On Misunderstanding God's Sovereignty and the Resulting Loss of Hope

Most Christ-followers believe that God is sovereign. I know I do, and I imagine you do as well.

How we define and understand the sovereignty of God are important. If we make an error in this it can lead to a deep sense of hopelessness.

God is indeed sovereign. The Bible shows us that God controls all things. Nothing happens that is outside his divine omnipotence. This wonderful truth ought to give us both hope and peace. It would be an awful and terrifying thing to think of something beyond God's control. If that could happen, then God would not in fact be God at all.

It is easy to cherish the sovereignty of God when things are generally going well in our lives. However, when the trials come (problems related to family, job, money, etc.) doubts may begin to creep in. This is where the danger exists. If we define God's sovereignty as God answering our prayers in the way we want him to, then we are in trouble. This is because God knows much better than we do what we need. We generally desire for God to take away various unpleasant things in our lives. After all, we like comfort. God, however, often uses discomfort to both train us and draw us closer to him.

When God answers differently from what we ask for this does not mean that he has failed to be sovereign. He cannot do that because his sovereignty is one of his unchanging attributes. God applies his sovereignty according to his omniscience. He knows all things, including what is best for us. We are the ones who fail to fully understand how God works out his sovereignty in our lives for his glory. While he may apply it one way, we sometimes think that bad things that happen to us mean God failed in his sovereignty. We are incorrect.

In Romans 8:28 we read, "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose." God works to bring about what we need, not necessarily what we want. We must not make the mistake of over applying God's sovereignty to areas of our lives in such a way that limits God; we must avoid putting God in a box. More specifically, we have to avoid thinking, "God has to answer my prayer in such-and-such a way or he is not sovereign after all." That simply shows ignorance on our part.

God is fully sovereign. He will act according to his perfect character, will, and goodness. When he responds to our prayers in ways we do not like, let's not fall into hopelessness. God has not abandoned us. Rather, he is helping our sanctification process.

God's sovereignty is a reason for great hope. Let's avoid defining and comprehending that sovereignty in ways that God has not.

Um, Yes, Sharing the Gospel Does Require Words

(HT: Arthur Sido)

Unavoidable: A Family/Community of the Redeemed

Definitions are important.

How we define the church says a great deal about what we believe the church should be and do. When we look in the bible we see unavoidably that the church is a family. It is also a community. This family/community is composed of the redeemed. While the church we see in the bible certainly had its share of problems (see Corinth for example), it always described a group of saved people.

The book of Acts shows us a people that lived far differently from the world. They stood out both because of their holy living and their care for others. Simply put, they looked totally different from the surrounding culture. They were odd (in the good sense). When we read both Jesus' teachings in the gospels and the NT epistles, we see calls to radically different living.

As we turn our gaze to the American church we see something else. Sadly, what we see is something that looks a lot like our culture at large. Churches are comfortable. Churches are insulated. Churches are self-focused. Churches go with the latest fads. Many within the church (as defined as those whose names are on church membership roles) live as sinfully as the world does.

Is the church composed of the redeemed or is it not?

According to scripture, it unavoidably is.

Incorrect Definitions Can Get You in Trouble

I've Reached Non-Violence, But Not Non-Resistance

I've been giving a lot of thought lately to the issues of non-violence and non-resistance. Having grown up in American evangelicalism, this has been a struggle for me. After much searching of scripture and analyzing of my own assumptions and motives, I've finally reached a point of embracing complete non-violence. I'm determined to respond to all of life's circumstances, no matter what, in a non-violent manner. No exceptions.

I believe we followers of Christ must take our Lord's teachings seriously. Jesus says some extremely straightforward and earthshaking things in Matthew 5:38-42:

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Christ continues in 5:43-48:

You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

I'll be honest: the above verses make me uncomfortable. I don't particularly like them. A large part of me wishes they weren't in the bible. However, we don't get to pick and choose. Based on Jesus' life and teachings, it is clear that he expects non-violence from his followers.

When I talk about non-violence, I'm not speaking about politics. I don't care to be part of some sort of flower child, peace sign, pot smoking club. I have no intention of taking Christians to task who are part of the military (although that issue does raise some significant questions). I'm not going to start rebuking Christians for having guns. The list goes on.

This is more about what I'm for than what I'm against. I'm for living a life where every interaction with other people is a peaceful one. This will not always mean agreement. I will no doubt have different thoughts, ideas, opinions, etc. about all sorts of issues than others will. However, this does not mean that things have to get violent. Additionally, just because someone else is violent toward me does not mean I have to respond in kind.

I believe in a sovereign God who oversees all circumstances. This includes violence toward me and my family. I trust him to protect me as he sees fit. When it comes to protecting my own family, I trust God with that as well. Would I respond violently if someone was attacking my family? At this point I do not know what I would do. The husband and father in me says "Yes I would," but I struggle to defend that scripturally.

My goal is to live in a non-violent manner at all times.

As for non-resistance, I'm not so sure. I have an easier time (at least in my mind) defining non-violence than non-resistance. While non-violence seems fairly clear cut, non-resistance feels murkier. When we look at the life of Christ we see Jesus at some times not resisting, but at other times he did. For example, when he cleansed the temple (not a violent act by the way), he was certainly resisting the status quo of the day. When the Pharisees put their traditions in front of biblical truth, Jesus rejected them forcefully. In fact, he resisted anyone who was teaching against God's truth. As for his disciples, Christ consistently resisted their lack of understanding and faulty assumptions about what the Messiah should be.

I'll be pondering non-resistance quite a bit in the days ahead. I've got to come to a clearer understanding and definition of what it means and does not mean. That being said, I do think Christ's call to non-violence is clear. Although it flies in the face of our Republican-loving, gun-toting American Christian subculture, it is what Jesus calls us to do. Will we do it?

Count me in for non-violence.

Church and Institution: Two Overlapping Circles

The complex relationship between church and institution is much like two overlapping circles.

Before I proceed any further, please let me offer a couple of definitions. By "church," I'm referring to all God's people everywhere (followers of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior). By "institution," I'm talking about man-made traditions that are often confused with the church. These include things such as large buildings, worship services, and clergy.

In the above diagram, the blue circle represents the church (the colors have no specific meaning to this post). The red circle represents the institution. What we have is actually three groups of people. Those who fall in the blue are Jesus followers, but who are not part of the institution. This is where I fit. People in the red are those who are part of the institution but not the church. These are the thousands who attend worship services, sit through Sunday School, and may even preach from the pulpit but who do not know Jesus Christ.

What about the overlapping purple section? The purple represents people who are part of both the church and the institution. These are Christians who take part in institutional church life.

The above diagram is not perfect for what I'm writing about here because the purple section should actually be larger. However, it was the best I could find. My primary point in this post is that three groups of people exist. We need to keep this in mind as we think and talk about the church. Many, many people confuse the church and the institution, never considering the difference between the two. For example, here in the Bible Belt of the USA, people often ask others they have recently met, "Where do you go to church?" I almost never hear anyone ask anyone else if they follow Jesus.

When I was younger the world seemed simpler. In my mind Christians "went to church," and the lost did not. I knew some oddballs existed who claimed to be Christians and who didn't attend worship services, etc. Those I tried not to think about.

Now that I'm older I realize that thousands if not millions of people who love Jesus want nothing to do with institutional practices. Count me in this group. While I hope to be united with all my brothers and sisters in Christ, I have no desire whatsoever to take part in most institutional programs and ventures.

Many Christians are confused about the church because they have simply never thought about the difference between church and institution. They certainly haven't considered how the two interact with one another. We do well to keep these things in mind whenever we get into church-related conversations.

I'm part of the growing number of believers who fall outside institutional practices. I do not wear this as some sort of odd badge of honor. Rather, it is out of conviction. As we go forward, I believe more and more Christians will depart from man's traditions. We need to be ready to help them see that this is not only acceptable, but preferable. Many, many of us are thriving in the blue circle.

Theologians Off the Rails Again...

In a recent blog post Arthur Sido asked an excellent question: "What is it about ecclesiology that makes otherwise sound theologians go off the rails?"

I had been thinking about that question quite a bit this week when a magazine arrived at our house. This particular magazine is published by Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (where I graduated in 2006). Despite my current views on the church, I still think SEBTS does some good things. For example, I love their emphasis on international missions. A sizable chunk of this magazine focuses on that topic. However, I did find one article that is disturbing. Not surprisingly, that article focuses on the dreaded subject of church membership.

The SEBTS article is an overview of a conference held back in September that was a joint venture between SEBTS and 9Marks. The conference's name was "Meaningful Church Membership." Speakers included Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, Alistair Begg, Danny Akin, and others.

What I find most problematic is the two quotes from the conference that the writers of this article decided to highlight, placing them in bold font in the middle of the magazine's pages. These two quotes are prime examples of theologians going off the rails.

First, Jonathan Leeman (editorial director of 9Marks) is quoted as saying, "The local church represents heaven. It is also God's embassy on earth. We don't join churches, we submit to them. Church membership is the declaration of citizenship in Christ's Kingdom."

Let's be clear about something: when these speakers refer to church membership they are talking about the extrabiblical idea of belonging in a special way to only one particular local body of believers (sign your name on the card and you go on the membership roll).

Leemon's statements in that quote are unbiblical and absurd. His final sentence is the most shocking. He is calling into question the salvation of anyone who is not a member of a specific local church. He has, therefore, equated church membership with the gospel. Now, I'm sure he would deny this if asked in these terms, but his statement certainly makes things murky at best.

Later in the article, speaker Thabiti Anyabwile is quoted with the following, " Every time we talk about the body of Christ we are talking about church membership. God puts His body together. Pride tears it apart."

I agree completely with Anyabwile's second and third sentences. It is the first one that is troublesome. The key is the definition of church membership. Anyabwile's statement is correct if by church membership he simply means everyone who is part of the church everywhere. However, in light of this specific conference, he is much more likely to be talking about the extrabiblical specific church membership I mentioned earlier. If that is the case, then Anyabwile, like Leeman, is referring to the body of Christ as only those whose names are on membership rolls somewhere.

What do these speakers do with folks like me (and probably you) who claim Christ as Lord and Savior but who shun the idea of specific church membership? The answer is that they want to ignore us because we do not fit their paradigm for what church membership is.

Returning to Arthur's great question, what is it that causes normally solid theologians to go off the rails when it comes to church issues? My answer is an old one: the love of man-made traditions. These theologians either cannot or will not see past the church traditions that they love so much. These men consistently fail to use the same principles of biblical interpretation for the church that they do for other topics such as Christology, salvation, and social/cultural issues.

The church institution is not based in scripture. Rather, it exists as part of man's own comfort zone. It makes him feel good. The problem is that it is not what God wants. It bears little resemblance to the church of the New Testament. It remains based much more in Rome than Jerusalem.

Many theologians continue to ride the same train off the rails again and again and again. Let's hope and pray that God will open their eyes to the magnificent thing His church can be when we live church life according to sound biblical principles.

Excellent Response to Those Trying to Redefine Marriage

This short video offers an excellent response to secular culture's attempt to redefine marriage. Frankly, I'm not all that interested in the political and financial aspects. Rather, what I'm concerned about is the theological. I appreciate Ryan Anderson's statements about the clarity of the definition of marriage: one man and one woman in a permanent union. Also, note that the questioner has no clue how to answer Anderson's question.

Define "Church" in Ten Words or Less. Go.

One positive and negative of the internet is that we now have the ability to communicate nearly constantly. Millions (if you include Facebook and Twitter) write online daily. As you no doubt notice, many of those people have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

One reason many folks are clueless writers is that they don't think about definitions (frankly, many do not appear to think at all). If we cannot define what we are talking about, then what are we really saying?

Keeping this in mind, let's have a small group exercise. Let's define "church." It's helpful to do this in ten words or less. The word limit forces us to be precise in our thinking. So, can you do it? I think you can. Define "church" in ten words or less. Please leave your definition in the comments.

Here's my definition:

"A supernatural community on mission with Father, Son, and Spirit."

Jon On Elders

Jon at Jon's Journey shares some excellent thoughts in a recent post entitled Levites Priests and Elders.

I'm particularly interested in what Jon writes about elders. He makes a solid case that what we see in the Old Testament should inform how we think about elders in the New Testament. According to Jon, "Throughout the Old Testament we also see many references to elders. Elders had a recognized role in the Jewish community. They were older men with experience that the community respected and relied on for guidance."

Jon continues regarding the New Testament, "As the church expanded into non-Jewish communities, older respected men were recognized as elders in these new communities as well.

By using the term elder, I believe the writers of the New Testament had a different role in mind that what we tend to see today. There is no evidence these elders were responsible for religious buildings, church programs, church organizational policy, or church staff. There is no evidence they were elected for a limited term, and then became non-elder laity again a few years later.

I believe the role of elders is important, and it makes sense to study what the Bible has to say on the topic. Consider who are the older respected people in your life. Recognize who they are. Go to them for advice and guidance. Let them influence you. And at some stage in life you may play the role of elder to others in your community."

I appreciate that Jon is trying to understand what the scripture writers actually meant when they used the term elder. Only when we have correct definitions in mind will we truly understand the bible.

Simple/Organic Church in 2 Minutes

Great stuff here. Thanks to Guy Muse for posting it.

Mutual Edification and the Priesthood of All Believers

Mutual edification is the primary reason for the gathering of the church. Although various activities may occur as the body comes together, the goal of the assembling is that the church family be built up together.

The priesthood of all believers describes what the church is. The moment a person surrenders to Christ in faith, he also becomes a priest to God. The challenge is living out this priesthood.

As we think about these two things (mutual edification and the priesthood of all believers), we see a link between the two. The priesthood, in fact, helps us define what mutual edification actually is.

What is mutual edification? Here's my definition: Mutual edification is helping each other live more effectively as the priests we already are.

We don't try to help other believers become priests. That would be like trying to help believers get saved. All believers are positionally priests. God makes it happen.

The challenge and great privilege for all of us is actually taking responsibility to live out being the priests we are. As the body gathers, we encourage and exhort one another in ways that assist all present in both growing closer to Christ and becoming more like Him.

Paul, among others, addresses these issues in familiar passages. In Romans 12:1 the apostle appeals for the church in Rome to live as the priests they are, saying, "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship." How do the believers get to the point of doing this? One way is through mutual growth. I Corinthians 14:26 tells us, "What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up." When the church congregates, everything is for edification.

It's a wise thing to give thought to how we will edify others when we come together. This does not mean that we plan it all out, but rather that we just be prepared. In order to do this, it's good to know what the goal is. One good way to think about the goal is that it's helping priests live more priestly.

Evolution is a Slippery Word

(I include the above photo simply for fun.)

The word "evolution" is a slippery one. I'm referring to the fact that it is used in a variety of ways by various people. This often leads to lack of actual communication and accompanying consternation/frustration for everyone involved.

In general "evolution" means change. We've all seen change, both good and bad, occur in almost uncountable ways in our lives. For example, the technological evolution just during the past thirty years is immense. I can remember when we bought our first microwave oven. Nowadays we can't live without the internet. These are significant changes.

When it comes to the world's beginnings, we must be clear in what we are talking about. Darwinian evolutionists demand that macro evolution occurs through processes of natural selection, mutation, and random chance. They state unequivocally that no higher intelligence is behind it. No discussion/debate on the issue is tolerated (especially within secular universities).

This is fascinating because the positive changes we've experienced in this world occur through much planning and intelligence. The evolution we have seen in technology has come from many smart techno-folks logging long hours to create software, computers, cell phones, flat screens, etc. None of these types of changes have happened through people simply sitting around waiting for something to happen by chance.

Evolution, when simply meaning change, can be a positive thing only when intelligence is behind it. On the other hand, evolution apart from intelligence and planning leads only to a big mess or worse. A great example of this is the state of my kids' bedrooms. I've blogged about this before, so I'll simply say here that order does not stem from chance. Their bedrooms only become clean through much effort and planning.

This is not to say that God controlled evolutionary processes to bring this world into existence. That is simply not the case. Genesis 1-2 makes it clear that God crafted this world in a highly organized, step-by-step process.

Changes do, however, occur in this world. Evolution, meaning simply change, even happens within species over time. However, it never happens at the macro level. Species tend to remain the same, not change from one to another.

Let's be careful in our definitions. Statements such as "I don't believe in evolution" are not helpful because they are not precise enough. In order to have intelligent conversation on this issue, we must define what we are talking about.

There was no evolution in the creation process.

There is evolution (meaning simply change) in the world as we know it. Positive change only stems from intelligence and planning.

Changes that come from lack of order or planning are only negative ones. Order never comes as a result of disorder.

As followers of Jesus we must be clear in what we are talking about as we engage the world on these issues.

Changing Perspectives One Person at a Time

A couple of days ago I mentioned that Google Images shows 63 church buildings in a row when you type in the search word "church." Only at the 64th image do any people actually appear.

How can we change this thinking in our broader culture? I believe we do it one person at a time. How is this accomplished? It happens through loving, sacrificial acts of service. It occurs through meeting needs as we see them. It takes place through explaining that we love because God first loved us.

I realize that it is not our duty to change how our culture at large defines the church. However, if our service to others brings about the by-product of changed perspectives, then all the better. Wouldn't it be wonderful if people began thinking of photos like the one on the left to describe and define the church?

63!

Just out of curiosity I went to Google images and looked up the word "church." The first 63 (!) images that came up were photos of either the inside or outside (mostly outside) of buildings. Sigh.

It was not until the 64th image that any people appeared. I'm not sure how Google selects which images to show, but regardless this is some sort of statement about how our culture both views and defines the church.

I'm catholic. Aren't You?

I'm catholic. I hope you are as well.

By catholic, I'm simply referring to Jesus Christ's church. Nothing more and nothing less.

This is the church universal. The church undivided. The church united. The church Christ describes in John 17.

All of us Christ-followers are catholic. I embrace this term because it helps me think of the church as one (as opposed to splintered).

So, although I'm not part of any denomination, I'm catholic. This is the church as it ought to be.

An Excellent Biblical Definition of the Church

On Sunday our church family was studying through I Peter chapter two. Not surprisingly, verses five and nine generated a good bit of discussion concerning the church. As I read verse nine several times, I was struck that it is an excellent definition of the church.

I Peter 2:9 in a few different translations:

"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." (ESV)

"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His possession, so that you may proclaim the praises of the One who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." (HCSB)

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light." (KJV)

"But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." (NIV)

Sometimes we make life too complicated. In attempting to define things such as the church, let's simply let scripture speak whenever it provides definitions. I Peter 2:9 is the best I've ever seen for the church.

The Church Anywhere, Anytime

There is a discussion/argument that some Christians have about what constitutes a church gathering. You've heard the question before: "If two Christians meet in a coffee shop, is that church?" The focus of the question is "what counts."

The problem with the above discussion is that it suggests that whether or not something is church depends on what we do. In other words, the specific activities determine if a church gathering is actually a church gathering. This is, in a word, preposterous. In scripture, the only determining factor for whether or not a gathering is a church gathering is who is there.

If those in Christ get together, it is a church meeting. This may look like a whole lot of different things, but in the end when Christians meet, it is a church meeting.

The church meets anywhere, anytime.

This is becoming more of a reality for me everyday. Since I work so much now, and in a secular environment, I cherish any conversation I can have with a fellow Christian. I wish they were more frequent. When we do get to talk, it's a meeting.

This issue comes back to the importance of accurate (re: biblical) definitions. The bible always describes the church as God's people, not as any sort of activity - even a meeting.

God has, in his grace, shown us why he wants us to gather (mutual edification leading to Christian maturity). He has also given us examples of things we can bring to gatherings that honor him (prayers, songs, testimonies, teachings, etc.). Although these things are important, they do not determine if a meeting is, in fact, a church meeting.

Ultimately it is God who determines if a church gathering occurs. He is the one who sovereignly saves; therefore, he determines who his children are. Whenever his children get together - anywhere, anytime - it is a church gathering.

In a way, this whole conversation is redundant. Asking if Christians getting together is really a church gathering is sort of like asking whether or not an apple is an apple. If Christians get together it is by default and definition a church gathering.

We can and should meet anywhere and anytime. God is pleased when we do. The actions don't determine whether or not it's church, God does.