There is no such thing as a Calvinist.

    Seriously.  In all probability what you think of when you hear the word Calvinist does not actually exist.   Right now there is a bit of a fuss in the SBC over Calvinism.  But judging from the abundant number of blogs which attempt to debunk Calvinism, one thing has become very clear.  They don't know what an actual Calvinist is.  Now I know of the few who actually care to read this blog most probably will neither know of this controversy or care, but I want to post this regardless.  Here are five affirmations that Calvinists affirm that you might not be aware of.

1.  The gospel is a sincere offer to be extended to every living soul.  And we are commanded to preach it to every living soul.

2.  All who receive Christ through faith and repentance will be saved without a single exception.

3.  Nobody will be saved apart from this receiving Christ through faith and repentance.

4.  Every man who hears the gospel must make a real choice for which they will be held accountable.

5.  God does no violence to the wills of mankind in his sovereign working.  In other words He works in such a way that mankind is in fact free to choose whatever that person wants.

These are things that every Calvinist that I have ever heard express their thoughts has ALWAYS affirmed.  Both now and throughout history.

Now you may say that you can not conceive how a person could confirm these things and the TULIP at the same time.  Fine, then charge the Calvinists with inconsistent thinking.  But the fact is, they do affirm both at the same time.

What is not right is when we put words in the Calvinists' mouths and charge them with teaching things which they completely deny.  That is not only unfair, ungracious, and not a calvinist, but it is also a sin against the commandment to "not bear false witness" against your neighbor.

So why do I say that there is no such thing as a calvinist?  Because for the vast majority of those who slander calvinist thinking, they are slandering something that is a creation of their own mind.  There is no person who holds to the views which they are attempting to refute.  There is nobody denying the universal offer of the gospel.  There is nobody denying that each man must make a real accountable decision which is truely their decision.  Those who call themselves calvinists certainly don't.  It is a strawman that they have created themselves, assigned many heretical teachings to, and then tore down.  They burn down their own straw man with a thousand scripture declaring that the gospel is to go to all mankind.  And all the while the true calvinist is sitting there saying, "Amen!"

Confessions and Reflections

    This blog will more reflect a prayer diary or spiritual journaling than what I typically mean for this blog to be like.  I say this without apology because...well...its my blog.  I give the forewarning because many will likely not have any interest to read such a thing and I am giving you the chance to move on and not bother with this post.  With that said...


    I feel a strong need to put to writing some things of which God has completely convinced me.  This is all really things I have learned from the way God has dealt with me with regards to some very special times in my life.  The truth is that they are very rare, yet at this very moment I must confess that they are as often as I want them to be.  These are times when God seems to draw near to me, to lay his hand upon my mind, to pull scales from my eyes and give me deep drinks of him.  I do not mean to say that I have some irregular spiritual revelation or experience.  I mean to say that at times God simply removes the dullness that is in my mind.  He allows me to see deep connections in scripture.  He grants for me to appreciate the glory of Christ in ways I normally am unable.  He permits me to see the radical life changing relevance in passages of scripture which I normally would pass over without much thought.  Again, I do not suggest any special revelation.  I merely mean to say that at individual moments of my life he grants me to see scripture the way I ought to see it everyday of my life.  He grants me to value it the way I always should.
    There is nothing better than these times.  Family is not better.  Food is not better.  Sex is not better.  Entertainment is not better.  Nothing can compare.  I do not merely suggest that these times can bring more joy than these other things.  I'm not saying that these things are just quantitatively better.  The truth is that these times of blessings from God are good in a way the other things can't claim to in any degree.  They give life and joy to my soul in places no other thing can touch.  They are qualitatively different.  To many all that I have said here will sound boastful, arrogant, as if I am laying claim to some superiority.  The truth is that it is the opposite.  I must confess before God that I live 99% of my life in a shameful daze in which I am in no way appropriately awed by God.  All the beauty, joy, and fulfillment that I could ever want is right there and I simply will not look up because some trinket has my affections.  And tomorrow it will be a new trinket.  I am utterly convinced that I will continue to fall short in this.  I only pray and strive that it will be less often.
    Now that I have explained the topic, I want to make two confessions regarding it.  First, reflecting upon my life demands that I confess that God has always, always been willing.  His constancy is more than the word "willing" can capture.  I want to describe it as faithful, yet I do not want to imply that he owes me any of this.  What I mean to say is that I have never fully sought him that one of these times has not swiftly come.  There majority of my life has been a story of him having some portion of my heart, and the end result being that I have not experienced one of these times of joyful refreshment in him.  There has been times in which he has had 99% of my heart and these times have been nonexistent.  But never has there been a time in which he has had the entirety of my heart seeking and longing for him in which such a time has failed to come quickly.  I have had to wait a few days before, but as certain as the dawn it comes.  I do not reject the notion that a time will come in my life that in his infinite wisdom and love he will see fit to let me wait even weeks for such a time of blessing while I seek him, so that he may cause me to value it all the more.  But I do not believe he will ever not come.  He is constant.  To those who seek him with all of their heart, he will allow himself to be found.  This is my first confession.  I have read the truth of this in scripture, but now I am compelled to declare that I have seen it with my eyes.  God is willing to be found by those who seek him with their whole heart.
    My second confession regards how these times, without a single exception, have always ended.  The truth is that I have always willfully chosen for them to end.  During these times I believe I am more alive than any other moments in my life.  They are exhausting.  Part of me wishes that I could live in a constant state like this.  I wish that every moment was dripping with God.  My heart soars.  My faith surges.  My mind races, digs, probes, embraces, rejoices, savors, exalts....and it is exhausting.  Hours upon hours of it.  I love it...and I must kill it.  Sometimes it is very deliberate.  Once I laid in bed at three a.m. crying out to God, "Enough! I must sleep.  Don't give me anymore."  Other times it is more subconscious.  I must give my mind something "less" to hold onto so that it may rest.  I turn on the television so that I can give it something other than the infiniteness goodness that God would gladly keep pouring out.  When the television is turned off it is gone.  I have gotten my wish.  Something other than God.  I weep that I am so weak.  I curse the flesh that holds me back from what my soul would have unendingly.  But this is how it always, always ends.  I choose for it to go away.
    Though I deeply regret my weakness and long for the day which God will give me a body able to endure him better, I cherish what this has taught me concerning God.  God is far more willing to give of himself than we are able to receive.  I ponder that...would I dare change it?  Would I want a God so small that I could handle his fullness?  I do not want a God so small that I could drink him to his depths.   I do not want to be a bigger cup than he is capable of filling.  How beautiful and how wonderful is this truth.  I know that every time I come to drink from this well, the well will out last me.  It will exhaust me.  It is infinite.  It is glorious.  And he does not hold himself back.  Whoever will, come, drink.  I hate my inability and frailty, I love his unsearchable and inexhaustible goodness that demands I fall short of seeing the bottom of it.  I have read it in scripture but now I am compelled to confess that I have seen it with my eyes.

Should We Change the Church to be Relevant? Part 5: What's the real problem?

            Before changing the church, it is worth asking the question “Have we really identified the problem?”  I fear that too often a young minister who is very sincere and truly has a far greater love of souls than I can possibly lay claim to, will enter a church and make a very horrible mistake.  The good young man will come upon a church which has grown very careless about sin, very indifferent about the glories of God, unconcerned with adorning the gospel with good deeds, consumed with bitterness over past fights, always looking for faults now in those who have wronged them before, gossiping behind each others back, jealousy from those who do not hold positions towards those who do, indulging an obsession with the things of the world, and continually attempting to run off those with whom they are displeased.  The young man looks upon this church and sees that very few people desire to come to the church whether they be members or visitors.  Then the young man with a Sunday or two of thought comes to his conclusion.  The church clearly needs a contemporary worship service.  But best to be wise and wait a few Sundays before letting them know.  This young man is about to give this church exactly what they want, something else to take sides and fight about.

We will allow this blog to make its point very briefly.  Do not mistakenly think you can heal a church which is sickened with unrepentant sin by changing methods, strategies, or style.  If we can not see the real problems, our changes will be superficial at best and harmful at worst.  Sin is far more often the problem than style.

Should We Change Church to be Relevant? Part 4: What of Unity?

            What of unity?  Does it matter?  Is it a concern to us when we ask the question “How should the church change to reach the lost?”  Have we stopped to consider it?  Few things cause division in the church like an attempt to change it.  Now there is no question that some things are more important than unity.  We could name several doctrinal statements that are essential, things which to deny would forfeit the right to call a group by the name “church.”  We definitely should not sacrifice these crucial doctrines for the sake of unity.  There are standards of holiness which we are commanded to enforce as well.  We are explicitly commanded in scripture to remove people from our churches who persist in unrepentant sin despite the warnings of the church.  Obeying this command very well could cause a drop in unity as some of the church dislike the decision.  So we have no trouble affirming that there are some things more important than unity.  But is our hymn book one of them?  What of having a guitar in the service?  Is that more important than unity?  Is your pastor wearing a tie worth more?  Is your pastor not wearing a tie worth more?  What about the color of the carpet?  We affirm that some things are more important than unity, but is everything?  Scripture places a high importance on unity.

Php 2:1,2  Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.

Eph 4:3  being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Scripture tells us to be diligent to preserve unity.  It is something we are to value, and strive for.  We are to make sacrifices to our own personal preferences for it.  Before we set about changing the church, we ought to think long and hard about how that change is going to impact the unity within our church.  Perhaps there is a better manner of making the change.  Perhaps there is a slower path to making the change which would preserve unity.  Very often double harm is caused to a church when a change is made because the leadership very blatantly showed that they weren’t concerned how people would feel about the change.  They transparently didn’t care about unity.  The suggestion that we care so deeply about souls that we must change, rings very hollow in the ears of those very souls which you are showing a plain disregard for in the midst of your congregation.  We absolutely must have a high and sincere value upon unity within the church.  And we must, because God does.

            But many would object that it is the immature Christians who don’t see the need for change who are causing the problems in the church and leading to the unity being disrupted.  In one sense it is sometimes even fair to say so.  But in another sense it is quite blatantly the fault of the “mature” ones.  I have a nineteen year old nephew and a four year old daughter.  Suppose I found the two of them screaming at one another and calling each other names.  Whose fault is it?  On one level I can almost assure you that the problem began with my daughter.  I would have no doubt that she is the one who first began to be unreasonable.  But on another level it just doesn’t matter.  Why?  Because it’s the 19 year old whom I expect to act right even when wronged.  He’s the one who should have never let it devolve to the point of yelling and name calling.  If the harmony between the two of them is ultimately going to depend on my four year old daughter being reasonable, then we are in very big trouble.  It is the same way in the church.  Talking about these very things, the scripture says,

Rom 15:1  Now we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength and not just please ourselves.

The burden of unity is upon the mature, not the immature.  We may consider this unfair, but it is reality and it is scripture.  This means we may very well have to slow down and make changes much more slowly, or even give up some ideas for the sake of unity in God’s church.

            Second, have you considered the cost of sacrificing unity for the sake of changing the church?  Have you considered that you are most likely sacrificing love?

Col 3:14  Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity.

Now I do not mean to suggest that love is impossible without a unity on all subjects.  However, they are very intimately related.  And it would take a remarkably mature church to have their unity destroyed and yet their love for each other remain intact.  The truth is, usually when you throw out unity you also throw out love between the parties and replace it with bitterness and mistrust.  You may not want to throw out love.  You may have not intended to throw it under the buss along with unity, but all the same there it goes.  And with the loss of a vibrant and dramatic love among the church members you have thrown out the single most powerful witness which we have control over in this world.  Jesus said,

Joh 13:35  "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

What will we do when those we have sacrificed so much to bring into our church finds a place full of hurt feelings, bitterness, maliciousness,  and gossip rather than an atmosphere of palpable love?  What will we do to make up for this lack?  Is there anything that can make up for it?  We have not yet found a substitute.

            Are there things worth fighting for in the church?  Yes.  Are there things we can change to better reach the lost?  Yes.  But the man who wishes to change the church must have a very sincere and high value placed on the church’s unity.  It is only the man who truly hates war and passionately loves peace that I would be confident to follow to battle.  Because only then do I know the battle is necessary.  In the same way only the man who passionately loves and values the unity of the church will be the man who knows when it is truly necessary to disturb it and when it is more fitting to bear with the faults of the weak.  See to it that you are such a man before you start changing things.

Speaking with Dead People

            In light of my last blog I think that I should clarify my thoughts on one particular topic, the role of writings outside of scripture and what if any authority they ought to have over the church.  The short answer is that they should have absolutely no authority.  However, in the past I have been accused of trying to give them authority simply because I place value on old writings and the opinions they express.  I would love to clarify my attitude towards them and, since it is my blog, I will!

            The root belief underneath the high value I place on books outside of scripture is my conviction that there is value in Christian dialogue over the right meaning of scripture.  That is my base conviction in this.  As Peter said,

2Pe 1:20,21  But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

In other words, you don’t get to just decide what a scripture means.  God meant something when he said it.  If you suggest it means something contrary to what God meant, you are wrong.  So when we read scripture, we try to understand, “What did God mean by this?”  Sometimes it’s very simple to figure out.  Sometimes things are very difficult to understand.  In the same letter Peter wrote,

just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,

as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:15-16).

So here we see three very important statements.  First, some things in scripture are hard to understand.  Second, when people distort them it leads to destruction.  Third, it is a result of untaught and unstable Christians misunderstanding the scripture.

            All of this is to say one thing.  Dialogue between Christians over what scripture rightly means is a good thing.  What a person suggests may be wrong.  The interpretation may be bad, but dialoging between Christians about the meaning of scripture is good.  When you and I discuss rightly interpreting a passage, my thinking is stretched, my personal biases in the way I read the passage is exposed, verses I might not have thought of get introduced, and my personal blind spots get revealed.  All this is bad if you are mostly concerned with your pride, but it is all very good if you are concerned with rightly understanding the word of God.

            This effect is compounded when we discuss scripture with those from a different culture.  Not only are my personal blind spots revealed, but cultural assumptions that have affected my thinking get exposed and tested.  Assumptions which I hold to that would have never been exposed by others who hold those same assumptions get corrected when discussing with Christians from different cultures.  Perhaps they are sound, perhaps they are faulty, but at least now they are in the light for us to evaluate by God’s word rather in my blind spots.  Does that other culture I’m interacting with have blind spots too?  Absolutely.  But probably not all the same blind spots as mine.

            All of this is compounded greatly when we begin to interact with Christians of past generations.  Nobody said it better than C.S. Lewis,

Every age has its own outlook.  It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes.  We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books.  All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook—even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny.  They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united—united with each other and against earlier and later ages—by a great mass of common assumptions.  We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century—the blindness about which posterity will ask, "But how could they have thought that?"—lies where we have never suspected it, and concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or between Mr. H. G. Wells and Karl Barth.  None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already.  Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill.  The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books.  Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past.  People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes.  They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us.  Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction.

            Will the authors of these old books be wrong about some things?  Absolutely.  But probably not the same things I am.  And these books are filled with men wrestling with the meaning of scripture and trying to teach and explain it.  And so in these old Christian books that have stood the test of time, I am allowed to dialogue with saints of the past over how to rightly understand the word of God.  I will have opportunity to see many of their faults, but they will also have opportunity to expose many of mine.  And through the process, we come to a better understanding of scripture.

            Sometimes, men who have never placed a value on such old books and the corrections and balance they can bring take great offense to suggesting they are important.  I suspect they take offence not because they hate the old books, they’ve not tried them, but rather their offense comes from the very human principle that when you suggest something is important for us, we will almost always interpret that statement as “you are unfit because you have neglected this.”  That, I think, is what they hear and what they are bristling over.  It is the notion that they are less because they have no knowledge of them which offends them. Let my closing be two fold.  First I will give a clarification of where I stand.  Do I think these old writings hold authority over the church?  Absolutely not.  Do I think reading them should be a requirement for church ministry?  Absolutely not.  Do I think they are healthy and benefit the reader and their church?  Yes I do.  I value them, because I value Christian dialogue over the meaning of scripture.  Second, I will close with a quote from Charles Spurgeon,

“It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others.”

Should We Change Church to be Relevant? Part 3

            What should the primary pursuit of the church be?  Should we give highest priority to conforming ourselves to God’s commands or should we give highest priority to being relevant for the sake of outreach?  Two objections immediately spring to mind.

            First, we rightly object that the two things are not mutually exclusive.  We can pursue both.  We should pursue both.  But…which is most important?  I think the question is a good mental exercise for us as we work through the question “How should the church change to reach the lost?”  What should we be putting our effort into?  Our pastoral teams and young enthused Christians might spend quite a bit of time pondering how we might be better as a church in reaching the lost.  I would not fault them for this.  However, how much time do they spend, do we spend, on deeply thinking on how God has instructed a church to function?  It is a fair question.  Which should consume more of our time?  Should either of these be neglected?

            The second objection that comes to mind is: how is this any different than my last post?  I hope I’ve already given a good indication of the answer.  The second post in this series was simply about what wins when obedience and relevance conflict?  I hope we agreed that obedience must win.  What I am asking now is what should we be diligently striving to discover, relevance or revelation?

            Let me show you the heart of the problem.  Today many would say that there really isn’t much said in scripture about how we are to “do church.”  Of course there are some instructions, but just not much.  We are left with a breathtaking degree of freedom in how we are to organize things.  In contrast, the Christians of a century ago and further back believed that scripture contained very clear instructions on how we were to handle every aspect of our lives including church.  They were very confident that scripture gave a detailed map of “doing church.”  Now here is my point.  Somebody is wrong.  I do not mean to suggestion that we should take for granted that past Christians are right in this instance.  Perhaps modern Christians are right.  Perhaps the truth is somewhere in between.  But what I desire to ask of you is can you truly say that you have so searched God’s word, that you are so saturated with the entirety of it both old testament and new, that you can confidently say that it is they who are mistaken?

            Let this question sink in.  The truth is for most of us, probably all of us in this generation, there are swaths of scripture we have not diligently studied.  Television and modern entertainment have stolen far too much of our time such that we could never boast the familiarity with God’s word which generations past have accomplished in certain times of places.  Shouldn’t we cringe when our ministers in their 20’s boldly assure us something in direct contradiction to some of the most eminent saints of those past generations?  Have they even read the convictions of past generations on why church is done a particular way?  Do they know what scripture they based these convictions on?  Somebody is wrong.

            Now, here is my question.  What does the church most desperately need?  Is the most pressing concern of the church to seek relevance?  Or is the most pressing concern of the church to seek revelation?  Do we do well in this moment of history to spend the greater part of our effort to be diligently seeking how to attract the world?  Or should the greater part of our effort be seeking the scriptures daily to see what God says about doing church?  How we answer this question will drive how we proceed.  And it ought to be well thought over before a man begins restructuring our churches.  Is our great need relevance or revelation?

Should We Change Church to be Relevant? part 2

            Foundational issues are supremely important.  I pray to God that in the several posts about this topic that I strike a gentle tone of loving discussion on this vital issue.  However, on this one post I intend to lay the one foundation that we must all agree upon.  I ask one question:  which is highest priority, faithful obedience to God’s commands or relevance for the sake of reaching the lost?  Or phrased another way:  What wins out when asking “what does God command us to do” and asking “what is the best way to attract those who are rejecting church” gives us two contradictory answers?  Shall we obey God or shall we be relevant?

            Now many would object to the soundness of this question.  Perhaps they would say that in many important instances we do not get contradictory answers to those questions.  I readily agree with this statement.  I have no doubt that a person could show me many places where our churches could become stronger in outreach without violating a single command of God.  However, to use my illustration from the last post, I am not all that worried about the man working on my house being able to show me walls which he can safely knock down.  There certainly are some.  What I am more worried about is that the man can rightly identify the walls he must not knock down.  And so also with the man who would begin changing the church.  I happily agree there are valid things to change.  But before the church gives you the sledge hammer and its blessing, are you aware that there are things that you must not change?  Are we agreed on this one foundational principle, that what God commands weighs more than what either you or I think would be useful for reaching the lost?

            One verse of scripture that is so remarkable to me is 1 Corinthians 15:34.  It says,

1Co 15:34  Become sober-minded as you ought, and stop sinning; for some have no knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame.

Here we have a very sincere concern for lost souls.  However his command to them so that they can reach these lost souls is not what we expect.  If your pastor stood before the church to rebuke them for the lost souls around them you would likely expect him to be urging you to greater efforts in evangelism.  For example you’d expect him to urge you to knock on more doors, invite more people to church, share the gospel more, invite more people to your home, etc.  These are the types of things you’d expect.  However, Paul says “stop sinning.”  What Paul says is the obstacle in this particular case is the people’s sin.  Nothing repels unbelievers like hypocrisy, disobedience to the commands of God by those who profess Him as Lord.  No efforts we make will be sufficient to outweigh the negatives of hypocrisy.

            What we need to understand as a foundational principle is moving towards disobedience is a move away from reaching the lost.  However rare we might think the choice will be, we must affirm together that we must never disobey God’s commands for the sake of relevance no matter how promising it might seem for the salvation of souls.  If you disagree with this, your mistake is not over evangelism.  Your error is concerning God’s authority over your life and the life of the church.  Your mistake is over the authority of scripture.  In this aspect, we must all agree.