Back In Church

Here is David Jeremiah's daily devotion today--I thought I would share it.

Monday, January 31
Back in Church
So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily.
Acts 16:5
Recommended Reading
Acts 16:1-5


There's a new effort to persuade people to get "Back to Church." It's an annual Sunday targeting those who once attended church but who no longer come. Most participating churches showed an uptick in attendance, and the effort is gaining momentum.
We're for anything that gets people back to church. But how much better to never drop out to begin with! Many churchgoers run into trouble after missing a week or two--perhaps due to work schedules, sickness, travel disruptions, or sheer laziness. The devil takes advantage of these lapses. We find we like sleeping in on Sundays, taking the day off, reading the paper, going to the park, and catching up on our work. The next thing we know, we ourselves are the mission field, needing someone to persuade us to get "back in church."
The church is a community of faith where we share our joys and sorrows. Much joy comes from giving and receiving love, rendering worship, and serving Christ. We should never need to get back in church. Instead we should back the church with our love, appreciation, energy, and faithfulness.


It was a shabby church house, the preacher was plain, the organ wheezy, and the music off key. But there was something that reminded one of the Upper Room.
Vance Havner, about his boyhood church

Super Bowl Week

Super Bowl week is here and I think everyone agrees we have a great match up. I've always liked both teams. I suppose I'm going to lean toward the Steelers, although I won't be broken up if the Packers take the win. I am rather tired of Fox making Aaron Rodgers the second-coming of Joe Montana, but he may very well have a great game, especially since it's indoors. We all saw what he did to Atlanta under a dome. Admittedly the Steelers are NOT the Falcons.

My old stomping grounds of Tarrant County is sports rich over the last several months and I'm a bit jealous that I've not been there. The World Series, the Rose Bowl champ TCU Horn Frogs, and now the Super Bowl. Not bad at all!

The Challenger 25 Years Later

I didn’t realize it until I was watching Fox News this morning that this is the 25th anniversary of the Challenger disaster. There are some events in life that happen and you always remember where you were. I was a reporter for KARN in Little Rock, a news/talk station. Each morning I would help out with morning-drive and then I’d be off to cover some ‘event.’ That day I had covered the re-election announcement of the Pulaski County Sheriff. I hate I can’t remember his name [seems like it was Carroll Gravett), but I always felt sorry for him. His announcement got buried!

I had just got back into the newsroom when Neal Gladner, KARN news director, saw me and said, “Steve, the Challenger just blew up. Go to the mall and get some reaction.” So I headed to University Mall in Little Rock, not that far away from the station. I hate reaction stories, but what do you do? Where am I going to get reaction to something that happened only a few minutes before? I went to Sears, found the TV section of the store, and just as I thought—several people were standing in front of the televisions watching in disbelief. As I recall I got some good reaction sound bites. I went back to the station, put the reaction story together, and went home. Although I worked 4am-noon each day and took an afternoon nap to catch up on some sleep, I stayed up during the day, glued to the TV like everyone else as I watched the coverage of the disaster. I’ll never forget President Reagan’s speech to the nation particularly.

One of the things I’ve missed about being in the news business all these years later is a day like that one.

Southwestern and Association Controversy

Southwestern Seminary and Tarrant Baptist Association are in a squabble that involves the Association's offices on James Avenue on Seminary property. TBA's Executive Board met yesterday to discuss the issue as reported in Baptist Press. I served in Tarrant Association for a number of years, so I'm particularly interested in the story. I hope that this can be dealt with in a 'win-win' way.

It seems (at least from news reports)SWBTS is upset that Broadway Baptist Church is still a member of TBA, and they also seem to be upset that the association does not help students and faculty find places of ministry within the association.

Let's take these one at a time. The seminary has a right to be upset with TBA about Broadway, who has cut ties with the SBC and BGCT over its homosexuality stance. The statement about that in the BP story from Al Merideth, TBA moderator and pastor of Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, seems a bit weak. Of course, I don't know what action, if any, TBA plans or has planned to deal with Broadway.

However, the seminary seems to be stretching a bit in its criticism of TBA with regard to students and faculty. The association has little to do with whom churches call and use in their pulpits. I have had little help from associations with that in the past. Plus there are many SWBTS students (I was one for example) who serve in TBA churches in a number of capacities.

One of the major problems I see with the latter issue is the continuing "political" differences between the seminary and a good many of TBA churches affiliated with the BGCT (moderate Baptists). Churches affiliated with the BGCT are not going to use many seminary students and faculty because of the perceived differences in theology, ethical stances, stance on women in ministry, etc. TBA really can't do anything about that.

I pray that the controversy between the two groups can be dealt with keeping the two great commandments in mind. I would urge you to read the BP story to get some handle on it.

The Church God Will Bless

In the 25 years that I've served in Baptist churches, one of my greatest frustrations has been reading books and going to conferences about the church. Of course it is obvious that the church is not making the inroads into culture that we'd like, and most pastors I know are desperate to see God work in their churches, but I've been frustrated at all the so-called "new ideas" that I've been encouraged to embrace in the past quarter-century. In no particular order, here are just a few:

• The Traditional Church—this was the model most Baptist churches followed when I began ministry
• The Seeker Church
• The Purpose Driven Church
• The Missional Church
• The Transformational Church
• The Simple Church
• The Emergent Church

I've been asked in books, conferences, and pastor 'get-togethers', Is your church pastor driven, deacon driven, or elder driven? Is your church Kingdom centered? Is your church a cooperating Baptist church? Is your church a Sunday School or small group church? Is it traditional, blended, or contemporary? Are you Calvinistic, or non-Calvinistic? Is your church one-site or multi-site? The list could go on [I haven't even mentioned the conferences/books that deal with various generations], but you get the idea. I've heard people say with each one of these—If you follow this model God will bless.

I've almost stopped reading the books, and I have stopped going to conferences altogether. The Bible is the right place to give me the church model that God will bless. There are several passages that do that. One that I dealt with recently is Hebrews 10:19-39, particularly verses 19-25: 19 Therefore, brothers, since we have boldness to enter the sanctuary through the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way He has opened for us through the curtain (that is, His flesh), 21 and since we have a great high priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, our hearts sprinkled ⌊clean⌋ from an evil conscience and our bodies washed in pure water. 23 Let us hold on to the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. 24 And let us be concerned about one another in order to promote love and good works, 25 not staying away from our ⌊worship⌋ meetings, as some habitually do, but encouraging each other, and all the more as you see the day drawing near.

Three "let us" exhortations clearly show what kind of church God will bless. First, He will bless a church that confidently worships Him [vv. 19-22]. We have confidence because of the new and living way Jesus provided for us by His blood. We must draw near with a sincere heart, and if we do so, God will bless. By the way, a church can confidently worship Him no matter the so-called 'style.' To tout any one music style as better for worship is simply unbiblical. Second, He will bless a church that has an unwavering hope [v. 23]. Our hope is simply the expectation that God will fulfill every promise He has made to His children and that we will enjoy our full inheritance. It is hope that causes us to look at circumstances with an eternal perspective, living today with the end in mind. God will always bless that. Third, He will bless a church that shows a deep concern for one another [vv. 24-25]. A church where love is found is always a church God will bless. We cultivate a deep concern by worshiping together and encouraging one another.

Much more could be said about these verses. But God has not made it difficult for us. He has not given us a to-do list that is beyond our ability. We don't need a new paradigm; we simply need to follow the biblical mandate for the church. Follow Hebrews 10:19-25 and God will bless. Follow the principles of this passage and we will reach the people God has for us. We will disciple the people God allows us to reach. We will reach every generation. We will reach every people group.

Jesus and the Land

For years I have been telling my hermeneutics students that we are not OT saints; thus we must sift any OT passage through the NT to finds its application to the church. Gary Burge shows how this is done in his recent book, Jesus and the Land [Baker 2010]. The primary topic is found in the books' subtitle: The New Testament Challenge to 'Holy Land' Theology. The work is a thoughtful, responsible, and thoroughly biblical response to Christian Zionism.

Burge's divides his book into eight chapters. He begins with a brief look what the OT teaches about the land. He emphasizes several times the land is rightly called holy because it belongs to a holy God. When Israel failed to be righteous, they lost the land. Even God himself became an exile because 'the ruin of his land means that he cannot enjoy it either' [8]. After the exile, retaining the land was interpreted as embracing a strictly religious life. Between the testaments the land, as it was throughout the OT, was central to Jewish identity. Life in the land was contingent on upholding the righteousness expected by God.

Chapter 2, "Diaspora Judaism and the land," is an interesting discussion of how the land was viewed by Jews outside of Palestine. Burge shows that for Diaspora Jews, the promise of land was reinterpreted. For Philo, the land was reinterpreted as the knowledge and wisdom of God. Josephus reinterpreted the promise to Abraham as Israel's greatness rather than land. Burge insists that redefinition deeply influences Christian thinking in the NT.

In Chapter 3, Burge deals with how Jesus viewed the land. The land was a volatile topic in Jesus' world, and He would have been well aware of that. Burge notes that it is interesting that Jesus did not speak much about the land. In fact, it is instructive that Jesus' primary ministry is not in Judea but in Galilee. His primary message, the Kingdom of God, is not linked at all with territorial aspirations, and although it is first preached to the Jews, Jesus offered the Kingdom to those outside of the land as well. Jesus respects the uniqueness of Israel's location in the land, but He expresses no overt affirmation of first-century territory al theologies. Statements like, "The meek will inherit the earth (land)" shows a surprising reversal; those who fight to possess the land will in fact be trumped by the meek. Passages such as The Magnificant are important to Burge's argument.

I found Burge's discussion of "The Fourth Gospel and the Land" fascinating and persuasive. In John, it is obvious that the Jewish festivals are fulfilled in Jesus. So is the land. Jesus is the recipient of the land [John 1:51]. Divine space is no longer located in a place but in a person. Most profound is Jesus' statement, "I am the vine," in John 15. As Burge writes, "The crux for John 15 is that Jesus is changing the place of rootedness for Israel…God's vineyard, the land of Israel, now has one vine: Jesus" [54]. He summarizes: "The hand as holy territory therefore should now recede from the concerns of God's people" [56].

Burge's look at the rest of the NT results in essentially the same conclusion. Here are a few of his statements:

• Acts: "…the praxis of the Church betrays its theological commitments: Christians will find in Christ what Judaism had sought in the land" [59].
  
• Acts: "Therefore the Land of Promise was the source of Christianity's legacy but no longer its goal. The political concerns of the land were a part of Christianity's history, but no longer formed its mission. The new mission would be the restoration of the world, not the restoration of Jerusalem and the land" [61].
  
• Paul: "Jerusalem and its Temple are places that enjoy historic respect but cannot claim a universal or lasting theological significance" [74].
  
• For Paul "Christian theology had no room for 'holy places' outside of the Holy One who is Christ . . . Paul would have seen as aberrant any Christian territorialism wed to first-century politics" [94].
  
• Beyond Paul: "There is no discussion of Judea or Jerusalem as the site of ultimate commitment, affection, or veneration" [96].
  

  
   

While one can disagree with Burge's preterist approach to Revelation, I do agree that hope in the NT's final book is not found in the old Jerusalem, which is essentially evil, but in the new Jerusalem that will take up where the old city had failed. Hope is the new heaven and the new earth that 'reorders creation as it ought to be' [107].

 

In the final chapter, Burge provides an outstanding and insightful critique of modern Zionism. Primarily for Burge, Zionists do not think Christianly about the topic. I would tell my students, they fail to sift the OT concept of land through the NT. The primary point that Burge makes throughout the book and emphasizes in his conclusion is that "Ownership of the land is not a Christian question. The New Testament instead asks if we know the landowner himself, or, in a different framework, whether the land owns us" [127].

 

I would urge anyone interested in the Christian response to "Holy Land Theology" or Zionism, to read Burge's book. It is an example of proper hermeneutics done taking the One who fulfills the Law and the Prophets into full account.

Arizona and Rhetoric

I have been saddened greatly by what has happened in Arizona. It is horrible and I am in much prayer for families who lost loved ones and for those recovering. With that said I am even more horrified by the debate whether military metaphors and particularly radio personalities such as Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin are to blame. The guy who shot Congresswoman Gafford and others in Tucson is a psychopath and political rhetoric, military metaphors, and Rush have nothing to do with it. I heard one commentator say in the last few days that military/gun metaphors should be banned from political speech. I heard the sheriff in Arizona say that the angry political climate is to blame (which he blames on Sarah Palin) for the shooting. Well of course that is a major over reaction at the least and nonsensical. Banning any kind of rhetoric will never stop what happened last weekend in Arizona no more than taking the "N" word out of Huckleberry Finn will stop racism.

Elvis Top 20

Elvis Top 20


Today would have been Elvis’ 76th birthday. I decided to sit down and compile my Elvis Top 20.
1. Suspicious Minds
2. Burning Love
3. Steamroller Blues
4. Heartbreak Hotel
5. His Latest Flame
6. Devil in Disguise
7. Viva Las Vegas
8. Hurt
9. Kentucky Rain
10. Just Pretend
11. It’s Midnight
12. Are You Lonesome Tonight
13. American Trilogy
14. See See Rider
15. Love Me
16. All Shook Up
17. Fool
18. It’s Now or Never
19. Always on My Mind
20. The Wonder of You

Most of these were pretty easy. There are several others that could go on the list. Some surprises perhaps would be songs like Just Pretend and It’s Midnight. Just Pretend was from what I think is the best Elvis Album, “That’s the Way It Is.” I bought the album when it first came out in 1970 and was instantly my favorite. Many of course believe Elvis’ sessions at American Studios are his best material. Can’t argue with that from a pure commercial success standpoint. I just disagree. No accounting for taste I know. It’s Midnight I believe is one Elvis’ underrated performances. Just a plain good song sung with lots of feeling.

I still believe Elvis’ birthday should be a national holiday. When will someone listen! 

Lukan Authorship of Hebrews

I just finished David Allen's monograph, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews [B&H Academic, 2010]. The book is a companion to his commentary on Hebrews, also released this year in the NAC series. His fascination with the authorship of Hebrews began in 1976 in a class ironically taught by Paige Patterson. He is one of the few advocating Lukan authorship today (though there has always been a few in that camp). The book, part of the NAC Studies in Bible and Theology series, is interesting and in parts persuasive. Certainly one will have to deal with it and the arguments presented in future studies on Hebrews.

Allen begins with a historical survey on the authorship question. Chapter 2 evaluates evidence for Barnabas, Apollos, and Paul as authorial candidates. Both chapters are important to the foundation Allen is laying. He comes to the conclusion that there is early evidence for Lukan authorship of Hebrews. He rules out both Barnabas and Apollos fairly easily. While the Patristic evidence for Pauline authorship cannot be easily dismissed, Allen falls on the side of the majority of modern scholars who believe there are no disagreements with Paul in Hebrews, but the many style differences particularly make Pauline authorship less likely.

The strongest arguments for Lukan authorship of Hebews are found in chapters 3 -5. The linguistic argument is first to bat and is by far the strongest hitter. Allen amasses a great deal of lexical, stylistic, and textlinguistic evidence to build his case. The lexical similarities between Luke/Acts and Hebrews are very impressive. However, I found his stylistic section very persuasive. The cumulative effect of the similarities "provide a forceful argument for Lukan authorship of Hebrews" [123]. In my opinion this is by far the strongest arguments presented in the book.

Second up is Allen's comparison of the purposes of Luke/Acts and Hebrews. He presents lexical/semantic evidence found in the prologues of the books and well as the hortatory sections. To Allen these similarities link the works closely. I am not so sure.

Third to the plate is Allen's discussion of the theological similarities between the three books. I personally found his discussion of the High Priesthood of Jesus in Luke/Acts the most interesting. Obviously that is a major topic in Hebrews. If it can be seen in Luke/Acts then Lukan authorship is at least possible. Allen sees Luke's view of Jesus as High Priest shown in three ways. First, Jesus prays for Peter in Luke 22:31-32. The intercessory ministry of Jesus is obviously in Hebrews. Second, Jesus' prayer at the cross for those who are placing Him there [Luke 22:34] is compared to Hebrews 5:2. Third, in the account of the ascension [Luke 24:50-51], Jesus lifts up his hands and blesses the disciples, reminiscent of the high priest. Allen writes, "Throughout Luke's Gospel, Jesus is characterized by the priestly attributes of sympathy, compassion, and mercy." While one may admit the above, Allen seems to stretch a bit. For example, in the account of the ten lepers cleansed by Jesus in Luke 17, the fact that one came back and showed himself to Jesus does not lend itself to proving Luke's view that Jesus is "God's High Priest" [213]. However, I believe Allen has at least shown that Luke is concerned about the priestly ministry of Jesus. A major roadblock to viewing Luke as authorship of Hebrews has at last been moved a bit.

I found Chapter 6 the most interesting. Luke has been assumed by scholars as Gentile. Thus there is no way he could have authored a work like Hebrews. Of course, even though a Gentile, he could have authored the work. That said if it can be proven that Luke is a Jew another major stumbling block has been removed. I believe Allen has done us a great service in this chapter, showing that Luke is likely a Jew. The Birth Narratives alone in Luke 1-2 seem to indicate this as I have believed for a long time. Luke's concern for OT prophecy, the priesthood, the Temple, and his use of Scripture all point to this conclusion. Luke/Acts is shown to be very "Jewish" in nature and one has to ask, If Luke were a Gentile or if he were writing for Gentiles, why do we find so many Jewish features in the two works? Allen's evidence, although a stretch in places, has its intended cumulative effect.

The rest of the book is certainly more subjective as Allen admits. His historical reconstruction, although interesting, is less compelling. He believes Luke wrote to a former High Priest, Theophilus, from Rome in the late 60s. Theophilus is in Antioch among a group of converted priests who are thinking about reverting to Judaism. While it is certainly possible that Luke wrote Hebrews from Rome after the death of Paul and before the destruction of the Jerusalem, the hard evidence is lacking and perhaps always will be.

Allen writes in his introduction that the book "is an attempt to prosecute the case for Lukan authorship by presenting a preponderance of evidence, the cumulative effect of which becomes difficult to deny" [5]. There is no doubt that there is a preponderance of evidence. Some of it stretches the limits of credibility, but there is a good deal in this book that should be digested, pondered, and perhaps even admitted at the very least possible. While his historical reconstruction may not be strong, the other evidence presented is. Particularly, if Luke can be seen as Jewish writing to Jews, then the primary obstacle to Lukan authorship of Hebrews is at least moved. I believe Allen has done this. It must be admitted that Luke could very possibly be (and I believe probably was) a Jew. Thus he certainly could be the author of Hebrews. If the author is not Paul, and it probably isn't, then Luke should be seen as a primary candidate. Certainly there is more evidence for him then Apollos or Barnabas.

I am not 100% persuaded by Allen's book, but I have gravitated closer to his position. "Almost thou persuadest me!."

"One Anothers" of the New Testament

THE 'ONE-ANOTHERS' OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

I promised the folks at Fairview this list:

John 13:34        Love one another

Mark 9:50        Live at peace with one another

Romans 12:10        Devote yourselves to one another

            Give preference to one another

Romans 12:16        Have the same mind toward one another [Rom 15:5]

Romans 14:13        Do not judge one another

Romans 14:19        Live at peace and build up one another

Romans 15:7        Accept one another

Romans 15:14        Admonish one another [Col 3:16]

1 Cor 11:33        Wait for one another

1 Cor 12:25        Have the same care for one another

1 Cor 16:20        Greet one another [2 Cor 13:12; 1 Pter 5:14]

Gal 5:13        Serve one another [1 Peter 4:10]

Eph 4:2         Show tolerance toward one another

Eph 4:25        Speak the truth to one another

Eph 4:32        Be kind, compassionate, and forgiving toward one another

Eph 5:19        Speak to one another in a spiritual way

Eph 5:21        Be subject to one another

Phil 2:3         Regard one another as more important

Col 3:9            Do not lie to one another

Col 3:13        Bear with one another

1 Thess 4:18        Comfort one another

1 Thess 5:11        Encourage one another [Heb 3:13; 10:25]

            Build up one another

Heb 10:24        Stimulate one another to good deeds

James 4:11        Do not speak against one another

James 5:9        Do not complain against one another

James 5:16        Confess your sins to one another

1 Peter 4:9        Be hospitable to one another

1 Peter 5:5        Clothe yourselves with humility toward one another

1 John 1:7        If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another

 

 

         

WHY CHURCHES DON'T COOPERATE

Last fall over 1000 people gathered at our church from across Greer Baptist Association to celebrate our 50^th anniversary. It was a great night of worship, but I wondered while the service was going on why we couldn't cooperate like that more often. For the last several years I've wondered why, for all the talk we do about cooperation, the Southern Baptist churches and association of churches I've been part of don't really cooperate.

After quite a bit of thinking about this subject, I've come up with two conclusions. First, there is the obvious problem of competition. To be quite frank we're all primarily concerned with our own churches and their growth (both in numbers and financially). Publicly we rejoice when we hear great things happening elsewhere, but privately too often we wince in pain and jealousy (sad to say but too often true). The business model of doing church, counting numbers and money and allowing those to determine success, contributes greatly to the spirit of competition.

Everyone talks about the problem of competition, but there is a second reason that is not so obvious. In fact this one is not discussed at all as far as I know. It is the problem of the ever increasing number of disgruntled members who populate other churches. People become upset where they are, move to another church, but remain upset with their previous place of worship. Churches are made up of everybody else's members who are still smarting over the various reasons they left. Usually that means a less than cordial relationship with the people with which they once attended church. Cooperation becomes difficult at best because they are very hesitant to rub elbows with those folks on any project. Church splits, which always bring acrimony, make cooperation even more difficult to impossible.

Of course the bottom line is that we've lost biblical fellowship. We've relegated that to fellowship meals or ice-cream socials. The NT teaches that fellowship is loving others Christians as much as you love God. Until we get back to that we won't cooperate much, and the world will see a splintered Christian witness. That of course sends the wrong message and gives unbelievers another reason to stay home on Sunday.

Moore on Glenn Beck

Russell Moore has an insightful blog entry on Glenn Beck's rally in Washington this weekend. Read it carefully and thoughtfully.

Who Grows The Church?

"Preacher it is your job to grow the church?" Is that true? It seems that many in the church today believe that, even pastors. But it that true? For a good deal of the years of my ministry I believed that it was my job to grow the church. I would be asked by pastor search committees how I intended to lead the church to grow. I attended conferences and other meetings in which sure-fire ways of church growth were introduced and each time I was told that if I (the pastor) was behind this it would work. The church would grow. Of course, I am for church growth, so I would use those tools and apply the so-called church growth principles. And they would sometimes work. But often they would not. I would go home after a Sunday in which there were no decisions and seemingly nothing happened and beat myself up. I really thought that if I had worked harder or if I had been more faithful that week something would have happened. Try to carry around that kind of guilt!

One night a few years ago I was having one of those Sunday nights. Pastors know what I'm talking about. No decisions had been made for the umpteenth week in a row. The people just sort of look at you and are polite when they leave, but that's about it. I was blaming myself again. If I work harder and apply some principles smarter the church would turn around and the the aisles would be red hot with decisions, Sunday School would grow, etc etc etc. That night I had an epiphany. God surely had been trying to tell me this for a long time, but I just had not listened. In as clear a voice as I've ever heard, the Lord spoke to my heart—"Son, it is not your job to grow the church. It is mine! You just be faithful to preach my Word. That is all that is required of you. If the people respond they respond to Me—not you. If they rebel, they rebel against Me—not you." Since that night I have not worried whether or not decisions are made, attendance is up, giving is up, and so forth. I really don't look at attendance and giving reports that much. My response when someone asks how many were in church Sunday, "The number is exactly what God knew it would be." The spiritual burdens a pastor carries are always there, but the unnecessary guilt of having to cause church growth is not.

Acts 2:47 is instructive: "And every day the Lord added to them those who were being saved." The Lord added to the church. The apostles did not. They were just faithful in what God called them to do. Jesus said the church was His and He would build it [Matthew 16:18]. The pastor doesn't, Jesus does. Paul reminded the Corinthians "I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth" [1 Corinthians 3:6]. Paul was faithful to preach the Word, as was Apollos, but it was God who brought about growth.

The problem lies in the fact that we have brought the world into the church. We use business principles to determine whether a pastor is doing his job. And if a church is not growing in numbers or if it is losing budget dollars, many church members believe something is terribly wrong with the pastor's leadership. Pastors do the same thing. They often see a problem with their leadership when baptisms are down, membership is down, no decisions are made on consecutive Sundays, budget numbers are lower, etc.

Our denomination (Southern Baptist Convention) does not help. We tout the churches/pastors who baptize the most, who have the greatest increase in attendance, who give the most, etc. That kind of thing should stop. I would love one day to attend a pastor's conference and the featured speaker is a man of God who has proven himself faithful in a church where absolutely nothing visible has happened (attendance increase, baptism by the score, etc) or could happen.

The fact of the matter is that there is only one thing God requires of any person, including pastors—faithfulness. The pastor's responsibility is to preach the Word, and he is responsible only to attempt to lead the church into the presence and purpose of God. I use the word 'attempt' on purpose, because he is not responsible for the church's response.

By the way, proper spiritual leadership often does not lead to church growth. Depending on the circumstances, it may lead to a mass exodus. Also, there are church situations in which no numerical growth is possible, and the success of a pastor's ministry in that kind of situation should not be based on baptism numbers, Bible study attendance, etc.

Pastors—stop trying to grow the church. Church members—stop placing upon the pastor responsibilities that are not his. When both pastor and church members are faithful, God will do in the church was He deems necessary and proper. His will is done. Shouldn't that be the goal anyway?

Pinnock

I heard recently of the death of Clark Pinnock. Russell Moore has a wonderful commentary on BP.

Pinnock died on Aug 15. Read his obit on Christianity Today.

The Christian Funeral

Rob Moll has written an interesting book, The Art of Dying, which I recommend highly. In it, there is a chapter on the Christian funeral. Moll is correct when he observes that funerals are best done within the context of a church community and are more than just an opportunity to soothe the grief of the bereaved. He defines the Christian funeral as a "worship service that dramatically recognizes that the Christian life is shaped in the pattern of Christ's own death and resurrection."

For many believers today, there is no sense that the funeral is a religiously significant event. They have bought into the "Hollywood" version of a funeral; it's all about the deceased. There are eulogies and music that reflect who the deceased was and his/her accomplishments. I have even had Christian families ask me to not be 'too preachy'. Unbelievable I know, but increasingly true.

We are losing the Christian funeral because believers are losing sight of its importance. Why have a funeral when it's so expensive and a waste of time? It is important for several reasons. First, it is the last chance for the deceased to influence anyone for Christ. Most Christians have family members and friends who are unbelievers. Some of them will attend the funeral. The testimony of a faithful believer's life [which they obviously know] plus the preaching of the Gospel may soften an otherwise hard heart. I have seen more than one person come to Christ following a funeral service. Second, while there is much more to a Christian funeral, God does use it to comfort the grieving family. Grief is part of life; however, Christians do not grieve hopelessly. As the hope of the Gospel is reaffirmed by the one preaching the funeral, the Holy Spirit comforts the heart and even brings joy in the midst of sorrow. I've seen this happen countless times. A family enters the funeral home or church crying and as the service progresses their countenance changes. There is still grief at loss, but hope brings joy. A funeral consisting of just eulogies neither comforts nor brings hope. Third, as Moll so aptly puts it the funeral is a chance 'for the church to . . . begin reintegrating mourners into the community and . . . to publicly express the church's and the deceased's faith and hope.'

A Christian funeral should include the following:

• Singing—I think congregational music is appropriate although it seldom is used [at least in the Baptist tradition of which I belong]. The songs should not be 'dirges'. They can and should be joyful, focusing on Christ who has defeated death. I recently attended a funeral in which congregational music was used, but the songs made me more depressed than joyful. That's not the purpose at all of a funeral service.
  
• Scripture—I appreciate our more liturgical friends here more than Baptists—their services are full of appropriate Scripture passages from both Testaments. When I am in charge of an entire funeral service, I try to spend at least some of it in the reading of the Bible.
  
• A brief testimony concerning the life of the deceased—everyone in the room knows something about him/her likely, so the fact that he was a family man who loved the Braves, for example, is not what I mean. I believe there should be a clear testimony about his/her faith in Christ.
  
• The preaching of the Gospel, emphasizing hope. In recent years I almost exclusively preach on the hope of heaven, using Revelation 21-22. I use other passages, but I seem to keep coming back to those two chapters. A brief message about heaven reminds the believer of what God has prepared for those who love Him and challenges the unbeliever to consider his/her own eternal destiny.
  

I would agree with Moll's summary, "In some ways a funeral is simply an excuse to publicly get together. Gathering around food, at a funeral home or cemetery, or at-home visitations is an end in itself. A healthy community (here he is talking about the church) and the recovering bereaved simply need to be together. Funerals can be done both well and inexpensively, but the purpose is not to get it done cheaply. Singing hymns, reading Scripture and hearing God's Word preached—all with an ear toward the purpose of a funeral—is how the church displays hope. By doing so the congregation not only gives witness to the rest of the world, but it also serves to reaffirm our resurrection hope" [Art of Dying, 126].

Above everything, the funeral is a worship service, whether it is in a funeral home chapel, cemetery, or church. A funeral is more than just a memorial service. It does remember the one who has died and his/her significance in the lives of those who have gathered to mourn, remember, and worship. More importantly there must be the worship of God, who has through His Son defeated death, and the intentional witness to that glorious hope.

Is Cremation a Christian Practice?

A question that I have been asked more times that you might think is whether or not cremation is a Christian practice. Based on sheer statistics, it is a question people are asking whether they pose it to a pastor or not. The number of cremations in the U.S. is on a major upward swing. I read recently that between one-quarter and one-third of all corpses are now cremated, compared to less than 5% in 1970. By 2025 that percentage will rise to 60%.

Historically, there is no question about the burial practice of Christians; they always opted for burial if given a choice. In fact, there are those who have written that the great care of a body that Christians displayed is a reason why 'the Way' spread throughout the Roman Empire. Like many modern ethical issues we face, the Scriptures do not really deal with cremation directly. 1 Samuel 31:8-13; Amos 2:1-3, and 6:8-10 are the only explicit passages. Amos 2:1-3 is the only one of the three that unambiguously condemns the practice. The partial cremation of the bodies of King Saul and his sons can be connected to the necessities of war and quite frankly the latter passage in Amos is debated by OT scholars. It may or may not deal with cremation. I believe it probably does, but the cremation of bodies can be seen in that passage as necessary due the great numbers of the dead. While there are no 'thou shalts' or 'thou shalt nots' to draw from, that does not mean the Bible is unclear on the issue. In both testaments, it is absolutely clear that the standard way that God's people handled a corpse is burial. Obviously, there is also the example of Jesus. His body was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. There are exceptions, but they are rare. The exceptions certainly do not lend themselves to approval, even tacitly, of the practice.

There are basically four reasons Christians chose burial over cremation. First, the body was created by God in His image and was proclaimed by Him as 'very good' [Genesis 1:31]. While some deny the physical aspect of the image of God, Genesis 9:6 is clear: "Whoever sheds man's blood, his blood will be shed by man, for God made man in His image." This verse makes no sense at all if the soul (non-body) was the essential part of a human being. Thus the body is not just an appendage housing the soul/spirit (non-body). Human beings are a body/non-body unity, incomplete when that which is non-body is separated from the body.

Second, there is need to consider the Incarnation. "The Word became flesh and took up residence among us" [John 1:14]. John Stott has written, "Christians should treat the human body . . . with special respect. Why? Because this is the form in which God became flesh."

Third, there is the fact that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit [1 Corinthians 6:19]. Christians have historically believed that the body should be honored because the third Person of the Trinity used it as His home, living through the body and producing His fruit [Galatians 5:22-23].

Fourth, the final part of a Christian's salvation is the resurrection of the body. Paul wrote, "And if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead lives in you, then He who raised Christ from the dead will also bring your mortal bodies to life through His Spirit who lives in you" (Romans 8:11). According to Millard Erickson, "This new body has some connection or point of identity with the old body, but is differently constituted." That different 'constitution' is that it is transformed, outfitted for eternity. However, there is a direct connection between the mortal and immortal body. Christians have believed that burial best bears witness of this connection.

Thus the issue is not whether God can raise a body that has been cremated. Of course He can. Neither is the issue whether cremation is sin. I do not believe that it is. The issue really is two-fold: What burial practice best reflects the hope of the Gospel? What burial practice honors the body as God's good creation in His image? It seems to me the answer is burial. Just as we (Baptists) believe in immersion baptism because it shows best in a symbolic way what has happened spiritually to a person, burial does the same thing—the burial of a body shows in a symbolic way that God created the body good in His image (thus we honor it), and it better reflects the hope of the future resurrection of that mortal body.

Why has cremation become so popular? I can mention a few reasons. First, the traditional funeral is seen as a waste of money; thus it has become a consumer issue. Second, environmentalism has caused a "Save the Land for the Living" mentality to creep into the American consciousness. Third, there is the upswing of other spiritual worldviews, especially eastern mysticism, which is shown in the increased approval of such ideas as reincarnation. Cremation can be seen as a cleaning/releasing of the soul from the dead body so it will be prepared for another life. Rodney Decker observes correctly, "The cremation movement thus reflects the dramatic shifts in American views of 'spirituality' and the radical pluralism of our postmodern culture." Perhaps a traditional burial will be one of the most counter-cultural acts a Christian can perform in the next generation.

But, why are more and more Christians opting for cremation? I think at least two of the reasons above filter in. The traditional funeral is seen as a waste of money and more believers are embracing 'all things green.' I will blog soon on why a traditional funeral is a good idea for a Christian. All I will say about 'all things green' is that the Christian should be not be 'sucked in' to a worldview that may be far less than Christian. The radical environmental agenda that is so sanitized by the color green is more pantheistic than Christian at its core.

There is a specifically Christian way to grieve. Paul wrote that Christians are not to grieve as those without hope [1 Thessalonians 4:13]. Russell Moore challenges us with this thought, "Christian grief, the way the Christian community deals with its dead, signals what it believes to be true about the dead in Christ." Is what the Christian community believes best seen in burial or cremation?

Floyd and CP

I have been critical of Ronnie Floyd, pastor of FBC in Springdale, because of his sparse support for the Cooperative Program, the primary funding tool of the Southern Baptist Convention. However, today BP reports that the church is doing something very significant to increase CP support. Read it here.

Bravo to Bro. Floyd and FBC.

The SBC in Orlando

I thought I'd share my impressions of the SBC in Orlando, particularly with regard to the GCR report. The report passed, but I voted against it (seemingly one of the few). My reasons are simple—Great Commission giving was left in the report. Although I like the amendment which reads that designated giving is to be a supplement to and not a substitute for the Cooperative Program, the idea is still there. Yes I know that designated giving has been and always will be done, but I don't think we need to 'celebrate' is as much as we need to discourage it. I would have liked recommendation 3 to just reinforce CP and that's it. The recommendation is 'better' but not what I would have liked. The other reason I voted against the report was that there is still the 'cooperative agreements' problem out there between the state conventions and NAMB. That wasn't debated, but a change in those agreements may be detrimental to our smaller state conventions. I would have liked to have heard more about that.

With that said, I will support the vote of the convention. I believe that once a decision has been made in a business meeting (in this case the SBC), the decision should be supported (if it's not heretical of course or contrary to the Bible). Thus I support the report and now pray that its impact will be positive and not negative upon the denomination I love and support.

I greatly appreciated the spirit of the debate on both sides. There was no rancor. There was passion, but Baptists should be passionate about how we're going to reach the world. We may have different ideas on how to do it sometimes, but that is ok. Debate is not a bad thing if done with love. It was and that was good to see.

I voted for Ted Traylor for SBC president because I know him to be a good man and pastor who has led a great church. I do not know the ministry of Bryant White, but I'm sure he is as well. He will be in my prayers. I agreed with a statement that he made to the press that he would like to see a smaller percentage of CP funds allocated to the states and more to national causes (NAMB and IMB in particular). That may not ever happen, but I would like to see that debate here in South Carolina. I appreciate the work of the state convention but I have a problem with half of CP funds staying in our Jerusalem and Judea.

The sermons I heard were primarily 'resurgence' centered in some way. I liked it when Mac Brunson (pastor of FBC Jacksonville) said that we did not need resurgence, we needed a refocus to Jesus.

 

The Unchurched Used to Be in Church

share

SBC In Orlando

Everyone and his grandmother are commenting on the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force [GCRTF] report so let me do so as well with a handful of bullet points of comments and questions as I muse.

• The SBC has always had a commitment to the Great Commission, something to applaud.
  
• We are not reaching the masses, something to grieve us.
  
• No report by any denominational task force will bring a greater commitment to the Great Commission in the local church, something to remember.
  
• Will Great Commission giving reported alongside gifts to the Cooperative Program lead to a splintering of the CP? Something to pray about.
  
• The Great Commission giving idea should be scrapped for sake of unity. Something to consider.
  
• Will passing the report as it currently stands lead to a more 'societal' approach as in pre-CP days? Something to watch.
  

I felt that the TF was hamstrung from the beginning, given the makeup of the team itself and because of its chairman. While the team was tweaked a bit later, in the beginning the TF did not really represent a cross-section of Southern Baptists—mistake. Also, his increased giving to CP notwithstanding naming Ronnie Floyd as chairman, when his church gave little through the CP, was a critical error by Johnny Hunt [please keep in mind that comment in no ways reflects upon Bro. Floyd as a good man and pastor—his church's giving through CP is a matter of record.].

Is the recommendation to celebrate Great Commission giving a way to make more palatable the nomination of men to leadership in the SBC whose track record on CP giving is less than stellar? I don't know…this is just the musing of a country preacher.

I'm not naïve. I've been around for a day or two now. I believe the SBC could do with some stream-lining, and I would like the state to have less of my CP dollar (although I appreciate the fine work of the state conventions), but I think changes should come from the bottom-up and not the top down. Churches must change, send people to their state conventions for them to change, and then the SBC will reflect those changes.

I also think the strength of the SBC is in cooperation. We can still do much more together than separately [even the super-churches]. Whatever moves we make should strengthen cooperation and our resolve to reach the masses with the Gospel. I'm concerned Orlando won't do that.