I haven’t posted for several weeks. The semester was wrapping up, and holiday travels began. I’ll be writing again soon.
On another note, this is the first post from my new computer. Thanks, Mom and Dad!
I haven’t posted for several weeks. The semester was wrapping up, and holiday travels began. I’ll be writing again soon.
On another note, this is the first post from my new computer. Thanks, Mom and Dad!
I recently received a question from a dear friend asking me to comment on a blog post entitled, "Why I Do Not Attend Church." The author of the blog is a woman who refers to herself as Jean. Her view that there is no more true local church made up of true Christians is not unique. This is a growing trend in American Christianity. As people become disillusioned with the imperfections in the church, they abandon it and attempt to keep their personal relationship with Christ apart from the church. George Barna, well-known Christian pollster and cultural analyst, has written a book about the trend: Revolution (Greg Gilbert has written a helpful review of the book). A more thorough treatment of the subject would be helpful, but in order to respond in a timely way to the question posed to me, I'll deal specifically with the most serious problems with the blog post reference above.
In the New Testament, the universal church (all true believers everywhere) is not easily distinguished from the local church (a local assembly of believers who join together for worship and the pursuit of “the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God” [Eph. 4:13]). By my count, the Greek word for church (ekklesia) appears 77 times in the New Testament. 67 of those are in reference to local churches. Jean is giving up on the local church but seeking to maintain her commitment to the universal church. She says concerning true Christians, “There may be a few here, one there, two there and so on,” and these few are scattered "all over the earth." So she concludes that there is no way to assemble a true church in this present day and age: “We have to wait for the next life when we will all be together with our Lord Jesus Christ.” If Jean is right about this then the express New Testament purpose of the church has failed. The church is supposed to be a demonstration in the present age to the rulers, authorities, principalities and powers in heavenly places that Christ has conquered Satan at the cross, redeemed a people for himself, and is going to rule in uncontested fashion one day. It is the church that represents that victory. It is the church that sends that message (Ephesians 3:8-10). If believers are so sparse that assembly in this life is hopeless, then the existence of the church is not sending a message of victory to principalities and powers.
Furthermore, when Paul wants to instruct the true church, he does not compose a letter to be sent to the four winds, hoping that the few isolated Christians out there will stumble upon it. Rather, he writes to local congregations. He writes to the church at
On another note, when the New Testament speaks of the church as the body of Christ, that imagery is used with respect to the universal church (Eph. 1:19-23) and the local church (1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4:11-16 – this is clearly a local church situation because of the way Paul speaks of the individuals in the church working together toward “unity of the faith and knowledge of the Son of God”). If the universal church is the body, so also is the local church. To reject the local church is to reject the body of Christ. To say that there is no longer any such thing as a true local church is to say that the body of Christ is no longer present in the world, except in a dismembered form which no one can recognize.
Finally, Jean’s understanding of what it means to be a "saint" is informed by something other than the New Testament. For Jean, a saint is someone whose allegiance is perfectly directed toward Christ, with no room for error, failure, missteps, and no need for growth and maturity. In fact, after reading Jean’s post, especially the second paragraph, I am convinced that Jean believes she is the only true Christian she knows personally. She is clearly not paying attention to the way the New Testament uses the word “saint.” In the New Testament, a “saint” is certainly someone who is a truly born again believer in Jesus Christ. But consider the Christians at
To reject the local church is to reject the assembly of the saints (Hebrews 10:25). Certainly not all assemblies which bear the name “church” are true to that description. But to begin imposing standards of definition on the church which are inconsistent with and contradictory to the teaching of Scripture is problematic. The gospel of Jesus Christ sets the boundaries for whom and what really constitutes the body of Christ. Any other imposed boundary is legalism.
So, don't quit on the local church. Unite with the church, and labor diligently to serve Christ by serving his body, striving to play your part in helping the whole body grow toward a "unity of the faith and knowledge of the Son of God" (Eph. 4:13).
Of course, the word “biblical” is in quotes on purpose. If by the word, biblical, we mean “consistent with the message of Scripture,” then biblical theology is never bad theology. But if by the word, “biblical”, we simply mean that we derived the theology out of the pages of the Bible, then “biblical” theology may very well be bad theology.
The book of Ecclesiastes forms a perfect example of how one could draw some really bad theological conclusions from the text of the Bible itself. The writer of Ecclesiastes (probably Solomon), is an extraordinarily intelligent and wise man. He has very keen powers of observation, and he writes much that resonates with us based on his own observations of life in a fallen world. Nevertheless, the book of Ecclesiastes (unlike Proverbs) does not present us with the wisdom of King Solomon at its finest, but at its worst. For all of his depth of wisdom, Solomon’s thoughts and reflections led him to declare at the outset of the book: “Vanity of vanities; All is vanity” (1:2). In other words, careful and penetrating observations of the world around him have led him to the inevitable conclusion that life is meaningless. He uses the word “vanity” (meaninglessness) or “futility” no less than 30 times throughout the book to describe life. And by the end of Solomon’s reflections, we find that his view of ultimate meaning has not changed. Solomon ends the way he began: “Vanity of vanities; All is vanity” (12:8).
If a reader immerses himself in the text of Ecclesiastes 1:1 – 12:8, looking to form his theology from the text of Scripture, then he might arrive at the following theological conclusions along with King Solomon:
God is real, but he is elusive. His workings in the world are such that he keeps men in the dark. He does not wish for us to discover any meaning to life. (Eccl. 3:10-18)
I will not take the time to correct these theological conclusions. It is enough to say that all of them are drawn from the text of Ecclesiastes. The great problem here is that the whole book of Ecclesiastes (and its message of meaningless) finds meaning in the closing paragraph. In this paragraph someone other than Solomon (note the shift to the third-person voice) warns against Solomon’s conclusions and advises a very different conclusion: "Fear God and keep his commandments" (Eccl. 12:13). Many have remarked that while Solomon’s observations are all drawn from “under the sun,” the last paragraph of Ecclesiastes advises us to get “over the sun.” The point here is this. If we are not careful readers who give careful attention to context and the overall flow of discourse, we can very easily derive bad theology from biblical texts.
Not very many evangelical Christians arrive at the conclusions listed above after reading the book of Ecclesiastes. Nevertheless, many other more subtle conclusions have been drawn from a careless reading of the biblical text:
God wants me to be happy (Psalm 128:2; Eccl. 3:22). So, it’s OK for me to (fill in the blank) .
The worship of the Ammonite god Molech was probably the most grotesque and offensive of all the pagan practices in the
Molech worship involved the sacrifice of one’s children as a burnt offering on an altar called Topheth. The Scriptures refer to the practice as making sons and daughters “pass through the fire.” King Solomon built altars to Molech, though it is not stated that he offered any of his children on them. King Ahaz did offer his son to Molech, and his grandson, Manasseh, followed suit. The logic of this form of worship seems quite simple. As a sign of gratitude to the deity, a worshipper is to offer his best in return. Molech gave his best to the worshipper, and the worshipper gives his best to Molech.
Of course, there are many reasons that Molech worship is seen as a treacherous offense in the Bible’s discourse, but two reasons in particular stand out for this discussion:
Parenting: Early Years Magazine recently published an article entitled “Frozen Dreams” (August 2009). The headline reads: “There are nearly half a million embryos stored across the country – and the couples who created them now wrestle with the options of what to do next.” In the article, Laura Beil discusses the options available to such couples. Three options are presented in the article:
Not discussed separately as an option, but discussed throughout the article is a fourth choice: Have more children, personally or through a surrogate.
Bear in mind that frozen embryos are fertilized eggs. Conception has occurred, even if in a test tube, and if given a suitable womb, that embryo will one day have a name and a face. For a consistent pro-life Christian who is convinced (as I am) that life begins at conception (Psalm 139:13), either #1 above or the choice to have more children are legitimate options. Thawing without donating (#3) seems to be the easiest one to rule out (for the pro-lifer). But what about option #2? Is donation to medical research (embryonic stem cell research) a true “middle ground,” as Beil says some couples suggest?
Stephanie Smith and her husband are presented as a pro-life couple with “religious convictions.” They considered donating to another infertile couple. “The more she and her husband thought about it, however, the more unsettled they became,” says Beil. “She didn’t know if she’d ever stop searching crowds for little girls who looked just like hers.” Stephanie and her husband resolved their dilemma by donating the embryos to medical research, an act which they considered “a gesture of gratitude to a system that had given them their dreams” (emphasis added). There are many couples like Stephanie and her husband who are comforted by donating to science, even though they know the embryos will not survive. Dr. Anne Drapkin Lyerly of
Such a trend ought to make the blood of every Christian run cold. To whom is gratitude being offered? To the science which provided the gift of children. What is the expression of gratitude? The offering of the rest of the children.
The name Molech may not be invoked, and formal worship procedures may not be followed. Nevertheless, gratitude is here misplaced. One wonders if the God who grants children as a gift (Psalm 127:3) does not perceive the so-called supreme act of gratitude to science as the supreme act of ingratitude to Himself. One also has to wonder if that same beguiling serpent is not just as delighted in the sacrifice made in the laboratory test tube as in the sacrifice made on Topheth in the