If You Knew Nothing of Christianity, But Then Found a Bible and Read It, What Would You Expect Church Gatherings to Be Like?

In this particular post I'm simply asking a question of you. Please put your answers in the comments section. Maybe we can begin an interesting and edifying discussion. My purpose in this is not to discuss what's wrong with the institutional church, but rather to focus on what can be right when we follow the Biblical pattern for meeting.

QUESTION: As much as you can, pretend that you know absolutely nothing of Christianity. You find a Bible and begin to read it. Based on what you see instructed to us and modeled for us in scripture, what would you expect church gatherings to be like?

Too Good to Not Share

The Christian satire site The Babylon Bee has posted numerous funny articles over the past several months. One reason many of the pieces are excellent is that they come so close to reality. One of the best I've seen so far appeared a couple of days ago. It's entitled Local Progressive Church Hosts Informative Q and Q Session. Enjoy!

What's the Main Thing That Makes an Institutional Church Institutional?

I'm taking a quick blog series break here to ask one important question: what is the primary factor that makes a church institutional?

I've written previously on several occasions about a sort of unholy trinity that forms the backbone of institutional church life. These three are expensive/special church buildings, salaried clergy, and worship services/ceremonies. Almost all institutional churches have some form of these three in place. They may go by different names, of course, but at a substantive level they are the same.

Other components of the church institution are also extremely common: budgets, fund raising, youth groups, committees, tithes and offerings, Sunday School, bulletins, nurseries, church signs, websites, etc.

Keeping all this in mind, what do you believe is the one main thing that makes the institution in fact the institution?

I'll tell you my answer: salaried clergy.

Of all the various parts that make the church institution what it is, the most significant is full-time clergy who dominate the life of the fellowship. While scripture describes an active body where each part is important, the institution gives us a drowsy group put to sleep by pastors who do almost everything. If you attend almost any church gathering it is the salaried clergy who stand front and center. They expect to do this, and the folks in the pews expect it, too. It's much of the reason pastors/priests receive paychecks.

Since the clergy are paid, they need something to do. Go ahead and ask institutional believers what their pastor's most important task is. Most will respond by saying preaching. By this they mean giving a 30 minute lecture once or twice on Sundays. This lecture requires both a special building and a ceremony. It also demands that the people sit quietly and obediently.

If church families desire to avoid institutionalization what they must do is minimize the role of the clergy. One means of accomplishing this is simply to not pay anybody. If you remove the paycheck, then everyone is forced to become more active. This has the potential to bring about great vibrancy within the fellowship. I highly recommend it.

Seven Keys to Body Life. Can You Think of Any Others?

The body of Christ has great potential for good. However, Christ's followers frequently become side-tracked from what is truly important. This is usually caused by straying from scripture into a man-centered approach to church life. With that in mind, what sorts of things are critical to healthy body life?

I was musing on this question for a while earlier today. Seven key ingredients came to mind. They are, in no particular order:

1. Biblical fidelity
2. Bible study, discussion, teaching
3. Mutual edification
4. Sacrificial service
5. Sacrificial giving
6. Proclamation of the Gospel to the lost
7. Eating the Lord's Supper together

All of the above are critical to healthy, vibrant church life. All should glorify God while edifying the saints and/or proclaiming the good news to the world.

My guess is that I've left out a few critical aspects. What do you think? What would you add to this list to make it more complete?

Meme Sunday

Linking: Is the Reformation Over?

Does justification by faith alone matter anymore? Is the Reformation over?

R.C. Sproul provides excellent answers to these questions as he deals with the critical topic of justification. Sproul is correct in saying that justification by faith alone is a core attribute of the biblical gospel. He points out how the Roman Catholic Church has steadfastly rejected the notion that faith is enough for salvation. Please read the post. It is relatively short and worth your time.


(HT: Arthur)

How Much Would It Cost Me to Attend Ligonier?!?!

A few days I ago I received a flyer in the mail for the 2016 Ligonier National Conference. It is addressed to "Pastor and Mrs. Eric Carpenter." I guess they don't realized that I resigned from professional pastoring five years ago. That's probably because I haven't attended a Ligonier conference in five years either.

As theology conferences go, Ligonier is a good one. The line up of speakers is usually excellent, and the topics are both interesting and relevant. This year's focus - the Gospel - could not be better. Part of me would really like to attend. However, since I'll be working I won't be going (when I attended Ligonier conferences in 2009 and 2010 I was employed as a salaried pastor; thus, I had all sorts of free time to travel to Orlando for a few days).

If I had the time, just how much would it cost me to attend? Let's do the math.

If I registered right now it would cost $169.00. Prices increase as the conference approaches.

The Meal Plan for four meals is $59.00.

The cheapest hotel reservation is $79.00. However, with taxes included the cost would rise to close to $100.00. The schedule calls for two nights; total hotel cost equals $200.00.

Gasoline cost from Savannah to Orlando and back would be somewhere in the vicinity of $100.00.

Meals to and from Orlando would be about $25.00.

The cost, then, for me to attend the 2016 Ligonier National Conference would be a whopping $553.00.

That is a lot of money.

Of course, when I last attended Ligonier I was a pastor; therefore, I let the church pick up the tab since it was part of my monthly expenses. That means that hard working people back home in Savannah shelled out hundreds of hard-earned dollars for me to sit and listen for three days. It was a good deal for me.

Did I forget to mention the books? Like most conferences, Ligonier has a large room full of theology texts, all for sale. These go on the pastor's expense account, too.

Something is not right with this picture.

Take the Trinity Test

Tim Challies and Rebecca Stark have put together a very solid little quiz that focuses on the doctrine of the Trinity. Since it's only made up of 33 questions it doesn't take long. While some of the questions were easy, a few made me stop and think. I managed to get all 33 correct, but I had a little uncertainty along the way.

I encourage you to take it. Click here to do so.

Papal Ponderings

Pope Francis has come and gone. The church in the USA remains the same. After all the pomp and circumstance we are left with the vast variety of problems that we had prior to his visit.

I'm not surprised that many American Roman Catholics were thrilled to have Jorge Bergoglio (his real name) on U.S. soil. He has been lauded by many as a Pope who is willing to change things for the better. In some situations this is, in fact, true. For example, this particular pontiff shuns some of the ceremonial nonsense that normally goes along with his position.

In addition, Jorge truly does appear to care for the poor and downtrodden in society at large. Furthermore, he speaks out in favor of peace, for which I am grateful. Finally, the Pope not only accepts but also recognizes at least some of the Roman Catholic abuses of the past; he recently apologized for Rome's vicious persecution of the Waldensians in the years leading up to and during the Protestant Reformation.

In light of all this, should we be thrilled? Should we even consider, as many evangelicals now do, this Pope to be our brother in Christ?

Despite some of his outward uniqueness, Pope Francis has not been willing to change one thing about Roman Catholicism that never changes: Roman dogma. The Council of Trent showed us this hundreds of years ago. As a reaction to the Reformation, the Catholics gathered on and off over the course of eighteen years to basically say, "We still believe what we've always believed." Rome does not compromise or change any of its theological positions. It still has seven sacraments. It still celebrates the Mass. Most troubling, it continues to reject salvation by grace alone through faith alone.

Put simply, this Pope continues to believe the Roman gospel, which is a different gospel from the one clearly taught in the Bible. Therefore, this Pope cannot be a true follower of Christ despite his outward actions.

On a related note, Pope Francis is not a big fan of definitions. This leaves things messy. While he speaks much about the social side of life, his statements on theological matters are unclear at best. We are left to assume that he believes what Rome always has.

Finally, Jorge remains at the epicenter of THE largest church institution on the planet. If there is one position on earth that exemplifies all that is wrong with the leadership, authority, and power that has warped the church into an institutional framework, it is the papacy. The Pope is the hub.

In the end, little has changed. Although this new Pope does some things differently, he still rejects the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is the key issue.

To learn more of the excesses of the Pope and the Vatican, watch the two videos below:

Is the Return to Rome Worth It?

Disclaimer: in this post I'm strictly dealing with church issues and not with the gospel itself. Additionally, for the purposes of this piece I could also have selected Wittenberg, Geneva, Canterbury, or any other place largely associated with institutionalized religion.


If you are convinced that the biblical model of church life is correct but cannot find it, what would it require for you to return to the institution? I've been pondering this a bit lately, but have never truly considered it as an option. It is interesting to think about.

Numerous Christians that we know here in Savannah are content in their church lives. They are convinced that they are edified through good fellowship in their institutional settings. It's difficult to know how much of this is a case of "ignorance is bliss," but nevertheless these believers appear happy.

I long for that contentment and happiness. Could it be found within institutional walls? I believe it can, as long as someone is not fully convicted about the model presented in scripture being the model for church life today. If I actually started visiting institutional worship services and small groups I believe I would feel ill, even if I enjoyed it, because I'd be violating my convictions. It's just not worth it.

If Rome is not an option, then what is?

The option currently for my wife and me is to find fellowship where we can and when we can. It also means gathering in our home with just our family for the time being. It means interacting with all sorts of folks online through this blog (not an ideal situation I admit, but better than nothing).

Simple church life is, almost by definition, life on the fringes. If church history tells us three things, it is that the institution does not change, is not inviting to those who want change, and will reject those who hope for change unless they bow the knee to institutional practices. This being the case, there is no reason to try to significantly alter the organization from the inside. If you seek fellowship within the institution, what you will get is institutional fellowship.

I cannot think of a solid reason to return to Rome. I may be lonely at times, but convictions are strong things.

What about you? What would or could make you go back to institutional church? Why?

Where Are All the Simple Church Folks?

Where are they?

Where are all the simple church people? I know they are out there; many are seeking fellowship with other believers. And yet, they are difficult to find.

More and more Christians are done with the institutional model of church. I'm one of those Dones. If you are reading this blog, chances are fairly good that you are a Done, too (or are at least considering it). For your sake I hope you have close fellowship with other believers because it can be very difficult to find. If the institution does one thing well, it's that it makes it obvious both when and where meetings are taking place.

Why is it difficult to come in contact with other believers who are seeking authentic relationships in a simple model? One reason, as I alluded to above, is that it's not obvious during the normal comings and goings of life who simple church Christians are. Frankly, it's usually difficult to even spot the Christians, much less those looking for something different from the institutional norm. We don't wear patches that say "Seeking Simple Church" or anything like that.

Additionally, most folks who have departed the institution are wary of getting involved too quickly with other Christians. This is because of scarring from what they've left behind. Nobody wants to get into another bad situation.

A third factor is that Christians in general are increasingly looking for true relationships. Even those within the institutional walls want to really know people. As for simple church, those seeking it do not want anything forced; they want it to be natural. This takes time. Because we don't want to rush into making a mistake, sometimes very little ends up happening.

A final hurdle that we have to deal with is living in the Bible Belt. In the southern USA most folks still trust institutional Christianity. This is much more the case here than in other locales. It's weird. I'll be thrilled when these last remnants of Christendom pass away (which will occur I'm convinced within the next 25 years). For now, not that many Christians here are looking outside the institution because they still see it as a really good thing.

I apologize for the rambling nature of this post. My hope is that you can sense my struggles. It is difficult to want something real, something authentic, something wonderful but not be able to find it. I'm not seeking heaven on this side of death. However, I'm looking for something that I read about in the book of Acts. So far no success.

Difficult to Reconcile: Sovereign God & Impotent Church

I am a big believer in the sovereignty of God over all of life. I believe the bible teaches about a God who is actively engaged with every nuance of what occurs in his universe. He created it, and he sustains it. Paul described this during his speech in Athens in Acts 17:24-25, "The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything."

God made humanity in such a way that we are responsible for our actions (we are not pre-programmed robots). What we do each day has real consequences. For example, if I choose to run a red light, there's a good chance I will get a much-deserved ticket.

In a way that is at least somewhat difficult for most of us to understand (myself included), God's sovereignty goes hand-in-hand with man's responsibility. This is the manner in which God designed it. These two truths may seem like opposites to us, but they are not. The fault is with our limited minds, not with God's design.

Sometimes God overrides man's plans with his own sovereign goals. Actually, this happens all the time, but we likely are not aware of it. When we look in the bible we see it again and again. For example, Abraham tried to come up with his own offspring (Ishmael), but God intervened with Isaac. Later, Pharaoh attempted to kill the Hebrews, but God freed them and then drowned the Egyptian army in the Red Sea. King Saul attempted to murder David repeatedly, but God stopped him every time. Later, the Babylonians took most of the Israelites away from Jerusalem and into captivity. God intervened by using the Persians of all people to enable the restoration of the temple.

In God's ultimate act of sovereignty, he directed the execution of his son to bring about salvation for humanity. While the religious leaders just wanted Jesus dead (as did Satan), the Father directed the actions to bring about redemption for his people. God was ultimately in charge. Peter said the following at Pentecost in Acts 2:23-24, "...this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it."

God is sovereign.

In light of his sovereignty I have trouble in my mind reconciling the impotency of his church. I'm referring specifically here to today's church in the West. Due in large part to man's traditions, the church does little more today than perpetuate itself (and it's not even very good at that). The entrenched professional pastors, worship services, and expensive church buildings have done much to stifle the vibrancy and life of the saved. Each Sunday millions of Christians attend a religious ceremony (or two) in order to hear a religious expert give a lecture. Most of these believers see this as the most important part of their religious week. Ugh.

Quite honestly, I just don't understand it. Why would sovereign God allow his church to become so impotent? Part of the answer to this question certainly has to do with man's responsibility for his own actions. We know, for example, that the church in Laodicea had all sorts of problems. And yet, God has a history of overriding man's sinfulness to accomplish his own goals and desires. In Matthew 16:18 Jesus says, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Despite this, it often seems like the "gates of hell" are prevailing against the church. I have a deep desire to see a church here in the West that stands for truth, loves the poor and needy, shares the gospel unashamedly, and lives holy lives that stand out to the world. Instead we see a church that looks largely like the world and generally does little of significance.

Why would God allow this to happen? I do not understand.

Unavoidable: Mutual Edification

According to scripture, why does the church come together?

I challenge you to ask your Christian friends the above question. How do you think they will answer? My guess is that the vast majority will answer with the same response: to worship. This is fascinating and disheartening because their answer is wrong.

Why, then, does the body meet? According to the bible the purpose is mutual edification.

In I Corinthians 14:26 Paul writes,"How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification."

As the church comes together as a family, meeting simply, the goal is the edification (some translations use the term "building up") of the entire church. The end goal is the maturation in Christ of the whole group. Everyone benefits through interaction with everyone else.

The I Corinthians 14 passage as a whole deals with the issue of spiritual gifts (actually, that is the topic of chapters 12-14). In chapter 14, one of Paul's main points is that use of spiritual gifts is specifically for the purpose of the upbuilding of the body. Gifts are not for personal aggrandizement; rather, they exist to help others grow closer to Christ.

So then, why does the church gather? What's the point? It's an unavoidable truth that according to the bible the purpose is mutual edification. It's a sad thing that so few Christians know this.

Meme Sunday

Christians Shouldn't Fly the Rainbow Flag Either

I've never seen or heard so much talk of flags. Why are flags even important? Do they matter?

They do, in fact, matter because they represent ideas. And as the saying goes, "Ideas have consequences."

As many of you know, I live in the American South. Thus, I see my share of confederate flags. They mostly fly at private residences. Over the past month or so the confederate flag has been all over the news. Opinions about this flag are wide ranging. Emotions run high almost whenever the topic is brought up. A few years ago I put my opinion about the confederate flag on this blog. The post is entitled Christians Should Not Fly This Flag.

There's another increasingly popular flag that also stirs the emotions: the rainbow flag. Generally speaking, this flag represents the homosexual community. If you fly the rainbow flag it means that you are supporting the homosexual lifestyle. I'm not surprised that secular society is now rallying around this flag. However, what bothers me is just how many self-professing Christians support homosexuality. It's as if they've never read the bible (maybe they haven't) or just don't care what it says.

Despite what some revisionist interpreters would like us to think, the scriptures are clear on the issue of homosexuality. The words penned in the bible actually mean what they mean. It is instructive that the entire church was in agreement that homosexuality is sin until just recently. To think that all Christians everywhere were wrong about this for 1900 years is very arrogant.

Because the bible is abundantly clear on this topic, followers of Jesus Christ ought not in any way support homosexuality as a valid lifestyle. Part of this is not flying the rainbow flag.

As a reminder:

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." Rom. 1:26-27

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." I Cor. 6:9-10

"Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted." I Tim. 1:8-11

Additionally, below is everything positive the bible says about homosexuality:

If you follow Jesus Christ, don't fly the rainbow flag.

Questions and Answers

I've been gradually answering a series of questions that I raised back in May in the post entitled Sorry, But I Can't Stop Asking Questions. We've made it to July, and I'm still answering them. This is dragging on too long. Therefore, I'm going to finish the final six questions right now.

Why do so many simple church folks have poorly-defined doctrine?

Having swum in the simple church waters for a while now, I realize that a significant number of these Christians have fairly poor or at least poorly-defined doctrine. I'm referring to significant issues such as the gospel itself (obviously the most important), the reality of Hell, homosexuality, women's roles, etc. Why has this happened? While I'm sure many different reasons exist, the primary one may be that many simple church people tend to "go it alone" when coming to their own beliefs. They pick and choose whatever they feel comfortable with, not bothering to compare those beliefs to historic Christianity. I'm all for studying the scriptures to find what is true; however, this ought to be done in primarily in community as opposed to isolation.

One further thought: plenty of institutional Christians have poor doctrine. This stems from drinking the Kool-Aid of bad teaching from the pulpit. Denomination after denomination in this country has stated beliefs and practices that have little to nothing to do with the bible. Just take a quick look, for example, at the Episcopalian Church. They hardly resemble Christianity at all.

The truth is that poor doctrine exists everywhere. We must let the bible drive what we believe and come to those beliefs within the setting that is the body of Christ.

Why do churches spend so much money on themselves?

This is an easy one to answer. The institutionalized church has one great, often unstated goal: self-preservation. This is why it spends almost all of its tithes and offerings on paying its own bills. After paying the pastoral salaries and building expenses there is little left over to give to anyone in need. An additional factor is that American Christians like comfort; the buildings must be nice.

Why do churches deny any Christians access to the Lord's table?

I believe this is done with good but ignorant intentions. It also occurs not within the New Testament's model of a full meal, but rather during the ceremonial Lord's Suppers that feel like funerals.

Some pastors are afraid that non-believers will partake of the small cup of juice and the stale cracker. Therefore, they only allow "local church members" to eat it. In doing so, they are denying access to the table. What a mockery this is! Who is the pastor to deny access to the Lord's table to any believer? It is the Lord's after all.

Within institutional Christianity the entire Lord's Supper has become a big mess. It does not even remotely resemble the joyful family meals we read about in the New Testament. It needs an entire reformation.

Why do many Christians invest so much in secular politics?

The answer is that many believe that the USA is some sort of second Israel. "God is going to change the world through the red, white, and blue!" Wrong! God has never made any promises to America. Also, these Christians simply do not understand (or refuse to) that the church should function outside of politics. The church is a spiritual reality. It operates according to God's principles. To mesh with politics always brings harm and disappointment to the church.

Why do we divide over so many inconsequential issues?

We divide because we want to be right. We do not believe that we can stand united with other Christians who believe differently than we do on doctrines of secondary importance. Division is the easy thing to do; it's a much more challenging task to live peaceably with those who disagree with us. Also, we don't take God's commands for unity seriously; we act as if they are optional.

Why do we expect secularists to care about Christian principles?

I'm always amused when I hear Christians bemoan the state of our society. I cannot figure out why Christians think that a secular culture would care at all about what God has to say about anything. Frankly, what amazes me is that the USA is not worse off morally and ethically than it is. The fact is that man's heart is cold to the things of God until God works the miracle of regeneration. We ought to expect a lot less from society and a lot more from the church. The church alone can see with spiritual eyes. We alone should be caring for what God wants. We tend to hold society to too high a standard while we give the church a free pass. The church ought to be the beacon God intends it to be. Let's hold each other to a higher standard.

Why Are We Surprised When We Suffer for Christ?

I am no expert in suffering. Quite frankly, I do not know that I have ever truly suffered for Jesus Christ. While many brothers and sisters in Christ suffer overseas in places like North Korea and the Middle East, I live in the relative freedom of the USA. I do not know why this is the case; it's just where God decided that I would be born.

It both fascinates and saddens me that so many Christians act surprised when we are actually called upon to suffer for the cause of Christ. I'm mainly referring here to American Christians (I cannot speak with knowledge about this topic as it relates to other countries). When Christians are treated in the USA with even a little bit of contempt the response is predictable. Christians will basically say, "How dare they?" and act stunned that anyone would ever act in such a manner.

(This post stems from an earlier one entitled Sorry, But I Can't Stop Asking Questions.)

This type of reaction by Christians toward suffering tells us two things. First, and most troubling, it shows us that these Christians either do not know what the bible says about this issue or they simply do not believe what it says.

Romans 8:16-17, "The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs — heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him."

Philippians 1:29, "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake."

I Peter 2:21, "For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps."

The list of bible verses goes on and on.

The second thing Christians being surprised by suffering shows us is that they are confusing cultural conservatism with living for Christ. While the Republican Party says we should stand up for our rights, the kingdom of Christ is about sacrificing our rights. The culture warriors insist on self-defense while Jesus calls us to lives of non-violence.

In the end, I believe the main reason American Christians are shocked at having to suffer even a little bit is because we are addicted to comfort. We are used to living lives of relative ease. We get bothered when our smart phones don't work just right. We are indignant when the drive-thru is too slow. We think we are going to die if the air conditioning goes out.

We need to take scripture seriously. Jesus has called us to lives of suffering. This does not mean that we seek it out, but rather that we accept it when it comes upon us. Instead of being surprised, we must understand that this is what it is to walk in our Lord's footsteps.

Why Do Many Christians Segregate by Age?

God has given parents a massive joy and duty: care of their children. In light of this why do many Christians segregate by age when the church gets together? (This post comes from Sorry, But I Can't Stop Asking Questions.)

Most institutional churches have age segregated Sunday School classes. Then, during worship services, the kids depart for Children's Church. In many other churches the kids don't even enter the worship services at all; they simply go from Sunday School straight to an entirely kid-directed worship time. Regardless of specifics, most Christian parents depend upon other adults to influence their children during church gatherings. Why is this the case?

My guess is that answers vary to my question. Some parents are just going with the flow of tradition. It is simply a matter of copying the secular school system in this country. Other parents probably do it because they want a break from their kids. Other parents actually believe that age segregation benefits the children. Still others are happy that their children will enjoy "kid appropriate" lessons. The list goes on.

The fact is that young people are departing from the church institution at a frightening rate. Thus, something is wrong. Could that thing be a failure on the part of parents to properly evangelize and disciple their children? Could this have anything to do with parents handing their kids off to others during church meetings?

Age segregation goes largely unchallenged within institutional Christianity. This is so much the case that, for example, family-integrated Sunday School classes are frequently looked upon with suspicion. I'm not joking. This is because so many parents have bought into the faulty idea that splitting up by age grouping is a good thing. They believe this despite all evidence to the contrary.

So, why do many Christians segregate by age? The primary answer is, "Because we've always done it that way."

Why Are Christians in the Military?

It's that time of year again - the season for patriotic fervor and pro-military attitudes. We're past Memorial Day and the 4th of July is just around the corner. Flag Day is sometime in June (I can never remember the exact date). These holidays are almost always accompanied by military events of various types. When this occurs, the church in this country never fails to be one of the biggest cheerleaders for both the flag and the military.

One question: why are followers of the Prince of Peace in the military?

(This post stems from an earlier one entitled Sorry, But I Can't Stop Asking Questions.)

Jesus Christ expects his followers to turn the other cheek and love their enemies. Our Lord makes this exceedingly clear in the Sermon on the Mount.

Jesus also left an example of non-violence for his disciples to follow. When he was arrested, tortured, and crucified he could have struck back and been justified in doing so. However, Christ instead took the beatings not only to pay for our sin but also to show us how to respond when attacked.

Since this is both what Jesus taught and showed us, how can any of his followers be part of the military? In particular, how can any Christians take part in combat where they may be called upon to kill other human beings on behalf of a secular state?

I used to have no problem with Christians being in the military. After studying scripture I have changed my mind. Christ's teachings simply do not allow for His people to act violently toward others. Jesus offers no loopholes. He never tells his followers that in certain circumstances acting violently is acceptable.

In light of this, why are Christians in the military? In response to this question I've heard some believers say that they are in the military to defend others. This may at first sound like a good answer, but Christ never even implies that we should use violence to defend other people. Additionally, in the military it is not God but government who is giving the orders.

In the end I'm still left with the question: why are Christians in the military?

Why Is the Lord's Supper More Often Like a Funeral Than a Celebration?

Almost all of us have been through it before: the institutional Lord's Supper / Communion / Eucharist.

We know how it goes. Most of the folks sit somberly in pews. One person in the front leads a ceremony that feels like a funeral. Everybody is instructed to focus upon their sins and upon Christ's death. No one except the leader speaks. Everyone eats a small cracker or bite of bread. Everybody sips wine or juice. No fun is had.

The above, with small variations, occurs in almost all churches in the USA throughout the year. This would be fine if it was based in scripture. The problem is that it is not. Nothing like what I've described exists in the bible, especially not in the New Testament. If you search the New Covenant people to see what their Lord's Suppers looked like, you will find large family celebrations with full meals. Now that sounds like fun.

So how did we get to this point? Why would the church trade in a family celebration for a funeral-like ceremony?

(This post stems from an earlier piece entitled Sorry, But I Can't Stop Asking Questions.)

To answer these questions we must turn back the clock of church history.

As with much that is wrong with the church, the Constantinian change played a large role. When Emperor Constantine made Christianity the preferred religion of the Roman Empire (in the early 300's A.D.), many pagans flocked into the church institution. They brought their pagan sacrifices with them. In order to keep some semblance of these practices in place, the Mass was developed. Thus we have the "re-sacrificing of Christ" each time the Mass takes place.

In order for a sacrifice to happen, a priest has to be involved. Additionally, the people present must be somber in nature. After all, you cannot celebrate when someone is being sacrificed. The Roman church knew that the bread and wine had to be involved; therefore, they kept them as part of the sacrifice.

When the Reformers came along they did some things to change this. They got rid of the Mass and the priest. However, they put the sermon and the pastor in those spots. Additionally, they kept the funeral-like atmosphere. Ugh. They did not do what they should have: reverted back to the family celebrations we read about in the New Testament.

When we realize that church history and not scripture has led to the current situation, we see what we must do. Scripture must trump tradition. Family celebrations it is!