Entries Tagged 'Church' ↓

On September 28, some pastors are planning to endorse a candidate from the pulpit, in defiance of the nation’s tax laws that forbid tax-exempt non-profit organizations from getting involved in partisan politics. The pastors hope to provoke the IRS to take action against them, thus making a test case that they hope will make it to the Supreme Court. They hope for a ruling that the tax laws constitute an unconstitutional infringement of the freedom of speech and of religion.

See Ban on Political Endorsements by Pastors Targeted . What do you think of this action? Isn’t an out-and-out defiance of the law a violation of Romans 13? Isn’t it true that churches should keep the ministry of the gospel separate from politics? But should the state be forcing them to do that?

We might consider too the propriety of churches not paying taxes, which is one obligation to the state that the New Testament lifts up as appropriate, at least for individuals. Often communities resist the building of new churches because that takes property off the tax rolls. If churches were to pay taxes, wouldn’t that free up its ministry? But would we laypeople give as much to the church, if we couldn’t deduct it from our taxes?

Wyman Richardson, a commenter on James H. Grant’s blog In Light of the Gospel, posted some helpful quotations from various church fathers about abortion, which was a common practice in the Roman empire:

“You shall not kill the child by obtaining an abortion. Nor, again, shall you destroy him after he is born.” (Barnabas, 70-80 AD, 1.148)

“You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one who has been born.” (The Didache, 80-140 AD, 1.377)

“We say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder. And we also say that we will have to give an account to God for the abortion.” (Athenagoras, 175 AD, 2.147)

“In our case, murder is once for all forbidden. Therefore, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier way to kill a human. It does not matter whether you take away a life that has been born or destroy one that is not yet born.” (Tertullian, 197 AD, 3.26)

“Indeed, the Law of Moses punishes with appropriate penalties the person who causes abortion. For there already exists the beginning stages of a human being. And even at this stage, [the fetus] is already acknowledged with having the condition of life and death, since he is already susceptible to both.” (Tertullian, 210 AD, 3.218)

“Are you to dissolve the conception by aid of drugs? I believe it is no more lawful to hurt a child in process of birth, than to hurt one who is already born.” (Tertullian, 212 AD, 4.57)

“There are some women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels. So they commit murder before they bring forth.” (Mark Minucius Felix, 200AD, 4.192)

“The womb of his wife was hit by a blow of his heel. And, in the miscarriage that soon followed, the offspring was brought forth, the fruit of a father’s murder.” (Cyprian, 250AD, 5.326)

“The soul is not introduced into the body after birth, as some philosophers think. Rather, it is introduced immediately after conception, when the divine necessity has formed the offspring in the womb.” (Lactantius, 304-313AD, 7.297)

“You shall not slay your child by causing abortion, nor kill the baby that is born.” (Apostolic Constitutions, 390 AD, 7.466)

HT: Glenn at In Defense of the Faith

Hindu mobs have been attacking Christians in India, beating believers, destroying churches, and burning some 1000 homes. A priest tells of a nun being raped. Terry Mattingly at
GetReligion gives details and shows how the mainstream media is under-reporting and distorting the story.

Joe Eszterhas, who wrote the screenplay for “Basic Instinct” and other dark and sex-charged thrillers, has become a Christian in something much like a road to Damascus experience. Again, God breaks into the most unlikely of lives. We should praise God, along with the angels in Heaven.

There is another part of his story that deserves discussion. Eszterhas then looked for a church. Though brought up Catholic, he did not want to go back to that church, due to its pedophilic scandals. But going to a megachurch sent him back. He craved liturgy and the Body and Blood of Christ:

When Mr. Eszterhas visited a nondenominational megachurch, he heard a sensational sermon. But he felt empty afterward, missing Holy Communion and the Catholic liturgy.

“It may have been a church full of pedophiles and criminals covering up other criminals’ sins … it may have been a church riddled with hypocrisy, deceit, and corruption … but our megachurch experience taught us that we were captive Catholics,” he wrote.

Mr. Eszterhas told The Blade that despite his mixed feelings over the church and the abuse scandal, the power of the Mass trumps his doubts and misgivings.

“The Eucharist and the presence of the body and blood of Christ is, in my mind, an overwhelming experience for me. I find that Communion for me is empowering. It’s almost a feeling of a kind of high.”

He said that living in the heartland, he sees how much Hollywood producers are out of touch with most Americans.

“I find it mind boggling that with nearly 70 percent of Americans describing themselves as Christians, and witnessing the success of The Passion of The Christ and The Chronicles of Narnia, that Hollywood still doesn’t do the kinds of faith-based and family-value entertainment that people are desperate to see,” Mr. Eszterhas said.

Would that he would have stumbled into a confessional Lutheran church! One can be both evangelical AND sacramental; Biblical AND liturgical.

But set that aside. I’d like to pose a question that has long puzzled me. The reasons given as to why churches should adopt contemporary worship and follow all of the church growth methodology generally have to do with evangelism. But how effective are they really evangelistically? Especially in appealing to the hard cases–long-time cynical, intellectually sophisticated, artistically sensitive non-believers like Mr. Eszterhas.

Praise songs, for example, tend to presuppose a level of intimacy with God that non-believers, by definition, simply don’t have. And the practice of keeping everything so simple and downplaying complex theology, in the name of appealing to the common man, can have little to say to the kind of person who asks hard questions and yearns for hard answers.

Isn’t it true that hard-core non-believers mock the megachurch kind of worship? Isn’t it true that the megachurches appeal mostly to people who are already Christians?

I think the “emerging church” is trying to reach people like Mr. Eszterhas, but I suspect he would find the ersatz liturgy, the self-conscious appeal to be being young, and the doctrinal fluidity of such churches bewildering.

Of course where ever the Gospel is so much as mentioned, God can create faith. I’m sure the megachurches have their converts. But it is the megachurch theorists that stress how technique can win people. By their own terms, isn’t there an important place for more historic Christianity and a richer, more substantial and sacramental worship, in reaching at least some people?

Michael Horton, in the article we looked at yesterday, goes on to show why Christians do need the church:

The gospel is good news. The message determines the medium. There is a clear logic to Paul’s argument in Romans 10, where he contrasts “the righteousness that is by works” and “the righteousness that is through faith.” We were redeemed by Christ’s actions, not ours; the Spirit applies this redemption to us here and now so that we are justified through faith apart from works; even this faith is given to us through the proclamation of Christ. Since this gospel is a report to be believed rather than a task for us to fulfill, it needs heralds, ambassadors, and witnesses.

The method of delivery is suited to its content. If the central message of Christianity were how to have your best life now or become a better you, then we wouldn’t need heralds, but rather life coaches, spiritual directors, and motivational speakers. Good advice requires a person with a plan; good news requires a person with a message. This is not to say that we do not also need good advice or plans, but that the source of the church’s existence and mission in this world is this announcement of God’s victory in Jesus Christ.

Coaches can send themselves with their own suggestions, but an ambassador has to be sent with an authorized announcement. If the goal is to get people to go and find Christ, then the methods will be whatever we find pragmatically successful; if it’s all about Christ finding sinners, then the methods are already determined. Simply quoting verses 13-15 reveals the logical chain of Paul’s argument: “‘For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?” The evangel defines evangelism; the content determines the methods of delivery; the marks of the church (preaching and sacrament) define its mission (evangelizing, baptizing, teaching, and communing).

The marks of the true church are the proper preaching of the Word, administration of the sacraments, and discipline. The mission of the church is simply to execute these tasks faithfully. Throughout the Book of Acts, the growth of the church is attributed to the proclamation of the gospel: “The word of God spread.” Waking the dead, this gospel proclamation is not only the content but the method. Those who believed were baptized along with their whole household. They were not simply added to the conversion statistics, but to the church-the visible church, which is no more visible in this world than when it is gathered around the Lord’s Table in fellowship with their ascended head. Furthermore, the apostles and elders-and, by Acts 6, the deacons-served the church as officers representing Christ’s threefold office of Prophet, King, and Priest. . . .

Christ has not only appointed the message, but the methods and, as we have seen, there is an inseparable connection between them. All around us we see evidence that churches may affirm the gospel of salvation by grace alone in Christ alone through faith alone, but then adopt a methodology that suggests otherwise. Christ has appointed preaching, because “faith comes by hearing the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17); baptism, because it is the sign and seal of inclusion in Christ; the Supper, because through it we receive Christ and all of his benefits. In other words, these methods are appointed precisely because they are means of grace rather than means of works; means of God’s descent to us rather than means of our ascent to God.

We’ve discussed “house churches” and “home churches.” They are the fruit of the notion that “everyone is a minister” and that therefore we don’t need pastors. Then follows the conviction that we do not need denominations, theology, “organized religion,” or the church at all.

Michael Horton has a brilliant article in “Modern Reformation” about contemporary Christians who believe that they do not need the church. Excerpts:

In a fairly recent study, Willow Creek-a pioneer megachurch-discovered that its most active and mature members are the most likely to be dissatisfied with their own personal growth and the level of teaching and worship that they are receiving. From this, the leadership concluded that as people mature in their faith, they need the church less. After all, the main purpose of the church is to provide a platform for ministry and service opportunities to individuals rather than a means of grace. As people grow, therefore, they need the church less. We need to help believers to become “self-feeders,” the study concluded.

How far can this trajectory take us? Evangelical marketer George Barna gives us a good indication. Like the recent Willow Creek study, Barna concludes that what individual believers do on their own is more important than what the church does for them. Barna, however, takes Finney’s legacy to the next logical step. A leading marketing consultant to megachurches as well as the Disney Corporation, he has recently gone so far as to suggest that the days of the institutional church are over. Barna celebrates a rising demographic of what he calls “Revolutionaries”-”millions of believers” who “have moved beyond the established church and chosen to be the church instead.” Since “being the church” is a matter of individual choice and effort, all people need are resources for their own work of personal and social transformation. “Based on our research,” Barna relates, “I have projected that by the year 2010, 10 to 20 percent of Americans will derive all their spiritual input (and output) through the Internet.” Who needs the church when you have an iPod? Like any service provider, the church needs to figure out what business it’s in, says Barna:

“Ours is not the business of organized religion, corporate worship, or Bible teaching. If we dedicate ourselves to such a business we will be left by the wayside as the culture moves forward. Those are fragments of a larger purpose to which we have been called by God’s Word. We are in the business of life transformation.”

Of course, Barna does not believe that Christians should abandon all religious practices, but the only ones he still thinks are essential are those that can be done by individuals in private, or at most in families or informal public gatherings. But by eliminating the public means of grace, Barna (like Willow Creek) directs us away from God’s lavish feast to a self-serve buffet.

A man won $6 million in the Florida lottery. Doubtless grateful to God, he wanted to give a tithe to his church. But the Baptist congregationturned down the $600,000 since it came from gambling. Is that integrity or legalistic scrupulosity?

Jerry Falwell has passed away. Now Rick Warren, megachurch pastor and author of “The Purpose Driven Life,” has taken his place.

In an extraordinary feat, he got both presidential candidates to come to his Saddleback church and submit to his questioning. It would have been unthinkable for Rev. Falwell to invite a Democrat and even more unthinkable for a Democrat to show up. I am impressed that Rev. Warren donned a sports coat for the occasion, since he usually preaches in an Aloha shirt. (I wonder why he did that. Did he sense that sometimes a certain level of formality is appropriate? Why have such decorum with politicians but not for church?)

So what is this significance of this shift in leadership and in clout?

Rick Warren’s inquisition of the candidates elicited some interesting answers.

In his answers, Obama described many of his positions, even on taxes and energy, in the language of a devout Christian. When asked about his “greatest moral failing,” he discussed his teenage drug and alcohol use, attributing it to “a certain selfishness on my part. I was so obsessed with me, and the reasons why I might be dissatisfied, that I couldn’t focus on other people.”

Confronted with the same question later, McCain cited the failure of his first marriage. . . .

“I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins and I am redeemed through him,” Obama told Warren. “That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis.” McCain said he had been “saved and forgiven” through his belief in Christ.

Each also said he defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, but Obama added that he supports civil unions for same-sex couples. . . .

At Saddleback, Obama did not respond directly when Warren asked him at what point “a baby gets human rights.” He said the issue is “above my pay grade,” and pivoted quickly to his quest to find common ground. He noted that he had inserted pregnancy-prevention language in the 2008 Democratic platform, which he cast as a major turn in party policy.

In his interview with Warren, McCain received loud applause from the crowd of more than 2,000 when he declared his view that unborn children deserve rights “at the moment of conception,” and offered one of the most emphatic declarations of his opposition to abortion in his presidential campaign.

“I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate,” McCain said. “This presidency will have pro-life policies.”

Did anyone hear what the two said about another topic raised by Rev. Warren, the existence of evil? Such actual theology was not reported in the “Washington Post.”

We feasted on God’s Word yesterday. My son-in-law was the guest Bible Study leader. We explored “the blood of the covenant,” working through Exodus, Leviticus, Hebrews, and Christ’s words of institution of the sacrament. We saw how the Old Testament sacrifices, centering on the application of blood, gave access to the presence of God, granted forgiveness of sin, and bestowed holiness. All of that was fulfilled in Christ’s sacrifice and is communicated to us in the blood of the Lord’s Supper. It was amazing to consider the unity of Scripture and the way the Old Testament illuminates the New.

Then, the sermon was about Peter’s failed attempt to walk on water. That passage shows us much about faith. We are usually too quick to criticize Peter’s failure, which led to the faith that really mattered. “If Peter did not sink,” said Pastor Douthwaite, “he would not have cried out”: “‘Lord, save me.’” Then followed a connection to our own sinking in Baptism. (Read the whole sermon here. FW, you will love it.)

Consider this document: A Call to an Ancient Evangelical Future (AEF Call). So is this what being “post evangelical” is all about? Is this something a Lutheran could sign?

To continue our discussion on different expressions of church that people are exploring today, what about Celtic Christianity? Many “post evangelical” Christians are experimenting with various elements of Celtic spirituality. I know a Baptist whose church, she says, uses a “Celtic liturgy.” I don’t know many specifics. Could someone explain what Celtic spirituality entails?