Category Archives: church

The Church of Christ and His People

Marriage Introduction

If you are in the presbyterian and reformed world, it is the season of General Assemblies and Synods. In my view it often turns into silly season. Never do I see as many people who profess faith in the doctrine of God’s sovereignty wring their hands over the condition of the church. Chicken Little has nothing on us. However, at the same time there are significant issues that face the church of the Lord, and also my own denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America. It can be argued that much reform must take place in the Western Church as a whole. It is overrun with the entertainment culture of the world and the philosophies of man found in the world’s approach to social justice and a host of other issues ranging from marriage to sexual purity. What, then, is the balance between genuine concern for the purity of the church and a sinful worry? Certainly this is not the first time the church finds itself in need of reform.

In Revelation 2-3 the Spirit writes His letters to the seven churches. These churches, in most cases, have issues they need to address. The Ephesians had lost their first love (Rev. 2:4). Pergamum and Thyatira are tolerating aberrant theology (Rev. 2:14; 20). Sardis is dead (Rev. 3:1), Laodicea is lukewarm (Rev. 3:16). Those descriptions are certainly not confidence inspiring. Further, in the Pauline epistles we read of churches which have most definitely lost their way. The Galatian church is in danger of being overtaken by legalists who advocate a return to the Mosaic ceremonial laws (Gal. 3:3). The Corinthians… they’ve taken it to a whole new level. They tolerate sexual immorality not even accepted in the world (1 Cor. 5:1). There is drunkenness at the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:21). Likewise in James’ letter, the church is overcome with favoritism (Jam. 2:6). Surely this cannot be the same church that Christ said would withstand the very gates of hell! (Matt. 16:18).  And yet it is. It is the church filled with people acting out their sinsful nature which is, as yet, not removed. So how are we to build up this church?

Address Error in humility. I had a good talk with a friend of mine who was critical of conservative reformed Christians over their tone. And he is right. To some extent, the conservative Christian world has taken on the error of the Ephesian church (Rev. 2:1-7) who was theologically correct, but lacked love for the Lord. It is true that the Lord preserves His church through people who stand for the truth. It is right for Christians to desire to be those people, but they must be realistic about their own faults as well. Recognizing personal sin is crucial in being able to reprove with gentleness an humility. Among the seven things that God hates in Prov. 6:16-19 are haughty eyes, and sowing discord among brothers. The right theology argued from a position of pride, mocking and ridiculing other Christians does this very thing. Therefore it is important to deal gently with the flaws of others, as long as is possible, remembering that all theologians hold their convictions as sinful men.

Speak the truth. On the flip-side, in church history men have been silent about the truth when they should have spoken because of the fear of man. Why is it that Paul was the only one who spoke to Peter in Gal. 2:11-14? Barnabas was there, and he could have spoken, but it says there that they were silent because they were “fearing the circumcision party.” How many could have spoken before Martin Luther et. al did in the early 16th century? There were many. And yet the fear of man or the love of position and influence kept mouths shut. That is not how the church is served. It is the task of all Christians, and church leaders especially, to be faithful to the word of God and not show favoritism (Gal. 2:11-14). The preoccupation of the church should be with the purity of the bride of Christ, purchased with His blood, whose faithfulness He desires.

Pray. The bride of Christ may be oppressed from without or corrupted from within. But Christ bought her with His own blood. He loves her far better than any man could. And besides, He is the Almighty One. So interceding for His bride in prayer should really be step one. In John’s gospel, prayer to God through Christ is the right method of prayer (John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23, 24, 26). This is the church of Christ. The gates of hell will not prevail against it because they cannot prevail against Him.

While living in this world it is right to fight for the purity of the church in this world (the church militant). This article represents some guiding principles as we engage in this struggle. The Lord is sovereign, also over today’s church which is so very flawed. Come quickly, Lord Jesus, and make Your bride into the church triumphant!

On Being too Fond of Life

bell tower

“It is a pity that saints should be so fond of life as they often are: they ought to be always on good terms with death.” Thomas Boston, Human Nature in its Fourfold State

The quote above comes from Boston’s consideration of the difference between believers and unbelievers in facing death. His basic argument is that unbelievers die in a hopeless state, while Christians in a hopeful one. As a true puritan, he acknowledges at least ten different fears Christians may have in facing death, but in the quote above he returns to the reality that the Christian does not need to fear death, but in some sense should recognize it as his gateway into the eternal presence of God.

Why bring this up? Because it seems to me that the Christian church has, by and large, demonstrated that it is a little too fond of life in this world, and altogether too fearful of death. COVID has brought this fear to the surface, and since March 2020 it has begun to take over the spirit of the church. Now come the mandatory qualifiers. This article is not an indictment against any churches who have adjusted their services in the face of this disease. This article is not a denial that people have died of this dreadful disease or suffered other side-effects besides. This article is not an assertion that all Christians should respond to a difficult issue in the same way. But it is an appeal to the church that it consider what is most important.

I’m not wanting to over-simplify an issue, but it seems the general argument made for suspending in-person worship is that the physical health and safety of the people of the congregation will be preserved in this way. That was the motivation of our Session when we resorted to live-stream only for 5 weeks in early 2020. We wrestled with what COVID was and what impact it would have. However, is it right at this point to continue to make the same argument after a whole year of data?

However, the question is not primarily a pragmatic one. Rather it speaks to the very essence of the reason for existence for the Christian. The delight of the Christian is not found primarily in his physical health or in this life. It is in his reconciliation to God. Sin has separated us from Him, but Christ purchases reconciliation by His own blood. Therefore the Christian does not ever cease to glorify God and enjoy Him. He is joined to Christ. The apostle Paul writes of this union:

“Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?” (Romans 8:35)

These are all rhetorical questions. The obvious answer is that no one or nothing can separate you from Christ, His love, and the inheritance that comes with it. But that inheritance is not found in this world, but in heaven. Worship is that foretaste of heaven, and there are a variety of ways in which the Christian will arrive in heaven. Some will be martyred, others will die of natural causes. Some will be gathered into heaven at a young age, others having lived a full life. Some will die subject to horrible suffering, some will pass into glory in their sleep. The point is not that all die and so therefore hand yourself over to a fatalistic recklessness. It is not to forfeit any sense of prudence. Rather, it is “How is it that the church loves life on earth so much that it is willing to forfeit and limit the corporate worship of the saints for close to a year now?”

Some questions to consider in the church’s response to COVID:

  • If the church is not gathering for worship, where is the unbeliever to find the peace offered in the gospel that can give him rest in the face of the constant threat of death? How is he to find Christian fellowship as described in Acts 2:42?
  • If the north American church is faced with persecution sometime in the future, will there be courage among Christians to continue to worship the Lord? And if there are Christians who are willing to assume that risk, should they be permitted to worship or should the elders forbid them and remove the option?
  • The next time a missionary desires to be sent to a dangerous region that is hostile to the gospel, will it be consistent with current COVID policies for the church to let him go and voluntarily face that risk?
  • If the risks for COVID go away, are there other risks, perhaps not as common in the news cycle, that also can cause death (such as highway travel) which would need to be eliminated before the church is willing to re-open? Will we forbid our members from eating fried foods? In other words, if we are doing all we can to remove risk of contracting this disease, shouldn’t we do the same for all other diseases and dangers?

The point is not that all responses to COVID must be uniform. But, to forfeit the worship of the living God based on the data we have (taking the CDC’s data at face value) could easily lead to the conclusion that the saints are a little too fond of life, and are unwilling to risk letting it go. What do you love more? The worship of the Living God or physical life? It’s a serious question. And, as a follow up, if someone were to look at your life today, would they say the same? Whatever our response to COVID may be, let us remember what the chief end of man is: to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

Civil Unrest and the Christian

Wednesday at 3:18 p.m. I got a text from my younger brother “Did you see what’s happening in DC?” is all he wrote. We all know what was happening by now. A group of people stormed the Capitol, and we have all seen the videos. I have seen some responses from conservative Trump supporters who view this act as victory, and the violence justified. Ironically, these are often the same people who condemned the riots of the summer instigated by Antifa and/or Black Lives Matter. On the other end of the spectrum there has been outrage and condemnation for the occupation of the Capital. With just as much irony, many of these are the same people who ignored the riots of the summer and made accommodation because the anger of the protestors was somehow understandable.

The gamut of emotions in the world is also reflected among Christians. Some are outraged today, believing the election to be stolen and our republic to be in tatters. If that reflects your view, the denial of the courts to hear Trump’s cases of voter fraud are outrageous to you. Others, I think the majority, is horrified at the pictures of people occupying the very symbol of order and law, although there is a general uneasiness about how America’s politics is being conducted. Regardless of where you land, there seems to be a nervous churning in our nation. It is not my intention to solve those problems (as if I could). If possible, I would even like to conceal my own opinions on all that has transpired. This post is not meant to draw political conclusions, but rather to help the body of Christ to focus on a godly response to our current cultural climate.

Do not let current cultural outrage rob you of your peace in Christ. The Christian can be easily distracted from his main purpose: to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. The Christian is a subject of his heavenly king the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6). It is true that Christ at times lead to division. But the anger and outrage in those moments should belong to the world, not the Christian. In so many places the Christian is called to live at peace with his neighbor (Mark 9:50; John 14:27; 16:33; Acts 10:36; Rom. 1:7; 5:1; 14:17, 19; 15:13; 1 Cor. 14:33; 2 Cor. 13:11; Gal. 5:22; Col. 1:20; 1 Thes. 5:13; 2 Tim. 2:22; Heb. 12:14; James 3:18). 

There may be exceptional circumstances where violence is necessary, such as self-defense or just wars. But the Christian should never delight in it, nor should he choose it if he can avoid it. The Swiss Reformer Pierre Viret has written: “There is nothing which Christians ought to hold in greater horror than the taking up of arms…and that there is nothing in which Christians ought to be more hesitant to engage, nor which agrees less with their profession of faith.” If you are tempted to side with those who occupied the capital, please reflect on the texts above and ask yourself if your heart reflects the call of Scripture.

Do not allow the lies of the world to elevate people of bad character. It is intriguing to me that the people who are outraged over the events of January 6, 2021 had a much different reaction to the events of October 4, 2018. The result of that day was the same, but the cause was different. The former was perpetrated by conservatives. The latter by the Women’s March outraged over the nomination of now supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh. 

To rush to condemn an action out of political expediency is not praiseworthy. It is a violation of the 9thcommandment. It is the height of naivité to claim innocence in either of our political parties. God is a God of truth, and desires His people to live according to the truth (Ps. 51:6; 86:11; 119:160; Is. 45:19; Jer. 5:3; Zech. 8:16; John 8:32; 14:6; 15:26; 17:17; 1 Cor. 13:6; Eph, 4:15). And when someone makes a truthful statement for a selfish purpose, as a whole he breaks the 9th commandment. 

Neither political party in the USA can claim moral high ground at this point in our nation’s history. And for Democrats to feign outrage over the actions of a few Republican that lasted less than 3 hours seems like a violation of the 9th commandment in light of the summer-long riots of 2020 and their relative silence on those occasions. It is good to condemn violence and destruction, even when done by your political allies. But please do not allow the lies of the world to elevate men of poor character, just because they say true things when it serves them to gain an advantage over their political opponents.

Do not forget about the absolute sovereignty of God. To look at current events apart from God’s on-going governing of all his creation will cause despair. In all of our circumstances, God is exercising control over His creation. Hebrews 12:1-11 explains that control in the context of discipline. The circumstances faced in life can be painful and hard to bear. But the Christian should recognize them as God’s discipline. When God’s chastenings come, the Christian must not resist or fight as the world does. The Christian is called to rejoice and accept God’s work, and respond with peace. Your peace will disappear if you forget that God is good, that He is governing the world, and that political turmoil in the United States is not catching Him by surprise.

This post is not meant to solve all the controversy of our nation’s election debacle. In a sense it seems obvious that God’s judgment has already fallen on this land and we’re simply reaping what we have sown. But more than at any time in an already tumultuous twelve months the Christian must focus on God’s word and get his eyes off his emotions. Peace and stability are only found in by looking to Him. The Christian serves the Prince of Peace and as such his response to the circumstances of the world should reflect that.

Why the Church Must Meet

Ten Commandments

Throughout the COVID crisis, the church has faced pressures from without and within. From without there has been an unfair restriction placed on the church. As has been seen in Nevada, casinos and the gambling industry have been granted greater leniency than churches, and the Supreme Court of the United States upheld Nevada’s law with a 5-4 decision. And that is just one example. Others, such as liquor stores, home improvement stores, and grocery stores, continue servicing their clientele, having been deemed necessities, while the church has been denied that status. The church has largely acquiesced to the executive orders of the civil magistrate based on the Biblical injunction to honor the civil magistrate and to extend love to our fellow man by protecting them from COVID. And yet, is the prevailing wisdom truly the best way to honor God and love our neighbor?

Especially at the beginning of the COVID scare back in March and April, many churches were willing to temporarily suspend in-person worship, opting for live-streamed services instead. The nation, and the world really, wrestled to understand what COVID was. Over time, as information has been gathered, and the “curve” seemed to flatten, doors were cautiously re-opened. Some members still have stayed away from in-person worship. But is it really wise and God-honoring to neglect gathering together to worship of the Lord?

The foundation of my concern rests on the first commandment: “You shall have no other gods before me.” (Exodus 20:3). Here God claims the preeminent place in the hearts of His people. That unique place is reinforced in the summaries of the 10 commandments given in the gospels: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:37-39). Currently the church has focused on the commandments that help it love its neighbor, at the expense of the commandments that direct it to love God.

The church is failing to examine the Scriptures to see if the church is ever described as forfeiting gathering there. Perhaps there are examples in Scripture where the church ceased meeting to avoid a particular danger. COVID is not the only danger in the world. Surely there must be some instance where the New Testament church closed its doors. An examination of Acts shows this did not happen even when the church was under a danger far graver than COVID-19.

Perhaps the most pressing danger facing the apostolic church at its formation was persecution. The church was small, and people were being killed for their profession of faith in Christ. And yet Scripture testifies that persecution did not have the intended effect of suppressing the worship of God’s people.

  • In John 20:19, even though the disciples were afraid of the Jews, they were still gathering.
  • In Acts 4:31, after Peter and John were released from being arrested for preaching the gospel, they “went to their friends.” (v. 23), who were all “gathered together.”
  • In Acts 8:4, after the disciples are scattered because of the death of Stephen and subsequent persecution, they continue to preach the word of God wherever they go. There is an identifiable group that forms in Samaria, to which the apostles send Peter and John (Act 8:15).
  • In Acts 12:12, Peter’s arrest and subsequent unjust imprisonment prompts the church to “gather together” to pray for him.

In other words, even the danger of persecution does not cause the early church to forfeit meeting together. That is because the worship of God is paramount. It should supersede all other earthly activity, because it is the one activity that anticipates heaven. When a church, or members of a church, do not meet together to avoid COVID, a statement is made. Implicitly or explicitly the church, or a part of it, is saying that it is more important to avoid contracting COVID than it is to worship the Lord. And yet in Hebrews 10:24-25, it is the gathering of the saints that is seen as essential to the sanctification of the believer, and not to be neglected: “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.”

I will say it as strongly as this. When the church forsakes worship for a disease like COVID, it is showing love for self, not for God. It is recreating God in its own image, preferring the temporary physical health that isolating may provide, to the praise of the God who made and redeemed His people. This is not saying anything about modified worship, worship out of doors, the use of masks in worship. I have opinions about all those things, but they are not the focus of what is being said here. The point today is that Christians are not loving God by staying away from church because He commands the assembly of His people, and to show love for God is to walk according to His commandments (John 14:15, 1 John 5:3, 2 John 6). God must be loved more that anything in this life. But there is a second principle that flows from this central point.

One of the reasons given for suspending in-person worship is that the church must love its neighbor. However, right now the world is constantly coming face-to-face with death, the very reminder of the coming judgment. They are constantly being told that their death is just around the corner and it is terrifying the world. And yet when the church ceases to meet, these hopeless and lost souls have only the equivalent of a TV show to sustain and comfort them. No doubt they may hear truth, but they will not experience it in the context that God designed: a living, communing body of believers. It is neither loving, nor caring to close the doors of the very place where hope in times of panic can be found, where fellowship can be experience, and where the splendor of heaven is anticipated each Lord’s Day.

My dear friends, the church must consider carefully what it does today. Its actions are making a statement. The next generation of the church is watching the decisions of today. And they are seeing a church that prefers temporary, physical health over the worship of the Lord. And they are learning. The church is folding on an issue that does not pose a significant risk. And if it folds today, what will it do when a real crisis comes along.

In my county, there are 202,403 people. In this county, there has definitely been an increase of reported cases in recent weeks. As of today (August 3, 2020), the total number of people infected with COVID as reported by the Georgia Department of Public Health is 3,719, of which 1,485 (40%) were diagnosed in the last 2 weeks. And yet the number of deaths remains relatively low at 83. The church has to consider the math. A Richmond County resident has a 1.84% chance of contracting COVID. That means 98 out of 100 people will never get this disease. Even more staggering, only 4 out of 10,000 will die of this disease. That means a Richmond County resident has a 99.96% chance of living through COVID. That is not to minimize the tragedy of death, but rather to show just how low the risk is. The risk of dying from COVID is lower that many elective surgeries! 

The church of Christ has been purchased for worship. It has been set apart to worship the Lord. And it is never free to cease to be what it was created by God to be: the body of Christ established on earth to sanctify the saints and call sinners to repentance. To change or deny that work is to have other gods before the Lord.

COVID and the Church

There is no shortage of opinions about how to respond to COVID-19. The debate that encapsulates just how polarizing this issue can be is the one surrounding the use of masks. Basically, there are two camps. Some think that all should be mandated to wear masks in an effort to halt the spread of the virus. Others think that the wearing of masks should be left to the individual because the virus will make its way through the population anyway. This article will not definitively solve this issue for you. The purpose of this article is to protect the unity of the church. COVID-19 will be a distant memory one day, and Christians will find themselves worshiping with that person with whom they disagree with so vehemently today. 

Amazingly, though positions on masks may be different, the sins by their proponents are often the same. First,Christians have not been careful to preserve the truth. It is asserted that those who do not wear masks are not loving their neighbors, or that those who are wearing masks are being fearful. These claims may be true, but most likely they are not. Each position is argued citing scientific studies to reinforce the position. Appeals are made to doctors, scientists, and government policies to bolster the preferred perspective. And none of those things make it clear that the motivation of our fellow man is lack of love or sinful fear. Rather than making statements that are likely not true, it is the joyful duty of the Christian to restrict his statements to things that are known to be true.

Consider the claim is that those not wearing masks are not loving their neighbors. The presence or absence of risk is not an indicator of the presence or absence of love. Our lives are filled with risk. I heard the other day of a 39 year-old mother who fell out of a golf cart while carrying a her baby. In an effort to protect the child, she did not brace herself and died as a result of her fall. Was it unloving of the driver to allow the woman to get into the cart knowing there is risk involved? Certainly not. To assert risk equals lack of love is simply not true and demonizes a Christian brother or sister with perfectly loving intentions. To equate the introduction of risk with lack of love is neither fair nor accurate. And we are charged as Christians to promote the truth in the ninth commandment (Exodus 20:16). 

The claim that those who wear masks are fearful. It is one thing to decide not to wear a mask. It is quite another to assert that those wearing a mask are motivated by fear. There are many reasons people may decide to wear a mask in response to COVID. It is not different than other areas of life. People watch their diet and exercise to promote good health. They wear seatbelts when driving. Smoke detectors are installed in homes. None of these are necessarily acts of fear. They are most often just attempts to be prudent. To assert wearing a mask equals fear is simply not true. And we are charged as Christians to promote the truth in the ninth commandment (Exodus 20:16).

Second, Christians have (again) proved themselves prone to pride. In the lack of charity on display between people, also believers, it is clear people have an unhealthy opinion of their own conclusions. The vast majority of folks are far from qualified to make a definitive statement of the benefits or draw-backs of wearing a mask. 99+% of people are just trying to make the best decision they can with their limited understanding. In Ephesians 4:2, Paul urges the Ephesian church to “walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” People are not “sheeple” if they wear a mask. They are not simple-minded dolts if they do not.

After COVID is over (and that will happen), churches everywhere will return to regular corporate worship. My plea today is that the church behave in such a way as to make that return easy, and free from bitterness and party-spirit. There is an oft-quoted phrase from church history that can and should be applied to the current situation: “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.” Masks are not the indicator of orthodoxy. Be charitable to your fellow-Christian. “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.” (Ephesians 4:32).

The Church and Culture

Conflict

The church’s relationship to the culture is a tenuous one. Especially in these tumultuous times of COVID-19, quarantine protests, and Black Lives Matter, the church must use discernment regarding its relationship to the ideas put forward and accepted within its culture. Culture is defined by google as: “the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group.” That seems a fair definition. So how does the church interact with those customs, arts, institutions, and achievements?

The answer to that question will, of course, depend on the level of faithfulness to God’s word the culture displays. A society whose culture is righteous will require little oppostion from the church, but one whose foundation is the philosophy of man will frequently bump heads with the church. What today’s culture needs is not the affirmation of the church, but rather her calls for repentance.

The church seems to have lost its prophetic voice. Of course, that is not true of all churches. There are many faithful churches that boldly proclaim God’s word. But it seems to me there are more that are simply mimicking the words of the culture, and pushing the word of God aside. And therein is the problem. The authority of Scripture, based in the Lord who gives it, makes adherence to the teaching of the Bible the distinguishing mark of the Christian. And if culture is doing anything contrary to God’s word, it is neither safe nor wise for the church to adopt or associate with that thing. There must always be an obvious identity in the Christian: an identity defined by his relationship with Christ as defined in the Bible.

Today the more popular cultural voices are in opposition to God’s word. For example, the Black Lives Matter movement enjoys tremendous popularity, also within the church. And yet it stands diametrically opposed to the Lord. Its website proudly proclaims: “We affirm the lives of Black queer and trans folks, disabled folks, undocumented folks, folks with records, women, and all Black lives along the gender spectrum. Our network centers those who have been marginalized within Black liberation movements.” However, the seventh commandment forbids homosexuality, transgenderism, and gender confusion. It is an attack on the very character of God the Creator and defined as sin. Or in another place it states: “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.” But God charges parents to train up their children in the fear of His great name (Eph. 6:4). So there is irreconcilable divergence at the foundation of the Christian faith and the organization Black Lives Matter. The former flows from the Bible, the latter is foundationally opposed to Scripture.

Christian, how will people identify you? If someone does not know you, will they quickly discern that you are Christian from your social media posts, by your choice of words, by the decisions you make throughout the week? The reality is, the Christian cannot take on itself an identity that is partially rooted in the world. Consider these verses from the New Testament. Paul says, “Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.” (1 Corinthians 2:12, ESV). In another place the apostle says, “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” And in yet another instance the apostle John states: “They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them.” (1 John 4:5). The point of those verses is all the same. The world does not have the same voice as the church, and the church should not copy it.

It is important to remember that very basic truth especially in our days. The Christian church must stand on the Bible if it is to maintain its witness at all. The world will not be content until the bride of Christ has become an adulterous wife. But I am afraid that in North America she is already well on her way.

Children in Church

One of the advantages of having your children with you during the worship service is that you will sing the same songs, pray the same prayers, and hear the same sermon preached. Sharing in this kind of worship is crucial to the inter-generational health of the church. There are many people who have written about the benefit of including children in worship. This article is not meant to rehearse those points. Instead, it is meant to discuss how you can ensure your child is able to participate in worship without distracting others from worship.

The first thing to note is that children must be taught to participate in worship at home. If you try to teach your children to worship God when you are at church, you will fail. Not only does your child quickly recognize that he has you in a hostage situation (that’s right, they think in those terms), you also will not be able to teach and direct them in the moment. What you will have is a recipe for a frustrated and maybe even exasperated parent. Just yesterday my youngest son who is 3 years old cried out when mom thought she had to be an emergency fill-in at the piano. That incident was a good reminder that we have more work to do with that little guy. But that training should not begin at church. Instead, train your children at home to prepare them to participate in corporate worship. Some suggestions:

Teach your children the songs of your church. It doesn’t matter if you are part of a church that sings contemporary songs, or one that has convictions of singing only psalms. Most of us will probably be somewhere in between. Wherever you are on the spectrum, make sure you are teaching your children the songs that are sung at your church. Pick the ones sung most often first and build a repertoire. If you are not a good singer, find the songs on YouTube or buy CDs with the songs on them. Children can learn songs quickly. Knowing the songs of the church will allow them to participate in the worship of the church.

Teach your children the prayers of your church. In the congregation I serve, we recite the Lord’s Prayer every Sunday. If your church has something similar, it is good for your children to know the Lord’s Prayer, or whatever else it may be. That means parents must teach them this prayer at home. It is true. They will probably be saying some words they do not completely understand. However, when your children are young complete comprehension is not the goal. Rather it is to teach them that they belong to the church. They must learn they are part of the body, and so they must see themselves participating in the body. Certainly that goal changes as they get older.

Teach your children to sit still without any external stimuli. Children are easily distracted in church. Some will hone their drawing skills. Others will be entertained with iPads. Parents are likely trying to achieve a measure of order through these devices. But there is a better way. As parents you must instill in your children the ability to listen. That means you must find opportunities at home to teach your children the skills they need to participate in worship.

For example, when you read the Bible together as a family, teach your children to sit still. That means no coloring or doodling, no iPad or iPhone to keep them quiet. Just sitting and listening. That is all. For the little ones do not make this time too long. Do so in short stints of 5 minutes or less. You may need to hold them on your lap. You may tell them that now is not the time to play but to listen. But you must require their compliance and accept nothing less than compliance. When your children are older you should be able to explain what you are trying to accomplish. That will give your children the skills to participate in worship. And then when your children hear something in the song or sermon or Bible reading and smile up at you knowingly, you smile at them, affirm them in their listening, and continue to lead them toward Christ at home.

By training giving your children the right knowledge and skills, you will give them opportunities to participate in the most important aspect of the life of the church: the worship of God. But to help your children see this benefit you must teach them at home first. And from the home they can be a welcome part of the life of the church.

Is the Main Thing Still the Main Thing?

There are times when a good thing becomes so inflated in a person’s thinking that it actually knocks him off balance. I am afraid this very thing is taking place in the Presbyterian Church in America around the issue of racial reconciliation. It is good to consider whether there is on-going guilt for racial sin in our denomination, but I think this endeavor has become a controlling impulse, distracting the PCA from its primary mission: to be faithful to the Scriptures, true to the reformed faith, and obedient to the Great Commission. Before I go any further, let me grant a few points:

  1. There are cultural differences in the PCA. Even those, such as myself, attempting to operate as “color blind”, have to acknowledge diversity among the people of the PCA. We should also admit these differences benefit the church.
  2. Racism does exist in the church. I have seen it with my own eyes in the PCA. I would not characterize it as frequent, or common in my almost 10 years in the deep south, but it does exist. That reality should not be surprising. Sinners sin, even after they are regenerated by the Spirit. Any sin is to be repented of and addressed with discipline if needed.
  3. Scripture identifies the church as made up of people from all tongues, tribes, and nations. There is a “unity in diversity” in the church of Jesus Christ. There should be no dividing wall or favoritism based on any criteria. We are one people, the people of God.

However, granting these points does not permit the church to turn from what is central in Scripture. God’s message of redemption is not primarily concerned with man being reconciled to man. That can happen without any hint of regeneration. Instead, Christ assumed human flesh so he could reconcile all his people to God. But what is happening in the PCA is a change of focus, manifest in how certain passages of Scripture are interpreted.

The PCA’s Report on Racial and Ethnic Reconciliation uses Ephesians 2:11-19 to prove racial reconciliation as a biblical idea. The point is not whether or not that concept is good. I think the vast majority of PCA members would say so. The question is whether Scripture is being used correctly. The report speaks of the dividing wall of hostility and the uniting of races of all color in God’s people (RRER 2409:8-23). In using this text for this purpose, the report changes the emphasis of that passage into something it is not. Paul is not focused on the reconciliation between races in Ephesians 2. That may be an implication that can be derived from what he is saying, but it is not his point. Rather he is speaking of man being reconciled to God. The “dividing wall of hostility” is not between two races, cultures or ethnicities, but God and man. This passage does not even speak of race, but uses covenantal terms to describe all the world: Jew and Gentile.

There are two groups into which God divides men. The first is the Jews who received special status as God’s people in the Old Testament. With the coming of Christ, the Gentiles, who are excluded in the OT are grafted into the olive tree (Rom. 11:17). Interestingly, the Gentiles make up all the other people of the world, with all the different colors of skin that God created. It is true these are all united to each other by faith, but that is not what Paul has in view. Ephesians 2 explains how the Gentiles as well as the Jews are reconciled to God, not to each other. They are saved because God himself tears down the “dividing wall of hostility” between them and himself. Man’s relationship with man is not in view.

The fact there are cultural differences in the PCA does not mean the ordinary means of grace are not sufficient to overcome them. The presence of the sin of racism does not justify an elevation of this sin beyond all the others committed in the church. The inclusion of all tribes, tongues and nations in the PCA should be expected, because God promises that it will happen. These statements are not meant to offend or minimize anyone’s experience when it comes to race. They are simply meant to restore a measure of balance which is currently lacking.

So what is an alternative way of moving forward?

  1. Pray that God would bless the ministry of the church, both to its members and the world (Phil. 4:4-6);
  2. Welcome all people into our churches without showing favoritism (James 2:8-9);
  3. Preach the word in season and out of season, administer the sacraments, and pray (Rom. 10:14-15);
  4. Disciple men and women in what it means to live thankful lives before the Lord. Reprove, rebuke, and exhort. Lead them to repent of the sins of which they are guilty (2 Tim. 4:2);
  5. When any man in the congregation proves himself qualified, and they are elected by the congregation as elders and deacons, submit to their leadership joyfully (Heb. 13:17);
  6. Serve the Lord together (Rom. 12:9-11).

It may seem overly simplistic, but that is my understanding of how God promises to gather all tribes, tongues and nations to himself. The church’s ministry should be pre-occupied with God’s reconciling work in our lives. The church is to be pre-occupied with worshiping the Lord. This focus is what the church must lead with. Always. Nothing should replace this emphasis. When something does, even when that something is good and right in its proper place, the church suffers in the end.

Are Images of Jesus Allowed?

Ten Commandments

“The sins forbidden in the second commandment are…the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever;” (Westminster Larger Catechism, #109)

My experiences as an elder and pastor in the Presbyterian Church in America have shown a lack clarity and/or agreement on the application of the 2nd commandment as it pertains to representing the Son in pictures. There is a range of positions pastors and elders take in the PCA. At risk of over-simplifying the issue, let me try to summarize the positions, as I have seen them expressed.

One group affirms the plain confessional view as summarized above in WLC #109, which prohibits any representation of God. Another group would object to depicting him in corporate worship, but would allow pictures of him in children’s Bibles and Sunday School material. The last group would hold that images of Jesus are not problematic since it is not accompanied with worship. In this article, I want to give reasons why the first view is the strongest.

In Scripture, no description is given of Jesus. Therefore, no artist knows his hair or eye color, or anything else about his appearance. Any picture of him must be the product of the artist’s imagination. Yet the artist paints the picture for the purpose of making an impression on those who will see it. That picture will shape thoughts about God of anyone who sees it, and thereby influence his worship. By way of example, most representations of the Son will focus on his human nature. However, that is an incomplete depiction. In that sense, pictures of Jesus over-emphasize his humanity at the expense of his divinity. Therefore, the confession rightly urges Christians to rely only on God’s word to shape their understanding of Christ. Shorter Catechism #50 says, “The second commandment requireth the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath appointed in his Word.” In doing so, it summarizes the teaching of God through the apostle Paul who said, “Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imaginations of man.” (Acts 17:29, ESV). Only God’s revelation is suitable to inform our impression of him.

In addition, pictures of Jesus affect our children. Showing our children a representation of Jesus will shape and mold their impression of him. Children’s Bibles and Sunday School materials often portray Jesus in cartoon form. The effect: Jesus’ majesty, glory, power, and splendor is removed in the child’s mind. Rather than helping them understand who Jesus is, these pictures form a cheaper, weaker impression of our Savior. Again, this impression will be carried along in worship, even only in their minds. They will worship an impression of Christ not given by God, but created by a cartoonist. Jesus can never be drawn so faithfully as it represents him as he truly is: fully God and fully man. No matter how gifted the artist, he will always fall short.

There is also a historical precedent within the church for us to respect when it comes to this issue. I understand church history is not on the same level as Scripture, but it is wise to consider the actions of the church in the past. In John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion he argues that images of Christ were not used in the church for the first five centuries (Book 1, Chapter 11.13). In addition, the Westminster Standards, Heidelberg Catechism, 2nd Helvetic Confession, and London Baptist Confession 1689, just to name a few, all forbid the representation of God in any form. The church in history has understood the 2nd commandment to forbid what we seem so eager to embrace. Today’s church would do well not to needlessly move a well-established fence.

Pastors, elders, Sunday School teachers, and parents, I make my appeal to you. It is not an appeal that questions your intentions, but is rather a call to re-consider. Do not introduce something that would harm your sheep and children in that way. Protect them from an inaccurate worship of God. Heed the words of John Calvin:

“And from the fearful infatuation under which the world has hitherto laboured, almost to the entire destruction of piety, we know too well from experience that the moment images appear in churches, idolatry has as it were raised its banner; because the folly of manhood cannot moderate itself, but forthwith falls away to superstitious worship.” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 11.13)

We have enough trouble being faithful to God’s word without starting at the place where God has said, you shall not worship me in that way.

 

PCA Study Committee Report » Recommendation #8

After a week of vacation and a week of study leave, it’s time to finish up the consideration of the recommendations made by the study committee on women’s roles in the worship of the church, which were adopted at the PCA’s 45th General Assembly. All that is left to consider is the eighth recommendation which reads:

That sessions, presbyteries and the General Assembly consider how they can affirm and include underprivileged and underrepresented women in the PCA.

The language of the recommendation is structured in such a way that no action is required or suggested, except for the action of considering. The courts of the church are asked to reflect on a specific issue: affirming and including underprivileged and underrepresented women in the PCA. The first thing to be done in order to understand this recommendation is to clarify the meaning.The recommendation does not clarify where these people suffer from underprivilege and underrepresentation. However the rationale included in the report clarifies who is in view.

When the report speaks of the underrepresented, it refers to the racial emphasis that has become part of life in the PCA. When introducing the idea of reaching the nations in the ministry of the church the report states: “Unfortunately, the PCA, though it upholds the mandate to make disciples of the nations, has yet to see the demographics in diverse communities reflected in local churches.” (2463). In other words, underrepresentation is seen by the report as a lack racial representation of certain ethnic minorities within the church. Whatever ethnic groups are underrepresented should be affirmed and included in the church courts.

The report also clarifies who is in view when it comes to being underprivileged. Again, in the rationale provided by the committee, it cites Mary, the mother of Jesus, as an example of the underprivileged. When defining her place the report does so along class lines: “To use today’s language, her family was not middle class, yet she participated in the church in a unique, yet honorable and God-glorifying manner (cf. 1 Tim. 2:15).” (2463). From Mary’s unique place as the mother of Christ, the report concludes that women should be affirmed and included no matter what their income is: “The committee affirms, therefore, that even if women are in a lower tax bracket, they are to be embraced as valuable, of equal dignity and worth, and included in various ministries of the church.” (2463). The report is calling the church courts to affirm and include people based on their income.

It is difficult to know how to respond to this rationale and recommendation because it seems to be stating the obvious. It is true that the church should embrace all tribes and tongues and nations. God is Lord of them all and has sent the church to make disciples, baptize and teach them all to live in obedience to Christ their Savior (Cf. Matt. 28:19-20). It is true that the church is living in sin if it shows favoritism to the rich (Cf. Jam 2:2-4). So, it seems the report recommends to the church something that is properly basic. However, I think the recommendation itself has an unhealthy emphasis. Part of me wants to say that if we are speaking of the church it is impossible to speak of underrepresentation and underprivilege. I know that at times the church has sought to exclude those of different races or has shown favoritism to the rich, but those are not, in my experience, the sins that characterize our denomination.

To single out people in the church based on their ethnicity or income levels does something that Scripture explicitly works against. It breaks the church into groups of people rather than unite it as the body of Christ. Take for example, Gal. 3:28. This verse denies the very categories the report seeks to exhort us to recognize. In Galatians Paul says that in Christ’s view of his justified children there is neither Jew nor Greek (racial or ethnic divide), nor slave nor free (class division). To single out a specific group to affirm and include them seems to be contrary to that view of the body. We are in Christ. We are called Christians and there is no hyphenation in the body of Christ.

Therefore if the report felt the need to exhort the church on this point, I think it would have been better said that the church should enfold, include, love, labor for, seek to serve all its members, whether male or female, wherever, and in whatever circumstance they may be found. To divide the church into male and female, and introduce the categories of underrepresentation based on race or underprivilege based on income seems to be an unhealthy distinction not found in Scripture. We are Christians, the body of Christ. All members of the body should be loved, included and affirmed.