Articles

This is the last in a series of posts related to women serving as pastors. My point has been and is that the Bible is abundantly clear that the office and function of the Elder/Pastor/Bishop is for men only. Thus, any person who serves as a “lead pastor” or in any office in the church where the primary and priority function is the preaching and teaching of the Word of God combined with the care of the souls of the congregation is to be a man. The office of Elder/Pastor/Bishop is for men only. BUT when we come to this issue as Southern Baptists, we come with several concerns that can and have kept us from hearing with clarity what Scripture says. It is not now or ever that Scripture is unclear; it is that in too many of our churches we are not clear at all about proper biblical polity including the role of our confession of faith in the lives of our churches.

What I have sought to show in these series of articles is first that the Bible is clear about how a church is to be ordered. The local church by God’s design and declaration has two offices: Elder and Deacon. The office of the Elder serves the function of giving oversight to the church by providing the members of the church what is needed to grow up into spiritual maturity so as to function as a church in worship and before the world in witness in a manner that brings glory to God. Churches may differ on whether the church should have both “ruling elders” and “teaching elders” or whether one Body of Elders serves both functions. Churches may have a Body of Elders that is, due to the size of the church, occupied by the “lead pastor” and the men on the “staff” of the church whose ministry is primarily preaching and teaching in the context of pastoral care. Deacons are to give attention to the practical needs of the members of the church. This ministry can include mercy ministry, ministries to different groups in the church (men, women, special needs etc.), attention to the needs of the church as an organization, etc. Deacons can be men only or men and women depending on how the church chooses to develop her deacon ministry. These two offices with their complementary functions can operate both in a more hierarchical context or in a more congregational context. But the two offices and their functions are fundamentally foundational for a biblically ordered church.

When the church is rightly ordered biblically, it becomes very clear who is set apart for the work of the ministry of the Word of God in preaching/teaching and in the oversight of the congregation: it is men only. When the polity of the church is not biblically ordered, confusion rather than clarity comes in. When combined in a church with a failure to pay attention to our confession of faith as an ordering document along with a failure to see and to practice ordination for what it is biblically, confusion rather than clarity comes it. The failure to know and to practice proper biblical order when combined with a failure to give proper attention to our confession of faith with the added ingredient of failure to understand the practice of ordination biblically leads to a toxic mix that when consumed causes us to cry out as good Southern Baptists: local church autonomy.

Now let me lay my cards on the table here: local church autonomy is both a blessing and a curse to us. When employed a cultural setting where there is relative uniformity of belief about basic biblical truths, it can be a wonderful thing. It can bring people together around great biblical mandates for discipleship, education, evangelism and missions. But when the cultural middle is collapsing, local church autonomy can be a cause for the kind of confusion that leads to chaos that if left unattended can lead to complete collapse. This is where we are in the SBC with this issue of women serving as pastors of our local churches whether it is “lead pastor” or any pastoral position where the main function of the office is the preaching and teaching of the Word of God.

What it comes down to for me is whether we see this issue as a “first-order” issue or a “second-order” issue. Albert Mohler has helped us all by giving us three categories to do properly biblically directed triage on matters that confront every local church and now, our denomination. What is this issue for you? Let me give you in conclusion an analogy. Our church has gone on mission trips where the purpose was evangelism. We have taken along friends from a local Pentecostal Church who were not large enough at the time to do their own trip. Our team had one common goal: to share the Gospel with as many people as possible. Our doctrinal disagreements did not impede our call and command from God in Christ to evangelize. We have gone on other trips, however, where the goal was to assist a church plant. We were coming alongside a church planter to help this man in work that needed to be done to see God raise up a church. This church planter was clearly committed as I am to men only serving in the office of Elder to fulfill the Pastoral and Oversight functions. The issue in this context made it clear that women serving as Pastors in our local churches is no second order issue; it is indeed a first order issue. I believe that is true for our SBC as well. As I heard Ligon Duncan say once about this issue (and I am paraphrasing), “go read 1 Timothy 2 and tell me where Paul is not crystal clear in what he says about this issue.” I am praying for our SBC in New Orleans; thousands are. It will be there as always true that our gathering is not about “the issue” it is about our being faithful to the Word of God which is the only way that we can or will bring glory and honor to the Name of our great and majestic God.

The Bible is clear about God’s design for a properly ordered church. The local church is to be led by men who are set apart by the members of the church who recognize in these men a call of God upon their lives as displayed in the exercise of their gifts and abilities to serve the church as Elders. The overall responsibility of those who serve the church as Elders is to give oversight (episcopos) to the local church through the shepherding or pastoring (poimaynos) of the members of the church. These men who are called out by God through the local church are set apart for service to God in the local church. These men occupy the office of the Elder whose function is to provide what the members of the church need to grow spiritually toward maturity primarily through the proper preaching and teaching of the Word of God and the care of the souls of the members. This primary function that defines the office of the Elder also limits the office to men only.

These men are joined in the ministry of the church by those who serve as deacons. Deacons serve the church by giving attention to the physical and material needs of the members as well as in some cases giving attention to the material and financial needs of the church both as an organism and as an organization. Some churches have only men in the diaconate while other churches have both men and women serving in the diaconate depending on the parameters set by the congregation through her body of elders. The point is that the office of elder is for men only due to the function of the office. The office of deacon is for men only or for men and women depending on how a local church defines the function of this office.

This brings us to the question of ordination. The question of ordination is a slippery one for Southern Baptists for several reasons. Let’s begin with the Bible. The fundamental meaning of the word(s) for ordination is “to set apart” primarily through “the laying on of hands.” We see the concept of ordination on full display in the ordination of the priests in the Old Testament. The system of the priesthood served necessary functions under the Old Covenant in the operation of the fully developed and finely tuned sacrificial system which was at the center of first the Tabernacle and then the Temple. We then find the concept that we associate with ordination in, for example, the commissioning of Paul and Barnabas as “church planters” as recorded in Acts 13 as well as the “appointing” of Elders in the local churches that Paul and his cohorts planted on their journeys. We can add, of course, the appointment of what many consider the first deacons as recorded in Acts 6. And there are other texts that point us toward what we would consider the reasons for the practice of ordination even when we do not have a clear command from Scripture for its practice. Put simply, the Bible does not mandate ordination but at the same time the practice of ordination does not violate the principles found in Scripture to which ordination points.

Here is, however, in my opinion where it gets a little slippery. First, we are a denomination with few churches (although that is changing) who actually have Elders in place. What we have done it seems to me is either assigned that office and its functions to paid pastors and other church staff or we have seen deacons in our churches as elders. What I mean is that this is how they have functioned even when we did not use the term. The challenge with the first, which is way beyond the scope of this post, is that it opens wide the door for pastors with powerful and pleasing personalities to become popes. The challenge with the second is that it opens wide the door for a body of deacons to become a board of directors for a church that begins to act more like a corporation than a church. Our lack of clarity in so many of our churches about proper biblical polity has produced confusion about whom we should ordain and why. But we have a second issue that complicates the issue of ordination as well. Here it is: we believe in the priesthood of every and all believers. Now I don’t have time in this short post to get into how I think we have perverted what this precious doctrine means, but at its heart it means that you and I do not need professionals to give us access to God. That comes through our one and only great High Priest who alone through His blood gives us access to the living God. What it means simply is that we all stand equally condemned before God from birth with only one way of access to God. Preacher and people come to God by grace alone through faith alone by way of Christ alone. Thus, ordination does not create a difference between those who hold the office of elder and the congregation, but it does describe a distinction that has to do with the call of God to exercise a function that belongs to an office that has been established by God. Ordination does not lift the elder above but sets him apart as a servant/slave of God to be used of God to serve the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the glory of God among the members of the church. Ordination then is only for those whom the church recognizes as called by God and gifted to serve God in the office of Elder whose function is to watch over the church so as to provide for the members of the church what is needed to promote spiritual maturity and protect from satanic seductions of the members of the church. The subjects of ordination thus must be determined by what the Bible says about the persons who are to occupy the office of Elder, not by tradition or governmental liberties for claiming such things as housing allowances for those who or ordained, or even to a woman who claims a deep experience from God that has convinced her that she is “called to preach.” The setting apart for the ministry of the Elder/Pastor cannot be determined by any other criterion than what the Bible clearly states: this office and its functions is for men only.

This post is the second in a series on the question that Southern Baptists will face in June over whether women can serve as pastors in our local churches. What I am suggesting in these posts is that the question of women serving as pastors must be preceded by if not joined to other both necessary and also very critical questions. For example, we cannot really answer questions about ordination unless we know what it is biblically. When we address this issue biblically, it compels us to face the question of a properly ordered church. Does the Bible say anything at all about how the church of the Lord Jesus Christ is to be ordered or structured? I believe it does. I believe the Bible speaks very clearly about office and function of those who are called to positions of leadership in a local church.

We can go back into the Old Testament and see an order that is clear. What we find in the first testament, however, does not in any way contradict what is found in the second testament. So, I will restrict my remarks to the New Testament and specifically to Paul and to Peter. It is clear that the first leaders of the early church were apostles. Peter preached at Pentecost when the church was birthed (Acts 2). Those who were brought through repentance and faith symbolized in baptism into the church met together to focus on learning the Apostles’ Teaching (Acts 2:42). We know that when there was a crisis in the fellowship over the apparent neglecting of the Greek speaking widows that the apostles led in the appointing and “anointing” of deacons to address the needs in the church (Acts 6). Peter reminds us, however, that what emerged with the waning of the apostolic era was the emergence of Elders who were in some sense the sucsessors to the apostles (1 Peter 5:1). Peter along with Paul seem to use the word “Elder” in reference to an office in the church. What the one(s) who hold this office are to do is described in 1 Peter 5:1-5. They are to “shepherd” the flock of God (2) in a way that provides “oversight” for the sheep and the sheepfold. The office they hold is the office of Elder and the functions of the office are shepherding or pastoral care and oversight. Both seem to have reference to spiritual care. The men in this position are to care for the souls of the congregation.

Paul gathers the Elders from Ephesus to remind them of the function that they are fo fulfill giving primacy to the preaching and teaching of the Word of God (Acts 20). Paul and Barnabas make the so-called first missionary journey giving attention to appointing Elders in each church (Acts 14:23). It seems that these men were charged with the oversight of the church with clear concern for the growth of the members of the church spiritually to become increasingly faithful to Jesus as Lord. Paul sent Titus to Crete, a clearly confused church to appoint elders in the church to bring the church back on course through the teaching of sound doctrine (Titus 1:5; 2:1). And Paul lays out for Timothy the two offices that are to be in place in a properly ordered church: Elders and Deacons (1 Timothy 3). Paul gives detailed attention to what must be the character qualities of those who function in these offices. He concludes his outline of the profile of elders and deacons in 1 Timothy 3, however, by reminding Timothy that the point of having the right leaders and thus the right order is that “we might know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth,” 1 Tim. 3:14-15. The point seems to be that having the right people in these positions to fulfill the functions of these positions is of primary importance.

So, what are those in these offices to do? What is their function? Paul seems to distinguish between the Elder and Deacon at least in this way: the Elder holds a speaking position, he is particularly to be faithful in preaching and teaching the Word of God (1 Tim. 5:17). The deacon holds a serving position. The elder speaks to the church for edification and exhortation while also being involved in the necessary work of evangelism (2 Tim. 4). The deacon is involved in assessing and addressing the needs of the church in order to assure that those needs are met according to biblical criteria. The two groups or bodies work together to serve God by addressing the needs of the soul and the needs of the body. Both require different kinds of gifting in order to glorify God and build up the body of Christ most effictively. What is clear, however, in Scripture is that the office of Elder because of the primary function of the office is filled by men. What is not as clear depending on fluidity of function with deacons is whether this office can be filled by men and women. The church I served for many years saw deacons as serving the church not only as those who addressed the physical and material needs of the congregants but also attended to building needs, budget concerns, property maintenance concerns, and transportation concerns. Thus, we allowed only men to serve on the deacon body.

Here is the point: church polity should be shaped by biblical fidelity. What I am suggesting here is that in my opinion at least two things are clear in the New Testament: one, the care of souls spiritually done primarily through the preaching and teaching of the Word of God belongs to a body of elders. The name for the office is “Elder.” The purpose or function of the office is oversight of the body through faithful preaching and teaching of the Word of God and caring for the souls of the congregation as a shepherd cares for his sheep. The functions define the office and the office has no meaning apart from the functions. They belong together. Two, the elders are joined by deacons whose calling and commitment is to give attention to the physical, material, and practical concerns of the congregation. Whether this body consists of men only or men and women depends entirely on the function the local church has this body fulfilling. There is some elasticity biblically in what deacons can do and thus on who can serve; there is no stretch on what elders are called to do and thus none in who they can be. Polity matters. And it begins with our understanding of the two offices and thus the two functions set before us in Holy Scriputre.

The Southern Baptist Covnention will meet in the month of June in the city of New Orleans. This is our annual meeting when messengers from churches affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention meet to celebrate in worship, to hear reports from our various entities, and to engage in matters of business that require the attention of the messengers. The meetings which I have had the privilege to attend for many years now are often characterized by time of worship that are heavenly and times of our doing business that are, well; not so heavenly. We can appear so cooperative when we gather to pray for missionaries being appointed to hard places all over the world, but we can be so contentious when we attempt to have conversations about matters that concern us. We are like saints when we hear the preachers preach with scattered “amens” all over the room; but we are real sinners when the different sides in a debate go to the microphones to address issues upon which we differ. This year will bring together the SBC saints and sinners in one body, individually and corporately. It should be a doozy this year. I pray not but all the signs point to some potentially painful moments in our gathering.

The most pressing issues should be our praying for church planters and those who are involved in church revitalization. We should raise our hands in praise to God for the increasing support of our special offerings for North America and all over the world. We should give a standing ovation for the work of Send Relief and its being more clear in its identity and more efficient in its activity than at any time in recent history. We should celebrate with loud songs of prasie what is going on in our six seminaries with their companion colleges. And so much more. But what will most likely be headline news during our time together is how we address the issue of women serving in “Lead Pastor” positions or any other positions where the primary responsibility is the preaching and teaching of the Word of God. We are deeply divided. And the truth is that I have been among those who have said that the issue is clear: the answer is “no.” We must not have women serving as pastors or elders in our churches. I still believe that because I believe the Bible is not confusing but clear on the issue of women serving in those positions either as an office holder or serving the function of that office while not holding the office. The office and function of elders/pastors/overseers is for men only. I am convinced that the Bible speaks clearly to this issue. But I also believe that the Bible speaks equally clearly about how a church is to be ordered in terms of both offices and functions. And that is where I am confused because many of our SBC churches are apparently confused here at the base line of what constitues a properly ordered church.

That is why over the next few days/weeks depending on time I want to address several issues that we must face: what does the Bible say about a rightly ordered church, how confessional are we and if we are, how seriously do we take our confession of faith, and just how far do we go with our cherished belief in local church autonomy. These three things are really tied together in such a way that they do muddy the water in which this issue of women serving as pastors is swimming. And I am convinced that we cannot get to the bottom to find a firm place to stand until we have some clarity about these three issues. There could be many others but these three are three about which we must have some clarity if we would find any way of standing together on this issue.

My quiet time reading this morning included 2 Corinthians 1. Two words seem to dominate Paul’s mind in 2 Corinthians 1: suffering and comfort. Paul ties the two together. He is speaking of Christians facing suffering and because of that suffering being enabled by God to bring comfort to other Christians who are suffering. He is deliberately connecting suffering with comfort. He is clearly arguing that it is our suffering that provides the fodder for our feeding others who are suffering with the comfort that they need. Isn’t that wonderful? But there is a “kicker” in verse 5. Paul qualifies for us the kind of suffering about which he is speaking: “for as we share abundantly in Christ’s suffering, so through Christ, we share abundantly in comfort too.” Paul is clear: to be a Christian is to enter into the sufferings of Christ as those who suffer with Him and thus enter into the kind of living that causes us to suffer for Him. And it is those who have suffered with Him in dying with Him that thus are living in ways that enable us to suffer for Him, and thus to comfort our brothers and sisters who are with us, suffering for Him.

This verse in its context hit me in two ways. First, it reminded me that I live in a culture where a huge number of professing Christians work overtime at avoiding suffering. Their version of God and who is to us in Christ is to either keep us from suffering or to deliver us from it when it comes SO THAT we can live in the world the kinds of lives that we want to live. And the kinds of lives such folks want to live simply by watching how they live are lives that satisfy the need for pleasure producing pursuits. For example, it does not take a lot of Bible reading to learn what the Lord’s Day is and why it exists. It is not a day for us and our doing what we want to do. This means that if we abide by Scripture in the use of the Lord’s Day at least in the part of the world in which I live, we may be laughed at or at least excluded from the popular crowd. Parents may be told in subtle ways “to get with the program” when their child is chosen for a travel ball team that plays on Sunday but they choose to obey God rather than men. Suffering in some form could come and often does. Or the family that chooses to silence phones at night and hush the noise of all media so they can pray together and spend time not only finishing homework but reading and learning the Bible together. A family who does this kind of of godly parenting and is vocal about it could be seen by fellow church members as boasting or prideful. They will face suffering. This passage in 2 Corinthians hit me in a second way too. It sent me to Peter and his writing about suffering.

Peter reminds us that there are two kinds of suffering. One comes to all. We get sick. We face deadly diagnoses. We lose our jobs for reasons unrelated to our being believers. And other kinds of suffering that are simply a part of life in the world. But the kind of suffering that Peter addresses and Paul is addressing here comes in direct connection with our being Christians. This kind of suffering is happening all over the world. It is coming our way sooner than we think. It is here now for those who are faithful who understand that the mark of a true Christian is not whether we are laughing or crying but whether we are faithful or unfaithful to the full counsel of God. Solomon reminds us in Ecclesiastes, doesn’t he, that is far better to go to a funeral parlor where there is weeping than to a wedding banquet where there is laughter. The goal for every believer is not a life that is marked by laughing or cyring, but a ilfe that is lived in faithfulness to the Word of God whether it brings us laughter or tears. It will bring both along the way, but such a way of living will bring us peace and joy every day. I’ll take that with tears of laughter in my heart and in my eyes every day. Because don’t you with me want to come to the end having been as faithful in all things to God as we could be, no matter what kind of suffering it costs us?

The title of this post is lifted from one of the most influential books I have read in recent years. The book is by Ian Murray (anything and everything he writes is worth reading), Revival and Revivalism. Murray makes a distinction between these two things. The basic distinction is this: God alone brings revival. God alone initiates it, sustains it, and brings it to its end. Humans, however, love to seize upon what God is doing to manage it, manipulate it, and even to make products and profit from it. What God does is revival; what humans do is revivalism. One exalts the sovereignty of God in Christ who moves among us in the power of His Spirit while the other exalts humans and our ability to plan, to produce, and even to prostitute prayer for the purpose of achieving desired outcomes. One is totally unpredictable, like the wind; the other is very predictable, even down to manuals that are written by humans to teach us how to host and have a “genuine” revival. History is punctuated by real revivals brought by God that are inexplicable except by His moving by His Spirit and history is also punctuated by revivals that have been produced by humans. What is common to both it seems, is that revival brought by God and revivalism brought about by humans do not last. They are not intended to last. What is intended to last are the eternal fruits of faithfulness to God and His church that emerge out of genuine revival.

This post is written, of course, in the light of what is taking place at Asbury University. It is also written in the light of what has emerged and is now being experienced on other campuses across our land. What is going on? Is this revival or revivalism? Well, the truth is that only God knows. Time will tell. We shall see. Some say that this is the real thing, an extraordinary move of God. Others say that we should simply continue to rely on the ordinary means of grace in the routine and regulated by the Word of God worship of God on the Lord’s Day. So, where is the truth about what is taking place?

I have not been to Asbury to experience what is going on. I have prayed daily with great gratitude to God for what is happening there and now, on other campuses. But based upon what I have read from people I trust, there seem to be marks here of real revival. First, it came out of a rather routine and ordinary chapel service. The music was normal as was the preaching. Something extraordinary though began to happen. Second, it is marked by repentance and confession of sin accompanied by tears of joy and laughter over the goodness and grace of God. Third, to quote a friend I trust, “there is a solemnity about the movement that is very serious and sacred.” There seems to be a sense of being on holy ground in a holy situation. Fourth, there has yet not been any exerted effort to keep it going as if we could do that anyway and not turn from the light of revival into the dark recesses of revivalism. Fifth, there is an order in the midst of the ardor. One of the most well-known of Baptist historians gave us those two words: ardor and order. He used them of the the differences in Baptist churches that were more Calvinistic and intellectual and those that were more traditional and populated by the “blue collar” folks. The former was known for “order” and the latter for “ardor.” Don’t you think a church should be marked by both? Shouldn’t we be holy before God while being fully happy in Jesus? This seems to be a mark of revival and seems to be present in what is happening in our day.

I want with everything in me to believe this is real. I was saved out of the revival that I didn’t even know was happening in the late sixties and early seventies. Our rather mid-sized church saw four men ordained to pastoral ministry during those days. I was one of them. Nothing like that has happened in that church since then. Revival had come. And revival did not remain. Pray with me that whatever this is that is from God and for God will produce fruit that remains. I have thought for some time as a pastor that many in the millennial and genz generation would be the recipients of a major move of the Holy Spirit to bring revival to our churches. I have thought for some time that they are sick of much of the sick so-called Christianity in our culturally captured churches. So, we who are of the older generations (genx and boomers) should pray hard and long, and watch with joyful enthusiasm whatever it is that God is doing in our day. And we should pray that God would do a new work in our own lives. That is my prayer indeed as I bring this post to an end.

I have two goals in this post. First, I want to address the issue of how to read Scripture so as to be in a proper posture to reflect on what is read. Second, I want to show you how this works through looking at 1 Corinthians 5. Both these goals emerge out of two concerns that I have about how we too often read and reflect on Scripture. One, we come to the reading of the Bible with a lack of clarity about the kind of book we are reading. The Truth of Scripture is not discerned by reason alone but by reason inflamed by the Holy Spirit. The Bible is the Book of God. We have no hope of hearing or understanding what it is teaching us apart from being directed in our reading and reflections on what we read by the Holy Spirit. Two, I am afraid that we come sometimes to passages about which we conclude that we already know what the passage says and what the passage means. It is not that passages have increasingly new meanings. Each passage of Scripture has one primary and priority meaning that is given by God. But we who read who are in the process of growing in likeness to Christ have to grow as well in our ability to see more clearly and more fully what is in each passage. This begins by our full recognition of the kind of material we are reading when we read the Bible.

This brings me to my first issue. I have been enjoying a “quiet time” at the beginning of each day for well over forty years. I have had as the foundation of that quiet time an annual “read through the Bible” plan that I have now completed for at least thirty of those years. But what often began to happen to me some years back is that my “quiet time” could become just a part of my routine. The too often repeated result is that I was reading the assigned passages for the day in order to complete a task. I could not tell you by ten o’clock that morning what I had read at six o’clock that morning. So, I started to spend time in prayer before my Bible reading and then to remind myself before reading: this book is God’s Word. It is breathed out by God. He is the author of every word. He has graciously given this book to me in which He speaks His truth to me. Open my eyes to see it, my ears to hear it, my mind to comprehend it, my heart to receive it and my life to obey it. I have approached my “quiet time” Bible reading like this for years now. It has made a difference.

This brings me to my second issue. One of the daily readings a few weeks back was 1 Corinthians 5, It is a short chapter. The issue in the chapter is painfully plain. A man in the church is living with as in cohabiting sexually with his step-mother. Both remain active in the church. Both are living lives that clearly violate non-negotiable biblical standards. The church is silent. No discipline is taking place. And Paul writes that they must be removed from the church so as to protect the purity of the people of God in the church. They must be excluded and they must be called to repentance. And it was while I was reading this chapter for only God knows how many times that it hit me. God spoke into my heart through HIs Word.

One of my greatest concerns as a Christian and as a pastor is the unbelievable number of people to whom I speak and whom I know who sincerely profess to be Christians who are not actively involved in a local church. Many of these in my local situation left church during COVID and have not returned, and they are among a huge number who do not intend to return. Their words, “I am a Christian and do not think I have to be in church to be a Christian; it is all about who I am and how I live.” You as a reader have no idea how much I would love for that half-truth to be full, Biblical truth. Does the Bible actually teach that to be a child of God is to be an active participant in the family of God? And as I read this chapter, I was struck as if by lightning by a simple truth that is in this passage.

Here it is. The greatest punishment that the Elders of a church can bring to a true believer living in the worst kind of sin is to exclude them from the church when she gathers for the worship of God. And believe me, in my book, it does not get more gross than a man cohabiting in sin with his stepmother. But if this man and his stepmother are true believers and obviously she was not, this man will repent and will desire to be brought back into the family of God. Nothing could be more devastating to a true follower of Jesus than to be removed from the church. And this man apparently showed his colors as a committed follower of Jesus who had fallen to sin by repenting and seeking a return to the church (2 Corinthians 2:5-11).

I have read this chapter many times. I have preached through this book more than once. I had never seen this truth. It has always been there. But my great God knew that I was struggling with this issue, staying awake at night, grieving over people I love who have left the church but still sincerely believe that they are believers. And they are true believers if on the Lord’s Day they feel deep and unresolvable guilt and pain over being absent from the body. But they are not at all if they can go on week after week, month after month without repentance. What I saw was that the worst thing a church can say to a true child of God is, “keep on sinning the way you are sinning and you will be excluded from the church.” How this person responds reveals whether he loves his sin more than he does his savior; whether he would rather pursue his purpose in life rather than join the people of God on the Lord’s Day to pursue God in passionate worship of His Name. It is still true that a person who professes to know Jesus who will not come to church on the Lord’s Day will most likely not be in heaven on the day after they die. Think about it.

I think a lot, probably way too much, about cultural or nominal Christianity. One of my questions is, “how do I define it or describe it to others in a way that makes it visible?” I know it when I see it. I have seen it throughout fifty plus years of ministry in the church. It is the most popular, powerful, and prevalent form of “Christianity” in American culture. It is not biblically sound. It is far from theologically justifiable. It brings ruin to a church even while it often grows a church into large or mega status. It supports and sustains a form of pseudo Christianity that produces people who are confident that they are on their way to heaven while little or nothing has changed about life for them here on the earth. They are as much “American” as the are “Christian,” and frankly do not see the problem with that status. They love Jesus and the most popular American success story equally; they wave the flag with one hand and the cross with the other seeing as the only distinction that one saves the soul for heaven while the other shapes a meaningful life here on the earth. But how do we see this cultural Christianity in a way that is really visible? How can I know how much it affects me, and believe me, it does? It has an impact on all of us.

I was driving Sunday morning through the rain and cold to the church where I serve as interim pastor. We were having an early morning men’s breakfast and deacons meeting. I was not unaware that it was super bowl Sunday and that we were staring down one of the most religious holidays of cultural Christianity: Valentine’s Day. And then it hit me: I could offer real-life testimony of cultural Christianity seen over and over again in experiences that I had as a pastor over the years. So, let me give you five. Think here about Jeff Foxworthy and his “you might be a redneck if . . . . presentations. You might be a cultural Christian or heavily influenced by cultural Christianity if . . . .

You see super bowl Sunday as a day that the church ought to observe in some way. I decided a few years ago that we were giving far too much attention to the super bowl on super bowl Sunday. We had developed a “tradition” of having a super bowl party for our students on the Sunday night of Super Bowl. The super bowl is held on Sunday but has nothing to do with what Sunday as day of worship is all about. In fact, it is antithetical to the purpose of the Lord’s Day for the people of God. I decided that we would do a normal Sunday night with Bible Study and Worship leaving the super bowl to parents and students to do whatever they chose to do. And you would have thought that I had chosen to do something that was bordering on the demonic. The response was the response of cultural christianity. Or . . .

You see Valentine’s Day as a way of “showing the love of Jesus to those you love.” Here is a particular fleshly form of what love is that in our culture has turned into a day for us to show how much we love our spouses, our parents, our children, our grandchildren, our friends etc. in the name of Jesus. It may not be far from blaspheming the name of Jesus to package the love of Jesus in the form of sending flowers or giving boxes of candy or whatever to show real love. Churches that are conditioned by cultural Christianity may even have sweetheart banquets during this time of year where they pray the blessing before the meal in the name of Jesus, but that is about it, or . ..

You see fourth of July as a religious holiday. And heaven help you brother pastor if it comes on Sunday and you do not get out the flags and fireworks along with singing lots of patriotic music. Now lest my computer blow up at this point, let me be quick to say that I love the Fourth of July with all that it represents, but what it represents has little to do with genuine, biblical Christianity. It is a uniquely American holiday that we should celebrate with proper patriotic pride. I love the song “I am proud to be an American,” and I love to hear Lee Greenway sing it. But not in church on Sunday but in the park or some other place where we gather as citizens to celebrate what we share as citizens. Or . . .

You see any holiday related to the service of our men and women in the armed services as a religious holiday. One of my pet peeves is that we have lost the distinction between what the various days tha honor and men and women who serve or have served in the military represent. Veterans Day and Memorial Day are great days to honor our men and women in uniform, but they do not represent the same thing. And neither is a religious holiday and should not have any place among the people of God when we gather for the worship of God. But tell that to a cultural christian. They will see you as Benedict Arnold at best; some will see you as Saddam Hussein come back to life. Or . . .

You see the church as a place to worship God and study His Word but at the same time you see the business of the church being done by secular means, particularly by the politicizing of the process of finding men to serve as elders and deacons or finding it appropriate to manipulate processes for the expending of funds etc. I have faced this all fifty plus years of ministry in the church. I have seen it with men and women where the sanctuary was seen as the place ot worship of God but the church as an institution was run by men and women in back halls and private conversations constructing means to get done what they wanted done. Cultural christians see nothing at all wrong with this very duplicitous way of doing church, but these are the people who also see nothing wrong with a church gathering on super bowl Sunday to enjoy a Valentines Banquet complete with secular patriotic songs and the pledge of allegiance to the flag, all of which would be fine in a community center where we would gather with other citizens; none of which is appropriate for those who have been called out of this world to live our lives in obedience to Jesus who alone is Lord.

We are called to live as the church as followers of Jesus who love Him and seek to live in loyalty to Him. We are called to live in a culture that by God’s grace has some things in it and about it that we should celebrate as citizens. But we must never mix the two as if one can blend with the other or, for heaven’s sake, as if one is the other.

Almost every heresy in the history the church has been tied to one of three issues: The authority of Scripture, the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, and the nature and character of the Trinity. The one that most likely has attracted the most attention is the deity and humanity of Christ. Nestorians gave us a Christ whose deity swallowed up His humanity. He was fully God. Adoptionists gave us a Christ whose humanity was so full that God adopted him as Son of God. He was fully human and almost God. It seems in our day that we are more enamored if not captured by the latter than the former. We want a Messiah made like a man who is more like us than different from us. We seem to desire a Christ who comes to us with at least some potentially slight flaws and failings. We like him to be fully human and approaching “Godness” only when we need something radically big in our lives, like a cure for the cancer we face.

It is clear that this is what we are getting in the “He Gets Us” campaign. Jesus is more a refugee than a redeemer. He is far more the one who runs alongside us as we both breathe heavily along the trail but hear him reminds us that “He understands.” He smiles upon us and never frowns. He lifts us up when we are down and never takes us down to any place that would cause us to feel badly about ourselves or to have any sense of guilt over anything at all. He gets us. He gets our insecurities and fragility and wants us to be lifted up to know that we are “somebody” in His sight. He would love us to feel good about Him but His main goal is to get us to feel good about ourselves. He gets us. It is clear so far that this media campaign launched not long ago is clearly all about a very human Jesus.

But what about The Chosen? My take as of now is that I like it. I don’t get all the mild uproar from some people I really do trust who are far brighter biblically than I am that this series violates the second commandment. I like it because it portrays Jesus and His world, particularly the disciples, in a way that is much more realistic than most of the “Jesus” movies or television series that I have seen. So far, I have been drawn to the drama and love the comedy/tragedy balance that is displayed as each segment develops. But I think the jury is still out on its overall impact. When will we know? I think like everything else related to Jesus, we will know when we come to the end in Jerusalem with his trial, his crucifixion, resurrection and ascension. It is here that it all comes together. It is here that we see clearly and conclusively: Jesus is truly man, truly God. Or as the centurion said at the cross, “Truly, this man was the Son of God.”

I think I heard Mark Dever first say this. I have heard oodles of others say it since then and claim it as their own, “whatever we win people with to get them to the church, is what we must use to keep them.” Those won with the “He gets us” campaign will have to keep making Jesus at best a good friend or a big brother. What about The Chosen? We shall see. I will keep watching until or unless I see that they too miss the meaning of who Jesus really is.

Do you ever wonder if anybody in the whole wide world deals with some of the things that you deal with? Do you ever wonder if your craziness is unlike anybody else, so much so that you would rather nobody know about your own craziness? Are there things that come to your mind and cause stress and distress that you would rather just go away and never return? Now I know that every human being is made in the image of God. And I know that each and every human being is unique. I also know that each and every human being is sinner, born in sin; separated from God as Father while being ruled by God as God. And I know that Satan and his demons are real, always wanting to stress and distress so that an undiluted devotion to God is next to impossible. But that knowledge though helpful does not take away some of the things I struggle with in my own mind, heart and soul. Let me share with you just one of those things and then show you what God showed me in His Word this week.

Here it is: I can have ten people affirm and love on me with great encouragement but then have two or three be critical either publicly or privately and go from the top of the mountain to the valley of despair. I want right now to delete that sentence, but I will go on. It seems so prideful, probably is. But I have battled this dark place in my life for years. In fact, there are two aspects of who I am that have caused me many times to come closer than anyone knows to walking away from the pastorate. The first is my introversion. I am a very private person. I do not and have never needed or wanted a lot of people in my life. I am today sitting with my fingers on this keyboard having spent very happily three full days in my study without seeing anyone but Anne and my mother-in-law. I cannot begin to tell you how much trouble being an introvert has created for me as a pastor. The second is this pain that comes with the arrival of public or private criticism. Now here is the almost laughable fact: it is always from a very small group of people whose bark is usually far worse than their bite but it has always had for me the feel of a little bitty dog facing a pit bull. I stay awake at night fretting (should be praying I know). I get anxious. I even get angry with thoughts in my head that would make an assassin smile. Not quite or remotely godly.

It was happening to me recently when I became aware of a handful of people standing fully against some of what I stood fully and faithfully for over many years as a pastor. I forgot in an instant all those who loved and cared for me, not to mention the fact that the Bible is clear that standing for Truth in any age is costly. I was tucking my puppy dog tail and sulking in the face of the force of these few pit bulls. And then I read through Romans 16 and God showed me what I had never seen before.

I love the Greek Bible. I spend time every morning reading it. I had just come to the end of Romans in the midst of my paranoid produced pain. Paul begins to greet people who are his friends and family. He is praising God for who they are and what they share together. He calls their names out to God, (Romans 16:1-16). And then in Romans 16:21-24 he begins again to name some of the names of those with him who are rejoicing with the saints in Rome. He ends the letter with beautiful blessing or benediction, 16:25-27. But in the middle of all of this great rejoicing and encouragement are verses 17-20 where Paul calls attention to the few troublemakers in the church. He does not mince words. He speaks plainly: they are not servants of God. Stay away from them. They belong to Satan. God will soon crush Satan under His feet. Then it hit me: he never mentions their names. He has given them to God to deal with according to His justice and righteousness. He gives himself and all the saints in the church at Rome to the obedience to God and His Word to which the church is called.

I needed that word from God in Romans 16. You may too. You might not fight this battle in your life as I have for most of my adult life. But you have other battles that you fight. We all do. And we all will until we go to be with Jesus or until He comes to get us. Fight on. Trust hard. May the mind of Christ overtake daily our own thoughts and desires. Amen.