Charismatic Questions Spontaneity!

Bob Kauflin, tall, humble & happy, classicly-trained worship czar of Sovereign Grace ministries has been behind much good for Christ’s church.  (Get and listen to Sovereign Grace’s new CD’s Valley of Vision and Savior: Celebrating the Mystery of God Become Man.)  Bob is now in the process of writing a new book on worship which promises to be good, readable, helpful, even by the standards of this regulative-principle, Calvinistic, hymn-loving Baptist reader.   Bob is one of the best, most well-read, most pastorally-senstive conversation partners on the whole topic of worship that God has ever given me.  I have learned and do continue to try to learn from him.

Here’s one good quotation in which Bob is typically clear-headed and carefully reasoned:  "I’m a spontaneous guy and love to hear people share freely from their hearts.  However, I’ve learned that in most cases having people read their testimonies is preferable to having them speak without notes.  The drawback is that people can sound a little impersonal or stiff.  But the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages.  People don’t head down rabbit trails, they stay within their allotted time, their thoughts can be edited in advance for clarity and content, and they are less anxious.  Written notes also allow them to deviate briefly when appropriate, but give them something to return to."

Bob goes on to give cautions about being too planned.  His logic is ours at Capitol Hill Baptist Church for asking our baptismal candidates to write out their testimonies before they are baptized, and really for me writing out my sermons ahead of time! 

In these comments, as elsewhere, Bob shows himself to be my kind of "decently-and-in-order" charismatic brother!

Thankful for elders

Yesterday morning we had a wonderful time together as a congregation.  One of the high points was a moment that is fairly rare in our church’s life–all our elders came up front in the service.  Our new elders were taking vows, as was the congregation, and we were praying for them.  Having the elders there together, with the congregation pledging their prayers and support was moving.  A number of members commented to me afterwards about how much they appreciated the ministry of the elders in our congregation.  They were encouraged to see all these men standing there, from diverse backgrounds, committed to Christ and to our congregation.

Some readers may think this is strange stuff for a Baptist to write, but here’s what the faithful London pastor John Gill wrote in his commentary on III John 10:  “the pastor, and though there is a pre-eminence, which of right belongs to such an officer, as to preside over the church, to govern, guide, and direct, according to the laws of Christ, he being set over the church, as a ruler, governor, and guide; yet this may be carried too far, as it was by this man, who coveted more than was his due, and lorded it over God’s heritage, ruled the flock with force and cruelty, and usurped a tyrannical power over them; whereas every thing in a church ought to be done, by pastor and people, in love, meekness, and with mutual consent. And it may be also, that he sought to have the pre-eminence over the rest of the elders of the church, for in those large churches there were oftentimes more elders and pastors than one (see Acts 20:17, 28; Phil. 1:1)."

Deceptive Prosperity

It can be true of us as individuals.  It can be true of our churches.  It is the danger of deception, deception which comes with evident prosperity.  What if there is prosperity in our life, but also sin?  What if there is prosperity in our life right now, but sin God hates?  What if there is prosperity in our life, but the sin–hateful to God–is practically invisible to us?  We’ve become accustomed to it.  We don’t want to "see" it. 

And yet sin’s invisibility to us only increases its danger for us.  As Edmund Calamy said to his congregation in his final sermon, when some of them may have been pitying Calamy for his ejection from his pastorate, Calamy, acting even as a shepherd in his last sermon to his flock, was alerting them to the dangers inherent in their own prosperity.  A timely word for us.

"May be some will say, I have committed many . . . sins, but am not brought into any strait. Remember, it was nine months after David had numbered the people before he was in this strait; but as sure as God is in heaven, sin will bring straits sooner or later; though one sin a hundred years, yet shall he be accursed; may be thy prosperity makes way for thy damnation; and this is thy greatest distress, that thou goest on in sin and prosperity."
Edmund Calamy in his "Farewell Sermon," [Farewell Sermons, p. 11].

Confront or Adapt

Reading through recent mailouts of upcoming pastors conferences, knowing some of the speakers’ books and churches, reading the topics to be addressed, I’m struck again by the carefulness with which a faithful pastor must consider the issue of adapting the unchanging Gospel to his current context.  Of course contextualization always takes place, whether acknowledged or unacknowledged.  To acknowledge it is better, because then we are more self-aware of choices we’re making, and we are also better able to be examined by others on those choices.  Such awareness of our contextualizing also encourages humility, and hinders us from claiming alone to be the "I am of Christ" kind of party that Paul warned the Corinthians about.

And yet, contextualization presumes either positive or at least neutral cultural images or ways of communication which can be used by the Gospel.  Are there any cultural images or ways of communicating that can’t be used for Gospel purposes?  The answer would have to be "Yes", (though we might disagree about what those are). 

And what happens when a certain image or mode of communicating is inextricably linked with an anti-Christian worldview?  David Wells summarizes the issue:  “To put the matter succinctly: those who see only the contemporaneity of this spirituality—and who, typically, yearn to be seen as being contemporary—usually make tactical maneuvers to win a hearing for their Christian views; those who see its underlying worldview will not. . . . When rival worldviews are in play, it is not adaptation that is called for but confrontation.”David Wells, Above All Earthly Pow’rs (2005), pp. 155-156.

To find out more of what David specifically uses as an example, you’ll need to turn to that section of his book.  But in all our concern for evangelism and contextualization (excellent, Christ-like concerns) we should not be blind to implications of our decisions.

In a decision you’re making right now about your own congregation, could you imagine a situation in which your intention is simply to adapt becoming a situation in which you would have no option but to confront?  It’s worth thinking about.

Un-Locke the Church!

Reflecting on the blessings God has given us in the United States, freedom of religion is certainly chief among them.  And for them, we owe God thanks for one certain letter, which began:

"Honored Sir, Since you are pleased to inquire what are my thoughts about the mutual toleration of Christians in their different professions of religion, I must needs answer you freely that I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true church. For whatsoever some people boast of the antiquity of places and names, or of the pomp of their outward worship; others, of the reformation of their discipline; all, of the orthodoxy of their faith—for everyone is orthodox to himself—these things, and all others of this nature, are much rather marks of men striving for power and empire over one another than of the church of Christ. Let anyone have never so true a claim to all these things, yet if he be destitute of charity, meekness, and goodwill in general toward all mankind, even to those that are not Christians, he is certainly yet short of being a true Christian himself.”

So John Locke writes in his Letter Concerning Toleration, (p.13). Locke’s theology is certainly confused, but he went on to argue in his letter that folks of various theological persuasions had sufficient morality in common to be able to have a common, shared society.  2 quick comments: 

1.  Whether or not Locke (and the American founders) were right in this supposition is still open to question.  When this letter was penned, abortion was assumed to be infanticide and homosexuality was considered immoral.  What happens when large parts of the population no longer share such moral conclusions?

2.  Locke’s toleration somehow slipped from society at large into the church itself.  As Robert Oliver has observed, “By the second decade of the eighteenth century it is clear that Locke’s Letter concerning Toleration was being used in a new way. Christians were moving beyond a readiness to tolerate heretics outside the church to a reluctance to discipline them within its bounds.”

I leave larger societal reflections to others more qualified than I.  About the church, however, surely Christ clearly taught that false teachers would arise, that wolves would imitate sheep, that discernment would be needed and that discipline should be practiced.  I just preached this morning on II Peter 2, a clear call for false teachers to be rejected.  The New Testament has many other echoes of Christ’s teaching in Matthew 24 (and elsewhere).

Confusing the world and the church is dangerous on just about any level, but cultivating a "toleration" about differing ways of salvation in the church is absolutely suicidal.  Intolerance of serious error in the church promotes the Gospel.  Particularly if you are a pastor reading this, join me in agreeing to work to un-Locke our churches!

An Old Time FPC Thanksgiving Story

Thanks Mark and C.J. Happy Thanksgiving! I don’t have much to add by way of customs and habits for spiritually benefitting from this great holiday, but a number of years ago, Otho Johnson (one of our elders) pointed me to this interesting historical note, relating to The Rev. L.J. Halsey, who was the minister of our congregation, First Presbyterian Church, Jackson from 1842-1848.

THANKSGIVING AS VIEWED BY A CITIZEN
John Munn, who was born in Connecticut, was a merchant and banker living in Canton, Mississippi, when Governor Brown issued his Thanksgiving proclamation. Mr. Munn recorded in his journal on November 25, 1847:

“An unusual scene has been witnessed in our village and state this day. By appointment of Governor Brown it was selected as a day of ‘Thanksgiving’—and for the first time in this state has such a date been set apart for such purpose. This good old New England custom was a long time confined to those states—in time was adopted by the Western and middle states and for the last few years had gradually come to be observed in many of the Southern states, and on this day and this year about two thirds of the states unite in rendering thanks for the mercies and benefits received during the year now drawing to a close.

“There is something grateful and pleasant to the feeling of any man of right thought and mind in contemplating such a scene, but how much more so to one who was born on the soil of New England as he sees state after state adopting so advisable a custom. Far away from that birthplace, the observance of the day here brings a flood of recollections…

“In our village the day has been observed in a manner that would have given ample satisfaction to the most rigid observer of such days in the times of its earliest appointment. All business was suspended and quiet prevailed in our streets. There was a general attendance at church to listen to the Rev. Mr. Halsey of Jackson and seldom have I listened to a more interesting and appropriate sermon. It was well adapted for a people who were assembled for the first time for such a purpose, and those listening attentively could not but have been instructed in the objects of those who first established the custom and the reasons that demand its observance.”