or influenced by those in political office. We simply must obey and wait. God will put an end to abortion—in fact one day He will make everything right.
All of that brings me back around to the principle question I have been asked by these men; is this a biblical issue? I believe that it is. When I read Scripture I see that God has ordered society a certain way; this order was not coincidental, but a part of God’s design. I also see that our responsibility as Christians is to hold to this design and pass it on to future generations. There are a number of passages that I believe confirm this truth but let me just highlight one. Paul tells Titus:
“Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.”
This passage certainly seems to teach that God wants woman to be workers at home; loving and submitting to their own husband and loving their children. The consequence tied to this passage is profound; that the word of God will not be dishonored. I know that there are certain circumstances that require women to work outside the home and I do not believe that these women are sinning in doing so. But I don’t think that is the case with Sarah Palin – she is not doing this out of necessity but by choice. We have to admit that that the office of Vice President is both important and time consuming—I believe it is naive to assume that this won’t affect her ability mother her children.
My primary concern however is with the overwhelmingly enthusiastic evangelical response to her nomination. This seems to be an indication that we in the church don't understand or affirm this basic design and are drifting further and further from the biblical standard as articulated in passages such as Titus 2:3-5. Not only that we don’t seem to know that we are drifting. This is why I believe it is a biblical issue that is too important to be ignored. I understand that many are voting for McCain/Palin because of their desire to vote for a pro-life ticket that has a chance to win. But for me this brings up another issue (I’ve always been a bit inquisitive) isn’t there a deep seeded and unbreakable tie that exists between feminism and abortion? Isn't on demand abortion a consequnce of the feminist movement? To be clear I define feminism as a desire to move away from “traditional” standards. I would see these standards as the ones articulated in passages like Titus 2:3-5. Sarah Palin is a member of a feminist group (albeit a pro-life one) and has shown that she does not feel bound by “traditional” standards; that being the case is it possible to embrace (or even begrudgingly accept) feminism in order to affirm ones commitment to the pro-life movement? Is it possible that this position will eventually crumble under the weight of contradiction?
I firmly believe that it is possible for the church to actually change the world and put an end to the culture of death propagated through abortion, while at the same time affirming God’s design for the home. The great news is that it is something that cannot be deterred or influenced by those in political office. We simply must obey and wait. God will put an end to abortion—in fact one day He will make everything right.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Is Sarah Palin the next Deborah?
Let me begin by affirming that God can and has put women into positions of highest public authority. However it seems to me that this fact of providence has clouded the judgment of many evangelicals regarding the nomination of Sarah Palin. A number of prominent evangelicals are raising their arms in triumph over her nomination. They seem to believe that she is the answer to all that ails America; she has been lauded as a tough-minded reformer, pro-family and even pro-Christian. Their logic seems to be:
- God has appointed women to positions of highest authority in the past
- The best (most like us) candidate in this years election is a woman
- Therefore we have the responsibility of supporting this ticket so that she will be elected as the next vice president
I do not share their enthusiasm. We cannot control or even know God’s providential will; and it would be dangerous to presume anyone as God’s anointed. As I see it, my responsibility is not to try and divine God’s sovereign hand, but to vote according to the principles clearly articulated in Scripture. For the church this election, as far as I am concerned, is a referendum on sola scriptura. Will we as the people of God make our decision based solely upon God’s word or will we allow our pragmatic presumptions to win the day? God has given clear direction concerning the nature and responsibilities of men and women and how we fit together in the order of creation. He has the right as creator to override those basic distinctions but we do not – we must live before the face of God obeying what He has revealed. What has God revealed that is pertinent to the nomination of Sarah Palin? Today I will provide what I believe is an important fact that must be remembered when considering why God might put a woman in a position of national authority. Tomorrow I will articulate the two truths from Scripture that have led me to the conclusion that I cannot in good conscience vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin. As an aside I want to make it clear that I will also not be voting for Barak Obama—as far as I’m concerned the issue of life trumps all other political considerations.
I believe we must recognize the fact that sometimes God put a woman in power as a sign of national decline or as an outright judgment. I believe the story of Deborah is actually an example this. She lived during the time of Judges, a time of great rebellion and ignorance. I don’t think we would consider this time a great representation of a godly nation or people. The story of Deborah is not just a story of God working through a great woman, but God working despite the cowardice and weakness of a man. Barak was called by Deborah to go out and fight on behalf of his people but he refused. Instead he indicatied that he would not go unless Deborah went with him. Deborah agrees but says to him:
“I will surely go with you; nevertheless, the honor shall not be your on the journey that you are about to take, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hands of a woman.”
I see great contempt in the words of Deborah. Here is this man refusing to go to battle on behalf of his people. God then magnifies his cowardice by allowing a woman to defeat the enemy of God’s people. Yes, Deborah was put in a position of power but I think we must recognize that all was not right in the world. We could rejoice in her great leadership but we should also lament that there were no men to stand up and fight for their nation.
I want to make it clear that I am not saying that if Sarah Palin is elected it is a sign of God’s judgment. I am saying that before we uncritically rejoice in her nomination we ought to at least wonder why God would divert from the order (we will look at this tomorrow) He established in creation. Could it be that we have reached the point as a nation where there are no men of character left to lead us?
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Preliminary thoughts in anticipation of the upcoming election
I have been asked by some parishioners to comment on the candidates running for election this year. In the past I have made it a rule not to delve into the political realm, but given the unprecedented nature of this year’s election I believe the church needs heralds not pundits (those willing to proclaim what is true not politically expedient). It is my plan to write some pointed assessments of the candidates in the coming days. But first I want to begin by laying a foundation. The following post contains 6 truths I believe to be biblically accurate and theologically necessary given the current political climate. Hopefully their relevance will be more clearly seen in the coming days.
1. We do not chose our leaders. God puts leaders into power according to His wishes (Proverbs 8:15; Daniel 2:21; 4:17)
2. Sometimes rulers are put in place for our good (Romans 13:3-4), and sometimes as judgment(1 Samuel 8:9-18)
3. God possesses a secret will (what he will accomplish) and a revealed will (what we are commanded to do)
4. We cannot predict or control the means God will use to fulfill His secret will (Genesis 50:19, 20; Deut. 29:29; Eph. 1:11)
5. There is no such thing as a lesser evil, only different manifestations of evil
6. Our decisions must be made in accordance with the revealed will of God (Matthew 4:4; Deut. 32:45-47; 1 Peter 2:2; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17)
1. We do not chose our leaders. God puts leaders into power according to His wishes (Proverbs 8:15; Daniel 2:21; 4:17)
2. Sometimes rulers are put in place for our good (Romans 13:3-4), and sometimes as judgment(1 Samuel 8:9-18)
3. God possesses a secret will (what he will accomplish) and a revealed will (what we are commanded to do)
4. We cannot predict or control the means God will use to fulfill His secret will (Genesis 50:19, 20; Deut. 29:29; Eph. 1:11)
5. There is no such thing as a lesser evil, only different manifestations of evil
6. Our decisions must be made in accordance with the revealed will of God (Matthew 4:4; Deut. 32:45-47; 1 Peter 2:2; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)