Southern Baptist Diagnostics

I realize that I never blog here anymore, but I have about 200 words worth writing about the current SBC stupidity and it's not Pyro-worthy, so I'll put it up here in case anyone's feed is still pointed at this blog.

There's a lot of heat and light right now about the ridiculous document, "A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation."  Tom Ascol is giving it the thrashing it deserves, and even the unbalanced can see that, in the best possible case, it talks about Christian theology in semi-pelagian or perhaps even rankly-pelagian terms.  It's not Arminianism.

Here's what I think: if the men who authored and are proffering this document are serious about being advocates for this way of talking about the Christian faith, let them come forward and have an open, honest, and real discussion with their peers at SBTS about what they mean by it.  This document, like all the other shady little snipes that have come before it, is not any better than gossip and rumor and false accusations until it is brought out into the light of day and tested for its accuracy and orthodoxy. Just because Paige Patterson signs onto a document does not make it either reasonable or serious.

However, unlike a lot of folks who are right now bemoaning what this document does or might do to and for the SBC, I welcome it.  I hail it as a milestone.  This is the chance its advocates have been waiting for: this sets the stage to actually fight the fight for the soul of the SBC so that it may find out what it is made of.

In a million different ways, I would much rather that the SBC actually have it out over the accusations made in this document, and over the shoddy formulations in this document, and settle the matter.  If there is a split, let there be a split -- and let those who accept the unbiblical, unhistorical, and unsystematic claims of this document separate from those who would call them to the abstract of principles of SBTS, among other foundational and historical SBC statements.

Rather than post these random and accusatory documents and then run away, let these fellows offer a time and place where an exhaustive and serious discussion of these issues can be had, and let them be resolved.  Or else: admit that they have no intention of ever doing that, and simply have the courage to walk away from SBTS and the like-minded churches which support it, and go their own irreconcilable way.

That's it.  See you the next time something like this comes up.

Kobra Konquest

Well, the meta was down yesterday for some inexplicable reason, and while the good people at haloscan tended to their wounds I had a moment to consider a link from our, um, friend “Kobra”, the Lutheran advocate from our baptism posts, who has posted a link he is happy with about what Baptism is good for. This is how he tells it:

I really enjoy talk radio. My absolute favorite radio-talker is a man by the name of Dennis Prager. He is not my favorite simply because I agree with his political views or his understanding of specific events, but because he is truly wise. One of his joys, and great pleasures, is in finding clarity above and beyond finding agreement. I hope to do the same here. While I'd love that all Baptists become Lutheran in their theology after reading this post, I'll be satisfied if those who read it find clarity. I just want Baptists, and the Reformed, to walk away, after reading this, saying, "Ok, I think I understand where Lutherans are coming from now."

I think one of the problems here is that Kobra, as he has been wont to do since I have known him, thinks that somehow Baptists have never poked their heads out of their sad little non-conformist circles and seen the world.

We have read, Luther, Kobra, and we find him less than convincing. Prager notwithstanding.

One thing that must be understood is that Lutheranism is a top-down theology. For example, Reformed theologians, when speaking of God, begin with an abstract, philosophical concept of who God is. The Reformed begin to explain their understanding of God through statements like, "God is sovereign," and "God is immutable," etc... Lutherans, on the other hand, do not begin with what Luther might call, "the hidden things of God" but rather, they start to understand God through the incarnation of Christ. Christ is, after all, "the express representation of the Godhead." Further, if you have seen Christ you have seen the Father. Thus, Lutherans begin with Christ and work out from Him when seeking to understand the truth of God.

Fair enough, I guess. A little smug, but Lutheranism is itself a little smug. Go on.

Why this is important to understand when approaching the topic of Baptism is that it helps us to see just why God would choose elemental means for the communication of the Gospel. Just as God had to descend from Heaven in Christ, so He now descends again to meet us where we live, face to face in the muck and mire of our fallen world. Only when He does descend are we able to meet Him and receive all the benefits of fellowship with Him--peace, a clean conscience, the washing away of sin. We still, even as Christians, cannot ascend to meet God in the nether regions of a non-elemental world.

See: this is where the smugness shows up – in the slipping in of 1 Peter 3 as if that passage says Baptism bestows a clean conscience rather than this:

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

You know: that baptism is itself an appeal from you, through Christ, to God as an act of repentence, an act of faith.

Listen: I don’t mind coming to a place where we have clarity, but what has to be clear here is that the confessional Lutheran approach to that passage is, at best, atomistic as it breaks off the “saves you” from the other things which are “from you” in that passage. I can grasp that the Lutheran reads this passage as baptism bestowing grace; I cannot grasp how he gets there from the text.

The place to start when discussing Christian Baptism is Scripture. We must begin by asking the question, "What does the Bible say?" This question isn't one that first and foremost demands an intricate and nuanced systematic answer. All that it demands is that one look to the passages that address Baptism, and try to first understand them for what they are. What they are, these passages, are simple sentences that carry a simple, grammatical meaning. How these sentences fit into the larger scheme of Lutheran theology can be dealt with in future posts. But first, as one prominent Lutheran professor passionately commands, "Just read the texts!" In doing so I think that we can arrive at a point of clarity.

I cannot agree too much with that affirmation. But if we go with “just the texts”, the Lutheran has a lot more reconsidering to do than the Baptist.

Let’s see ...

The first passage one needs to look at is Acts 2:38. Peter has just preached a sermon and now calls for people to react to the words he's spoken. He says:

"And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

What is Baptism for according to this passage? The Greek word eis is translated for in this passage, and it means more specifically into. It is through the act of Baptism that one is united with Christ into his death and resurrection. It would be a grammatical error to read the passage as if it were saying that Baptism were merely a symbol of something that had already occurred. Baptism here is the means by which one enters into remission, and not something that one enters into after remission has taken place. For instance, doesn't the grammar demand that we understand Baptism to be the entrance into remission of sins and not merely the representation of something that has already occurred?

Um, wow. Where to start then?

I don’t know anyone who would use this passage to underscore that baptism is “merely a symbol”, and for those who are actually serious about Baptist theology, I don’t know who would say “merely a symbol” in the sense Kobra is here arguing against. What this passage does, in fact, say is that it is repentance and baptism which is “[eis] the forgiveness of your sins”.

Another relevant point here should be noted from the translator’s note for this passage from the NET Bible:

There is debate over the meaning of εἰς in the prepositional phrase εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν (eis afesin twn Jamartiwn Jumwn, “for/because of/with reference to the forgiveness of your sins”). Although a causal sense has been argued, it is difficult to maintain here. ExSyn 369-71 discusses at least four other ways of dealing with the passage: (1) The baptism referred to here is physical only, and εἰς has the meaning of “for” or “unto.” Such a view suggests that salvation is based on works – an idea that runs counter to the theology of Acts, namely: (a) repentance often precedes baptism (cf. Acts 3:19; 26:20), and (b) salvation is entirely a gift of God, not procured via water baptism (Acts 10:43 [cf. v. 47]; 13:38-39, 48; 15:11; 16:30-31; 20:21; 26:18); (2) The baptism referred to here is spiritual only. Although such a view fits well with the theology of Acts, it does not fit well with the obvious meaning of “baptism” in Acts – especially in this text (cf. 2:41); (3) The text should be repunctuated in light of the shift from second person plural to third person singular back to second person plural again. The idea then would be, “Repent for/with reference to your sins, and let each one of you be baptized…” Such a view is an acceptable way of handling εἰς, but its subtlety and awkwardness count against it; (4) Finally, it is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. That Peter connects both closely in his thinking is clear from other passages such as Acts 10:47 and 11:15-16. If this interpretation is correct, then Acts 2:38 is saying very little about the specific theological relationship between the symbol and the reality, only that historically they were viewed together. One must look in other places for a theological analysis. For further discussion see R. N. Longenecker, “Acts,” EBC 9:283-85; B. Witherington, Acts, 154-55; F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 129-30; BDAG 290 s.v. εἰς 4.f.

That is, Kobra’s theological predisposition to this passage isn’t necessarily warranted by the Greek in spite of his retreat to that place.

Also in the book of Acts we find an interesting dialogue between Ananias and the apostle Paul. We are made privy to this as Paul gives his "testimony" or "confession" concerning his shift in behavior. Paul is, in other words, offering an apology for his theological change in thinking. He relays the story of his confrontation by Christ on the road to Damascus. He tells of how he was blinded and sent to the house of Ananias. After speaking with Paul Ananias says to him:

"And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name."

Hadn't Paul's sins already been removed from him? Wouldn't Ananias have done better to say, "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and testify that your sins have already been washed away, calling on his name." This simply would not make sense.

What is troubling here is trying to interpret what Ananias did say by what he might have said or by what he didn’t say. I would be wholly-willing to accept at face-value the commendation from Ananias that baptism will “wash away sins” if, indeed, Kobra would be willing to admit that baptism is also Paul’s action of calling upon the Lord. See: Kobra – indeed, the traditional Lutheran approach to this matter – grabs at the saving value apparently implied here without accounting for the “calling on his name” part. Somehow, Scripture says both are necessary – whatever theological explanation we adopt, we should also say both are necessary.

Later on in Paul's apostolic ministry his teachings on baptism are concordant with both the words of Peter and the words of Ananias. Paul in his letter to the Galatians states:

"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Which, again, is the full context of the “put on Christ” language – and the “putting on” is subsequent to the question of “your” “faith”.

Baptism cannot come before faith – and the Lutheran view simply ignores this.

In the book of Romans he asks his readers:

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?"

Likewise “all of us” who have been baptized in Rom 6 are the “all of us” who have faith in Rom 5. The precondition of being baptized is faith.

We can talk as long as anyone wants about what happens to us in baptism after we have, as Kobra might say, “clarity” about what constitutes an actual baptism.

So, let this start a discussion on Baptism. It could have been a much more extensive post, but I've found that when participating in internet discussions less can be more. Here are a few starter questions:

I’m in for the starter questions, after we have clarified the errors listed above. However, as a sign of good faith, I’ll offer preliminary answers to those question.

Does Baptism deliver the forgiveness of sins that Christ won upon the cross?

Yes, when we understand that baptism is the place where a person publicly makes (cf. 1 Peter 3) a plea for a good conscience in Christ.

Where is Baptism mentioned as a mere symbolic act or a representation of what the person being baptized already possesses?

Baptism is never mentioned apart from the precondition of faith – it is a consequence of faith, and act of faith. In that, there is nothing “mere” about this act. The question is only if somehow the words “sign” or “symbol” do any injustice to what is said, for example, in 1 Peter 3 where baptism is explicitly said not to be a washing but a plea. We know that it is in fact a washing; if by washing we make a plea, I suggesting the washing represents something else, making it a sign and a seal.

Have at it.

Come Together

But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. [1 Cor 11:17-22]

The question has come up regarding what Paul is talking about in 1 Cor 11 here, and for your Friday pleasure I thought I'd hammer out a couple of pages on the subject, especially as it relates to this comment recently proffered in the meta:

Since there is no biblical instruction that the table must be conducted in a "local assembly of believers" (I assume you mean a local church), then I posit that any group of believers who is gathered together (a family, a small group, a church, a gathering at a religious camp) may share the table.

Now, just for the record, the LBCF says this on the subject:

The supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by him the same night wherein he was betrayed, to be observed in his churches, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance, and shewing forth the sacrifice of himself in his death, confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, their spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe to him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other.[XXX, 1]

And to be sure we reckon what the underlined part there means, consider this:

A particular church, gathered and completely organised according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members; and the officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church (so called and gathered), for the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty, which he intrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world, are bishops or elders, and deacons. [XXVI,8]

That doesn't really have anything to do with 1 Cor 11, but it does point out that the historic Reformed Baptist view of the church, its officers, and the ordinances is that the church is right to call forth "officers" (we might say "ministers") by which the ordinances are administered, and that these ordinances -- particularly the Lord's Supper -- is to be administered to the whole church and not just smaller assemblies in fellowship. This is undergirded by the LBCF's stress on the use of the sabbath for Christian worship.

But that said, is this what Paul would have required? I mean, LBCF and all that stuff, but is it biblicious enough for us to have to follow it today?

Well, the place to start is that Paul wasn't happy with the Corinthians. He says, "I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse." Now, what does he mean by "come together"? "Here come old flattop he come grooving up slowly"? I am pretty sure he means "when you come together as a church", because that's what he says in the next sentence. The Greek actually says, when you-all are gathered "ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ" -- which doesn't mean "whenever a couple of you are around". It means when you are gathered together for the purpose of worship as God's people. That doesn't mean "as smaller groups". It means "as the body of Christ; as one body; when you all come together as one assembly".

So as Paul continues his anti-commendation to the Corinthians here, consider that what he is criticizing is what the practice and what they ought to be practicing as a body together.

"When you come together," he says, "it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal." And to this, Paul says specifically, "What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?" Notice the contrast he draws between the "houses" of each one verses the "church of God" -- that whatever you do at home, it should not be that way when you come together as the church of God.

"yes, well cent," says one, "we come together as the church of God in many ways, and one of them is that we, in my neck of the woods, come together in our homes as smaller groups to worship God. And when we do that, we sometimes take the Lord's supper -- nobody in the group gets excluded. We come together in a different way than Paul describes here, but it's not disqualified by Paul."

Dude, that's hooie. That's simply wandering around the text rather than reading it. Paul says explicitly here that the church ought to come together specifically for the Lord's supper, and come together specifically without any divisions. When your church goes out to smaller groups in homes to occasionally have the Lord's supper, it's doing in fact what Paul here excoriates -- only it actually goes out to the homes to make the divisions rather than clique up even though the church is all in one place.

Let me say this: there's nothing wrong with small group fellowship. It's great for prayer and real spiritual intimacy. But the gathering in one body specifically has the charge -- seen here as said by Paul -- to remember the Lord's death in the ordinance of the meal.

See: Paul's point here is that if you were in your own home having a select few people over, that's a division which has nothing to do with the assembly of the believers -- it's your party, and you can cry if you want to. But when the believers are actually assembled, your private party time is over. Taking the Lord's Supper out to those smaller groups doesn't sanctify the smaller groups -- it only makes completely obvious that the church is not coming together for this act.

The believers are to assemble for the Lord's Supper, not merely meet up in little coffee claches. Paul says if you assemble but do not treat each other as one body, you are doing something unworthy. How can you then say that if you just don't meet up as one body but instead meet up as smaller units of one body you can get past the criticism that you haven't united?

Paul says come together, right now. I say he's got a good point -- and it's up to you to be in God's house with God's people on His day. You're not coming together if you're not actually with all of those people.

scholars and scholarship

This one gets filed under "alcohol" for one simple reason: it's part of the larger question of what is and what ought to govern our thinking -- particularly Southern baptist thinking -- on the topic of alcohol and its use or uses.

Peter Lumpkins has dropped by in the meta, and has labelled the work of Eliphalet Nott "scholarship" on the subject of "temperance", by which they both mean "prohibition". That's an interesting opinion, and I think it deserves some working out.

Dr. Nott was, in fact, a scholar. He tested out to receive his Master's Degree without needing to complete the coursework, and ultimately earned a doctorate. He spent almost his entire adult life in the service to adacemia, and for that he is to be applauded. That is a great reason to call him a "scholar"

However, the lecture series from which the arguments we have seen from Mr. Lumpkins have been drawn were not academic lectures -- that is, they were not delivered as "scholarship" per se, subject to peer review. They certainly implement a wide variety of information, they implement an expositional style intended to persuade the listener, and they are somewhat tenacious regarding the point they are trying to make.

But in that, they were delivered in temperance lectures -- the 19th century equivalent of appearing on an info-tainment show like 20/20 which people attended for populist, civic-minded entertainment and information. In that, it's reported on page 190 of Dr. Nott's memoirs:

[His scriptural argument] is presented in two or three lectures, out of a course of ten which he delivered in Schenectady, in1838, 1839, and repeated in other places. … As to the postulate concerning the good and bad wine of the Bible, it need only be said that by the majority of Biblical critics the argument is not now held to be conclusive. He never claimed to be a Hebrew scholar ...[Memoirs, C. Van Santvoord, ed., 1876]

Dr. Nott was a scholar, and he held opinions which, frankly, he was entitled to. The unfortunate fact is that his lectures where these arguments are made are not "scholarly" lectures but in fact "popular" lectures, and should not be represented as holding some kind of endorsement of academic credibility.

Not any more or less, at any rate, than blogs are held in such repute today.

Alcohol stats

Some alcohol use statistics (source: CDC.gov):

- 61% of American adults drank alcohol in the last year where stats are available (2004); that means roughly 183 million Americans drank alcohol that year.

- 32% of those had 5 or more drinks on at least one day; that means roughly 59 million Americans abused alcohol at least once in 2004.

- 21,081 alcohol-related deaths were reported in the same year, including all deaths from alcoholic liver disease. That equals 0.035% of all -abusers-, and 0.0115% of all -users-. Converted to deaths per 100,000, that's 11.5 deaths per 100,000 users, and 35 deaths per 100,000 abusers. This, btw, is the worst-case scenario as I will openly admit that some alcohol-related deaths are to people who are victims of others' abuse.

- CDC records also indicate that in the U.S. in 2005, the number of deaths by accident/unintentional causes in the general population was 37.7 per 100,000. Deaths by cancer in the general population in the same year were 185.8 per 100,000. Deaths by heart disease were 217 per 100,000 in the general population.

- To spell that out as clearly as possible, someone who is abusing alcohol has the same likelihood of dying by accident as by alcohol-related circumstances; he is 5 times more likely to die by cancer than by alcohol-related circumstances; he is almost 6 times more likely to die from heart disease than by alcohol-related circumstances.

- The average alcohol user is 3 times more likely to die by accident than through alcohol-related circumstances, 16 times more likely to die from cancer than through alcohol-related circumstances, and almost 20 times more likely to die from heart disease than through alcohol-related circumstances.

- For the record, 59,664 people died from the flu in the same year -- 2.8 times as many as died from alcohol-related circumstances.

Here's what I'm not saying: I'm not saying that any of these deaths are not tragic: they are all tragic and take a toll on real families. What I am actually outlining here is that the moral argument against alcohol use has to take into account that more people die by accident than from alcohol-related circumstances annually; far more people die from the flu than from alcohol-related circumstances.

Let's keep that in mind as we advance toward the discussion of the moral ills of all alcohol abuse.

Have a drink, or don't

OK – I promised to crack the books and start some replies to Pastor Peter Lumpkin who is blogging toward (if, allegedly, not against) those in the SBC who find Resolution 5 offensive and anti-biblical.

This is where I'd start with Pastor Lumpkin, which would be the intro from one of his latest missives:

Thus far in our series on wine, we've really only made one important point contrary to our Brothers who insist that moderate consumption of alcoholic wine for pleasurable purposes is the only Biblically defensible position available; namely, that there exists a viable, scholarly understanding based on Scripture that calls for total abstention from intoxicating beverages--wine, in particular--for pleasurable purposes.

The reason I'd like to start there is because Pastor Lumpkin sort of just starts talking past people with this assertion.

Apparently – and I welcome his supporters, and anyone on his side of this exchange, to offer me a correction on this – he has misconstrued his own position for the position of those who object to Res 5.

See: Res 5 makes this plain statement in English --

the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-14, 2006, express our total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages; ...
... we commend organizations and ministries that treat alcohol-related problems from a biblical perspective and promote abstinence and encourage local churches to begin and/or support such biblically-based ministries.

It makes alcohol consumption an all-or-nothing proposition, and as I pointed out back in '06, this is based on the conflation of the use of alcohol with the abuse of alcohol.

My position – and the position of every single person I know who would reject this resolution and advocate for "moderation" – is that total rejection of alcohol use is excessive and outside the Biblical mandate, but that to abstain personally is appropriate in a very wide variety of circumstances.

Let me give you some personal examples. I work at a place where, from time to time, the guys I work with at my pay grade go out and have a beer and wings. BTW, we have it at a place which is about two miles from the largest SBC church in NW Arkansas, and that church is not campaigning to have that establishment, or any of the dozen liquor stores in its 10-mile radius, closed. And their pastor is a supporter of Res 5. End Parathetical.

But we go out and we have a couple of beers, some laughs, some wings, and we go home. And when I say "we", I actually mean "they": I am the first-string DD. When we go, I drive, and when I drive, I drink Cokes. In that situation, it is both prudent and a ministry to stay sober because somebody has to drive home, and I take their marriages and families seriously enough to say, "I'll pass on the Sam Adams, boys, because I love you and I want us to get home safely."

If I was in my house, I might have half a beer – because I like a half a beer once in a while, but I also can't have more than half a beer because of my Lipitor. But I refrain when it is prudent and not because there is some phony holiness stipulation which convicts me.

Everyone with me so far?

There is also the matter of ministry service. I'm the facilitator for Adult community life at our church, and as such I am considered a member of the ministry team. We live in a dry county. In that environment – where the moral view of the gentiles is that alcohol is the deemin likker – there is no profit for a servant of the church to partake in a practice which is viewed by the locals as somehow satanic.

So again: I choose personally to abstain.

The question, then, is not is abstinence a valid choice? The question is when is abstinence a valid choice? And as a correlation to that question, when is moderate drinking a valid choice?

Therefore, as we begin to engage Pastor Lumpkin's points, let's remember that it is not the advocates of moderation who are demanding an either/or solution to the issue. The prohibitionist view is founded on the principle that either alcohol is evil or it is wholly and always good – and it is that view which is frankly untenable.

We'll get to the 19th-century perspective of prohibition and alcohol which Pastor Lumpkin borrows from a Presbyterians minister the next time we come across this topic.

Then again, a story like this comes up. Can't wait to see the spin on this one.

Programing notes

Beautiful. It's January, and apparently that's the baptist liturgiucal season for demanding prohibition. Gene Bridges sent me this link to Les Puryear's blog; Les has compiled the summary of links to Peter Lumpkin's blog regarding Pastor Lumpkin's thoughts on a "useful" approach to making sure alcohol is illegal and never passes the lips of a baptist in an SBC church.

Most helpful to those of you who are really up for this is this link to the book from which Pastor Lumpkin has extracted his argument against alcohol -- a book published in 1857, which is an edited version of a series of lectures by the Presbyterian (!) president of Union College in Schenectady, NY. And let me tell you: there was never a time I was happier that Google started putting public domain books on the internet in PDF format than when I came across this little set of essays by Pastors Lumpkin.

And I thought I had a full calendar already. Stay tuned.

So why not?

OK -- last night's post was an attempt by me to get people rattled and to frankly get almost everyone to agree with me that the idea of surrendering sex to the culture is a totally vacuous idea.

Because that's what I was advocating, right? In the face of the culture using sex like some kind of condiment, my great idea was that Christians should have no sex whatsoever. And let's be clear here: whether you agree with that statement or not, the Bible tells us that there should be no sex apart from marriage, but I was going far beyond that to say that even inside marriage people should forego all sex to show the culture ... well, something.

It's when we get to the "well, something" point that we have to raise an eyebrow, so to speak. What exactly would we be showing the culture by becoming a sex-free people -- besides the last generation of believers of that mind?

Here's what we'd be showing them: that we are not at all serious about our own claims about the sufficiency and inerrancy of Scripture. That somehow we don't really believe our Bibles when they say things like, Eph 5:31 and also 1 Cor 6:16 -- which are two sides of the same coin, one the affirmative plan of God for sex in marriage, and the other the negative discouragement about how one culture expressed its views on sex.

The novice apologists will simply brand this kind of "liberty" as "legalism", but it's worse than that: it's actually something for which Paul had some harsh words:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer. (1 Tim 4:1-5, for the verse wonks, ESV)

Now, think about this: Paul says the demand to abstain from foods is in the same class as the demand which "forbids marriage". It's the same kind of "lie", the same kind of "departure from the faith", the same "insincerity" from people who have "seared consciences".

For those who can't work it out, when some teacher is "forbidding marriage", he's not advocating an open sexual context: he's talking about the end of sexual relationships altogether.

So let's not pretend here that my example last night was somehow disconnected from the idea of tea-totalling: it is Paul's example, and it's Paul's concern to Timothy which underscores that it's the same class of falsehood to demand abstinence from sex as it is to demand abstinence from various foods.

But for the record, Psalm 104 makes it crystal clear that among the foods God has blessed man with is wine. That's "yayin" in the Hebrew, which is the same word for the stuff Noah drank after he grew his vine and was naked-drunk in his tent in Gen 9:21. Paul's not talking about the small potatoes here: Paul's going for the whole menu.

Here's what I'm not doing: I'm not condoning the drunkeness of Noah. The Bible condemns drunkeness over and over. But the Bible calls on us to be people who demonstrate something which receives the blessing of God without abusing it. The Bible teaches us to use what God has given us without abusing it. The Bible does not say to give up things which the culture is defiling -- even to the place, frankly, that we can eat meat which was probably offered to idols so long as we don't ask too many questions.

So when we think that the solution to drunkeness is sweet tea so that nobody ever sees how a redeemed person will handle a drink, maybe we are cutting off our God-given nose despite our God-given face because we think we don't like the smell. Maybe we should clean up what stinks instead.

I'm sure I have more to say about this, but I'll bet this is enough to make someone lose it. And I have the thread at TeamPyro to deal with.

Carry on.

Because Oklahoma doesn't have any worse problems...

... like rampant and vulgar Charismatic chaos or the appearance of casinos on every street corner, the Arbuckle Baptist Association has issued a fatwa against (sorry) issued a recommendation that the SBC take a stand against reformed theology and/or Calvinism.

It's funny how the Calvinists want the SBC to have truthful membership records and take a resolution to exercise biblical church discipline, but the other side wants to ban alcohol and Calvinism. There's a punch-line in there someplace, but I'm just too vexed to think of it.

chicken or egg?

Alert Reader Joel G. sent me this link and asked me to comment. My comment is a question: "Who's fault is this -- the pastors who are going through the meat grinder, or the congregations calling pastors to stick their hands into the meat grinder?"

I also have a second question: when was the last time your church read Titus, 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy together, in that order? Could any of you give the main points of those 3 letters and explain how those points work out in the daily life of your church?

I'm just sayin' ...

Talk about uncharitable ...

Doug Wilson linked to this today. Let me say that I think those danged baptists are the most uncharitable of all, and only a child could see that the emperor wears no clothes.

This is why we don't baptize infants, btw: we'd get too much of this smart lip and we'd have to start changing things ...

LBCF (1689) Chapter XXVI - Of the Church

Before you read this, I'm posting this section of the LBCF with Scripture proofs here for the sake of having a place to link my next TeamPyro post directly to this text. It will become obvious why when you read the TeamPyro post. Carry on.

1. The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Hebrews 12:23; Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:10, 22, 23; Ephesians 5:23, 27, 32

2. All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.

1 Corinthians 1:2; Acts 11:26; Romans 1:7; Ephesians 1:20-22


3. The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.

1 Corinthians 5; Revelation 2; Revelation 3; Revelation 18:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12; Matthew 16:18; Psalms 72:17; Psalm 102:28; Revelation 12:17


4. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.

Colossians 1:18; Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 4:11, 12; 2 Thessalonians 2:2-9


5. In the execution of this power wherewith he is so intrusted, the Lord Jesus calleth out of the world unto himself, through the ministry of his word, by his Spirit, those that are given unto him by his Father, that they may walk before him in all the ways of obedience, which he prescribeth to them in his word. Those thus called, he commandeth to walk together in particular societies, or churches, for their mutual edification, and the due performance of that public worship, which he requireth of them in the world.

John 10:16; John 12:32; Matthew 28:20; Matthew 18:15-20


6. The members of these churches are saints by calling, visibly manifesting and evidencing (in and by their profession and walking) their obedience unto that call of Christ; and do willingly consent to walk together, according to the appointment of Christ; giving up themselves to the Lord, and one to another, by the will of God, in professed subjection to the ordinances of the Gospel.

Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; Acts 2:41, 42; Acts 5:13, 14; 2 Corinthians 9:13


7. To each of these churches thus gathered, according to his mind declared in his word, he hath given all that power and authority, which is in any way needful for their carrying on that order in worship and discipline, which he hath instituted for them to observe; with commands and rules for the due and right exerting, and executing of that power.

Matthew 18:17,18; 1 Corinthians 5:4,5; 1 Corinthians 5:13; 2 Corinthians 2:6-8


8. A particular church, gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members; and the officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church (so called and gathered), for the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty, which he intrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world, are bishops or elders, and deacons.

Acts 20:17,28; Philippians 1:1


9. The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person, fitted and gifted by the Holy Spirit, unto the office of bishop or elder in a church, is, that he be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself; and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with imposition of hands of the eldership of the church, if there be any before constituted therein; and of a deacon that he be chosen by the like suffrage, and set apart by prayer, and the like imposition of hands.

Acts 14:23; 1 Timothy 4:14; Acts 6:3, 5, 6


10. The work of pastors being constantly to attend the service of Christ, in his churches, in the ministry of the word and prayer, with watching for their souls, as they that must give an account to Him; it is incumbent on the churches to whom they minister, not only to give them all due respect, but also to communicate to them of all their good things according to their ability, so as they may have a comfortable supply, without being themselves entangled in secular affairs; and may also be capable of exercising hospitality towards others; and this is required by the law of nature, and by the express order of our Lord Jesus, who hath ordained that they that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel.

Acts 6:4; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Timothy 5:17, 18; Galatians 6:6, 7; 2 Timothy 2:4; 1 Timothy 3:2; 1 Corinthians 9:6-14


11. Although it be incumbent on the bishops or pastors of the churches, to be instant in preaching the word, by way of office, yet the work of preaching the word is not so peculiarly confined to them but that others also gifted and fitted by the Holy Spirit for it, and approved and called by the church, may and ought to perform it.

Acts 11:19-21; 1 Peter 4:10, 11


12. As all believers are bound to join themselves to particular churches, when and where they have opportunity so to do; so all that are admitted unto the privileges of a church, are also under the censures and government thereof, according to the rule of Christ.

1 Thessalonians 5:14; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14, 15


13. No church members, upon any offence taken by them, having performed their duty required of them towards the person they are offended at, ought to disturb any church-order, or absent themselves from the assemblies of the church, or administration of any ordinances, upon the account of such offence at any of their fellow members, but to wait upon Christ, in the further proceeding of the church.

Matthew 18:15-17; Ephesians 4:2, 3


14. As each church, and all the members of it, are bound to pray continually for the good and prosperity of all the churches of Christ, in all places, and upon all occasions to further every one within the bounds of their places and callings, in the exercise of their gifts and graces, so the churches, when planted by the providence of God, so as they may enjoy opportunity and advantage for it, ought to hold communion among themselves, for their peace, increase of love, and mutual edification.

Ephesians 6:18; Psalms 122:6; Romans 16:1, 2; 3 John 8-10


15. In cases of difficulties or differences, either in point of doctrine or administration, wherein either the churches in general are concerned, or any one church, in their peace, union, and edification; or any member or members of any church are injured, in or by any proceedings in censures not agreeable to truth and order: it is according to the mind of Christ, that many churches holding communion together, do, by their messengers, meet to consider, and give their advice in or about that matter in difference, to be reported to all the churches concerned; howbeit these messengers assembled, are not intrusted with any church-power properly so called; or with any jurisdiction over the churches themselves, to exercise any censures either over any churches or persons; or to impose their determination on the churches or officers.

Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23, 25; 2 Corinthians 1:24; 1 John 4:1

Unity, Polity, History

Here's a link to the Desiring God blog with a summary of a message from Sam Storms on the true meaning of unity and the church.

You should read it. I don't agree with it. I want to write more about it, but I'm on hiatus.

Think about it, and we'll get back to it. For those who are looking for one kind of red meat or another, I don't that essay puts the Piper family on the black list of evangelidom: I think it demonstrates why it is important to resolve disputes with something other than a church split.

More later.

Presby-schmerians

There's this little throw-down opening up at Doug Wilson's blog over what credobaptism "means", and one commenter tossed out this doozy:

A word about baptistic baptism. I grew up in the Church of Christ, where, even though they'd rather be stoned to death than be called a "Baptist," nevertheless their concept of baptism is uber-baptistic.

There is more to the credo part of credobaptism than just a "background check," or even "confirmation." Underlying the baptistic concept of baptism is the philosophical premise that God does not interfere with the unadulterated, absolute free will of men (who, by the way, are morally tabula-rasa at birth).

In other words, credobaptism, at its foundation, is an explicit denial of both God's sovereignty in the area of human will, and the fact that man is dead in sin. This is why it is so repulsive. And this is primarily why I left the COC ("this" being the denials, not the symptomatic credo-stuff).

So when a COC elder or a Baptist pastor starts the interrogation, what they're looking for is: 1)some kind of evidence that the baptismal candidate has reached the mental age where (the philosophical argument goes) she can be reasonably expected to exercise a high level of beloved rationality, and 2)some evidence that the candidate has in fact used her rational ability to remove her own heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh (all by herself).

Uuugghhhh... I believed that stuff for 30 years...

Yeah. Whatever. My first response was that this was dumb-factor of 12 on a scale of 5, and I invited our blog friend here to D-Blog this subject, but he passed. Instead, he wanted to know where his opinion went south, and I told him something like what follows.

That said, the "interview" is seeking evidence of faith. Just like in a paedo church prior to confirmation when they comb over the catechism so as to confirm (hence ...) the evidence of faith, so does the ordained baptist malcontent when he asks for one's "testimony".

Seeking the evidence of faith does not imply the superiority of free will over God's sovereignty. It seeks to announce His sovereign action through Baptism. Baptism is for the faithful not for anyone we hope will get faith.
For example, when John the Alcoholic gets baptized at age 47 because Pastor Abe at First Proper Presbyterian evangelized him at the barber shop, presbyterians would not then go an baptize all of Abe's college age atheist children, would they? Why not -- because human free will is sovereign? Or because baptism is for those in faith? See - if what is at issue is that faith is promised to the children of the faithful, then the age of the person gaining faith shouldn't matter. And that goes double for the classic "household baptisms" defense. "Households" in those days were often extended family deals - so what do we do with that if we go paedo on the one hand?

Those adult kids of John the Alcoholic don't have a reservation at the fount just because Dad is suddenly regenerate: why would the infant kids?
I know there's a WCF answer to this, but it only answers the latter half of the question -- not the former half. It ignores the former half.
The comeback was classic:

Whoa, hoss. First, adults who display an obvious lack of faith are presumed to be unfaithful precisely because all the evidence says that they are. Infant children of covenant parents are presumed to be faithful precisely because all the evidence says they are.

Second, you must recognise that credo-baptism is no more "reliable" a measure of true faith than paedobaptism. In both cases, those administering the sign of the covenant are relying upon God's promises concerning covenant status. John says that no man can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit (good enough for the credo-b). And Paul says "but now your children are holy" (good enough for the paedo-b). In neither case do you get a signed, notarized certificate, and in both cases you get the occasional bad apple, which apparently is okay with God, if circumcission is any indicator.

See: the presumption that someone has faith because their parents have faith is fine - unless they do things bad by their own free will. Then we can judge them sinners who need to repent. So while LongShot here wants to pin some kind of crypto-pelagianism on baptists, he's a crypto-pelagian as well because of the value he hangs on bad works.

See: what makes us sinners is not the sin we do - it's our nature. We have this sin nature which makes us sinners. And the question is whether there is a faith which lives inside us as a result of Grace. Baptism is a demonstration of what God has done in us, not what he might do in the future.

Last off, there’s no question there are some false credobaptisms. But let’s be serious: is anyone saying there are –fewer- false paedobaptisms? How about in churches ordaining women and openly-gay men? The objection is hollow when we think about what one of the objectives of baptism is – which is that it brings those who are called by God to Him and demonstrates His work upon them.

No seriously: NOW I am going on vacation.

Bringing the pet peeve home

For those just joining us, my pet peeve is the question "Can I leave my church?", and what we have covered so far to answer that question (from Titus) are the points that [a] the church should have leaders with authority, implying more than an informal structure, and [b] the point of having leaders like this is not to have a docile flock but to have a flock which, internally, demonstrates how beautiful God's promises are.

In and of themselves, those are pretty robust. But there is a third part of Paul's letter to Titus, whether or not the verse numbers are inspired. Now, before we get to that, let me recommend a book (it's about 10 years old) to you which speaks indirectly to why we think about this subject (and a few others) the way we do today -- which is, I would argue, in an incomplete or truncated way. The book is The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind By Mark A. Noll. In this book, Noll talks seriously and compellingly about what has happened to the way Evangelicals think, and even what we are willing to think about, in the last 200 years. So if you want to find out something about American evangelical (bad) presuppositions, buy that book and give it one or two readers to make sure his point sinks in with you.

And I bring it up because one of the threads in his book is that we have stopped thinking about the church as a vital entity. In fact, the foundation for the consumerism obvious in our aggregate body of believers comes from the assumption that we're in the last days anyway, so the church is both apostate and becoming irrelevant.

But here's what Paul told Titus:

Remind [the believers] to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people.

The more-alert among you will notice I didn't finish the paragraph here, but we'll get to that in a minute. Paul is here telling Titus that the church ought to be different from the world in a way which can be observed in a clear way.

Think about that: For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. That is, before we received Christ, that's how we were all the time. That's the old way of doing things -- and in case anyone missed it, Paul says that the old way is to be contrasted with the new way of being submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. See: the elders and leaders of the church aren't just figureheads. Certainly – as the London Baptist Confession of Faith says – there is only one head of the church, who is Christ Jesus, but there are those who have authority to teach and to disciple in the body, and we have some obligation to be in submission to them.

That submission should not make us docile monastics who pad around softly as if we were afraid of stirring up some human person's wrath: it should make us into courteous, gentle people who are doing things which can be seen as good work – work which represents to the world the difference between what we were and what we are today.

And Paul says that this is excellent and profitable for people – that is, the people to whom he is talking.

"But cent," says the person who really, really wants to leave his church, "dude, Paul didn’t write that to me. My pastor at my SBC church rules the place with an iron fist, and there's no room for dissention. All I want him to do is to listen to me for a minute in order to stop him from railing against a straw man he's calling 'Calvinism', and he's dead set against even listening to me. I can't keep my family here if he keeps this up."

For you, my friend, I have some sympathy – because you’re right: Paul wrote this letter to his faithful disciple and fellow worker Titus, and my guess is that Titus wasn't blacking out large sections of the Psalms, and Job, and Genesis, and Exodus, and Isaiah, etc., in order to toe the Conventional line that Calvinism makes God a bad guy. But listen: what is the solution to a church culture which is self-immolating for political reasons? Is it "let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains"? Many people think so – and it's an easy choice to make because it gets made all the time. Listen – this is why I bring up Noll's book. The urge to run away is strong, and given the plethora of good spiritual food you could choose to take instead – via podcasts and books and videos from reputable churches and pastors – you could easily continue to mature on your own ...

... except that Paul doesn’t say that believers are called to mature on their own. He says that they are called to live together to be a testimony to the beauty of God's promises, always doing good works. And maybe you get to suffer for the sake of the Gospel.

The reality check is this: eventually, one of these 21st century Medieval bishops and their cadre of lackies is going to do what my hypothetical reader here says they are doing if you attend his church, and if you bring it up to him that he's wrong (Mt 18 and all that; truth in love; gentleness and reverence), he's going to tell you that you're not qualified to correct him, and your attitude is divisive. It's going to happen in spite of prayer and good will. But the question, then, is what to do in the face of what is truly persecution for the sake of God's truth. I'm not talking about drama here: I'm talking about actually submitting to persecution for the sake of being all things to all people in order that some may be saved and share with you in the riches of the Gospel.

It seems to me that running away from a persecutor of the church who is posing as an elder or pastor is forgetting the Gospel completely. If we think in worldly terms, we think only the Islamists and secularists are persecuting the church: but truth be told, when a false teacher lampoons the Gospel and tries to drive those who know God's truth, or want to seek God's truth, out of God's church and into dispersion and seclusion, just because there's no physical lynching or rape doesn’t mean there isn't spiritual violence going on.

My suggestion to you who are reading this blog is that you love God's church more than you love a comfortable spiritual life. It's hard to love your enemies, and hard to suppress our natural love of soap opera, and to do good to those who do evil to you – but it seems to me that this is what the Gospel says we should do. And I don't see anyplace where it says, "yeah – to the liars and fornicators and atheists and idolators do that, but to screwed up pastors or self-important deacon/elders? Dude: run away from them – they can't be saved. There's no work to be done there." Paul certainly commands the elders to refute false teachers, and to have nothing to do with them is they will not be reconciled to truth – but that's to elders and not to Joe Baptist who, providentially, read the book of Romans as if Paul was actually trying to say something there.

Paul says to Titus here that inside the church is where this stuff starts. And when the church is doing this, it becomes a giant neon sign to God's glory and God's promises.

Peter had the guts to say this:

Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And

If the righteous is scarcely saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner? [Prov 11:31]

Therefore let those who suffer according to God's will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good.

The church ought to be beautiful – by example if it works the way God has intended and commanded, and by the suffering of the saints if not. Starting a new "fellowship" because you're not able to keep the old one is utterly antithetical and self-refuting.

That's a good place to stop today – but I'm sure the question of the Reformation (or those who think they are about to start a new reformation) will come up. That's what the meta is for, and I'm sure I'll have a few more words on this as time permits.

pet peeve chew toy

After reading the meta from yesterday's walk with the peeve, I think some people aren't listening very closely either to what I am saying or what they are saying. You know: one of the startling attributes of Paul's letter to Titus is that it takes absolutely for granted that the local church is the only place for believers -- so much so that it actually attracts unbelievers, which is why you need "presbuteros" and "episkopos" to teach and exhort and preach.

The way Paul says to set things in order is to establish elders who are of good character and who will teach what they have been taught. It turns out that some people are among the believers teaching some pretty wretched things, and the way to get that fixed is with the truth.

Think about that: with the truth and not with an exodus from the places where false teachers are popping up. Paul didn't tell Titus, "dude: just round up the faithful and be on your way. With the party of the circumcision around, you just can't win." In fact, he rounds out what we call chapter 2 like this:

Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

That's pretty strong language if Paul is talking about a bunch of people who -- as the meta has said -- are just "an organized assembly of baptized believers in Jesus Christ in one locality where the Word of God is preached and practiced and the ordinances are observed".

It takes more than mere "organization" to be able to "rebuke with all authority": it takes authority. That is: it's not just a mutual agreement that it's good to have someone administrating things who has the go-ahead to write checks when the bills come due. Somebody has the authority to say, "excuse me, but NO. NO. 7-7-3-4 N-O NO."

The Greek word, for those of you scrambling to your lexicons and NA27s, is "epitage" -- which is the same word which Paul uses in Tit 1:3 regarding how God gave Paul the orders to preach His word. So we're not just talking about shouting somebody down here: we're talking about the right based on God's command to preach the word -- that is, to get it correct -- to give correction that binds. And that's reiterated in Pauls' exhortation to Titus: "Let no one disregard you."

Paul is saying that it's not enough to make them go away: you have to correct them until they are corrected or exposed as teachers of falsehood so that the believers reject them. This is what Paul has in mind when he's talking about setting things in order.

And that's just a recap, or wrap up, of what we were talking about last time. We made a big leap-frog there over most of Titus 2, thus:

But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us. Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.

Let's remember that we're defining the church here in order to answer the question "So should I leave my current crummy church?" We have established -- through Paul -- that one definitive aspect of the church is a faithful leadership. The church must be more than a loose federation of people with similar opinions if it has leaders who are tasked to rebuke with [God's] authority and do so in a way that cannot be disregarded.

But look here: these men are not leading a bevy of hapless smurfs. They are leading people who are themselves sound in doctrine in a way which is not theoretical or academic or otherwise merely-intellectual, but which leads to integrity, dignity, and sound speech, among other things. And look: the goal of those goings-on is that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.

It's almost too much, really. When we compare what we have in our churches today to this description of what the church ought to be, we've got some stripped-down jalopy of a church on which we have spray-painted the words "ordinances" on one side and "scripture" on the other, and if some of us get into it sometimes we think, "well, it's nice to air it out once in a while."

The church is not a jalopy, people. The church is the vehicle for the glory of God in this world. We get in it to display and make beautiful what is true about God and from God. When we treat the church like a beater, we are doing dishonor to God.

So the first point is that God established the church as something in particular and not merely something which is ad hoc or coincidental to salvation: it has leaders who can and should wield authority. We can talk about that authority in detail eventually because they don't have a blank check, but they do have a bully pulpit and the platform of God's own word. And the second point is that the church is not just a bunch of fuzzy little peeps the leaders are trying to chase around the global barnyard: they are themselves people committed to each other and to obeying God in order that God may be shown to be as beautiful as He really is.

There is a third point, and without it we can't answer the question you fuzzy little peeps want answered. Here's a handful of corn meal while you're waiting. And I guess the Zens paper is going to get put off another week -- somehow I though today was Tuesday and not Wednesday, so sorry about that.

Walking my pet peeve

OK -- we've had a lovely jaunt through the meta about everyone's opinion about what the church is, and a couple of people have been so kind as to underscore their affirmations with a few verses of Scripture. However, none of the definitions or descriptions have been useful to answer the question we're really considering here: "Can I leave my local church?"

Now, let's be honest: it is possible that, if we define "the church", that definition will not help us answer anyone's question about coming to or going out from such a thing. That's logically possible. For example, if the definition of "the church" is "anyplace where Christians meet", that doesn't help us at all.

Now, rather than give you my definition first and then add a bunch of Scripture as decoration later, I want to start here in defining the church:

Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began and at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by the command of God our Savior;

To Titus, my true child in a common faith:
   
Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you-- if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

Let's think about Paul's salutation to Titus for a few minutes here. Paul says that he himself is a servant of God, and an apostle, for the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth. And in that, Paul has been entrusted to preach the word which is a promise of eternal life.

So whatever Paul is doing, it's about what he calls "manifesting" this promise of eternal life by preaching truth for the benefit of the elect. We will talk about what Paul is doing in a second, and put a name to it.

But Paul identifies himself this way to his disciple Titus, and then begins the body of his letter, "This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order". When Paul passed through Crete, he proclaimed this message of God's promise for eternal life, and apparently some people heard it and believed it -- but it wasn't enough that they believed. Whatever "belief" was, it wasn't something which was for their own personal enjoyment. We know this because Titus was left behind (in a good way, not a scary eschatological way) to put these people "in order". The word here is "epidiorthow", and it comes from the root "orthos" -- "straight". Titus' job was literally to "stand up" or "erect" something, and Paul tells him what it is right away.

Paul wants Titus to set things in order by appointing elders in every town. Listen: all the fru-fru in the meta about called-out believers in worship is swell -- and good enough as far as it goes. But for Paul, the church was not about some arbitrary or coincidental gathering. It wasn't a social; it wasn't a convenience or an inconvenience. It was something which required fellas whom he here called "presbuteros" (and later, "episkopos").

Now, the weaker brothers have already gone running off yelling, "Cent's gone soft! Al Sends and Doug Wilson finally got to him! He's going to start advocating baby baptism, cigars and brandy!" But the reason I go to the Greek on this one (here translated "elders") is to point something out: Paul isn't asking Titus to merely find guys to wear a tunic with a silver fish on the lapel. He isn't starting a private prayer group or a think tank. Paul is telling Titus to set Crete in order by "appointing" these guys (and they are all guys, for future reference) to an office which follows or continues the work Paul himself has already laid down.

Think about that: to close up the loop from above, Paul was preaching and teaching to the elect, and they had an implied obligation to pay attention. They also had an obligation to pay attention even after Paul had moved on to the next town. What Paul instructs Titus to do is find men who can do what has already been done in Crete, and from a position of authority and fidelity. But let's not miss something here: Paul isn't telling Titus to replace the local secular government of Crete with a new faith-based rule. Paul is instructing Titus on how to set the church in order so that it may stay in order.

The CHURCH. See: the church is not just some theory or some accidental or coincidental body which happens to be in but not of the world. The church is a local body set apart from the world for the purpose of declaring God's promise and for the sake of protecting the faith and expanding the knowledge of truth among the elect.

This is foundational to "getting" church. It is foundational to understanding why there is a local church at all -- and why the believer ought to belong to one. The church is not optional, and if you treat it like it is you're hurting both yourself and your church.

Now, is this it? I mean: should we go off half-cocked now and start stamping people's heads with "REJECT" stamps using this piece of the definition of church? Well, no. There's more to the definition, but I'm about to be late for my men's group, and I've missed the last 2 weeks, so I better be off.

Think about this today: the church is not just someplace to go. The church is for the sake of, and ought to, declare and manifest the promise of God to the world. In that, we'll have to discover how important God thinks that work is. We'll do that next time, unless somebody steals the scriptural thunder in the meta. And even then, it deserves front-page coverage.

Carry on.

More on that pet peeve

It looks like the D-blog exchange on that subject has washed out because the other party wants to give a lecture rather than demonstrate his point -- which is fine by me. The question is whether his lecture is worth anything if it can't stand up to questions or a little scrutiny.

So I'm getting these e-mails and these off-line questions about, "well, can't I leave my church?" And if you want a short answer, my answer to you is, "no, you cannot leave your local church."

But if you only want short answers, you're not thinking about your question or its implications very clearly. See: the question, "Can I leave my church" is a subordinate question to the matter of what a church is. And a common baptist (and note: you kooky non-denoms are really baptists without a convention, so get yourself together) misunderstanding of things is that somehow the local church is just some kind of expedient thing, or pragmatic thing, or maybe it's like other bad-but-redemptive things like the cross of Christ or Joseph's being sold into slavery by his brothers -- something we have to suffer through and that suffering brings glory to God.

Listen: that's the worst kind of low church view -- because it's really a "no church" view. Yes: the "invisible church" -- all the saints from all time which we will not be able to see until, really, after the resurrection -- doesn't rely on some earthly corporation. Yes: the saved are who they are, and they don't need someone from Memphis or St. Louis or Durham or Rome to sign off on their credentials or put a check mark next to their name in the Lamb's book of life.

But that's not the question when you're asking, "Can I leave my church?" The question which comes before the question is "It there a divine ordinance which establishes the church on Earth?" That is: Does God have a plan which is being worked out in time and space which includes the rightly-defined gathering-together of those who are reached by the Gospel?

If your answer is, "um, what?" or "THAT'S ROMANISM!", or "geez, I dunno ...", then here's what I want you to do: first, I want you to define -- from Scripture -- what the church is. I'd be willing to stipulate to the "invisible" church, because that's not what we're dealing with -- you're not asking to leave the invisible church, are you? You're asking, "how to I get away from these lousy babdiss soft-soakers of the Gospel?"

So define the visible church from Scripture, including the purpose of the visible church according the Scripture, and then we can start moving forward.

I'll post my answer to that question tomorrow; I will return to the Zens paper later this week. They are related, and you can consider this a pre-emptive excursus on the nature of the church in order to understand the nature of church leadership and church submission.

Carry on. The more-aggressive among you might want to share your answers with the class. Please do so in the Meta.

Now and Zens [2]

Since the brouhaha has already kicked off in the meta, getting back on-track here might seem a little anti-climactic. However, the original Jon Zens essay posted at Wade Burleson's blog still deserves some thorough going-over, and I intend to get after it beginning here.

The first thing I have to say about the essay is this: I think it asks a good question. If Pastor Zens is concerned about, for example, whether or not women can be teachers of Hebrew or Greek rather than whether women can be teachers of Theology or doctrine, I think he may be on to something. And in that, let's make sure we can see the whole map of my concerns together for a moment.

In the last post on this subject, I said

However, over the handful of years we have been open, I have taken a small amount of grief for promoting books by Kay Arthur and Beth Moore -- because they are women who are plainly teachers. The admonition goes along the standard lines regarding why women ought not to be pastors or elders in the church.

Fair enough: I'm in. I agree with the "pastors and elders" argument, so I accept the admonition that women writing books on spiritual formation veers into the theological red-light district.

How does this standard apply to women bloggers? Does it apply? We're going to finish up on that Wade Burleson-linked article, and then approach this related topic with fear and trembling.

I'm sure I'll get a lot of heat for the term "theological red-light district", but I'm not worried about that. What I'm worried about is that some will think that I am saying all women should never say or do anything in the church – and that idea is utterly ludicrous. Women are believers; women are called to Christ-likeness and participation in the local church; women are clearly part of the plan for the church in the NT.

I omit the blogospheric-requisite proof text references for one simple reason: I don't think anyone is denying these things. These would be common ground issues. What's at stake here is whether or not there is a difference between, for example, teaching Greek to men who will be pastors (which is an academic task; I don't think anyone would call foul if a woman was teaching math or science to men, would they?) and teaching men the exegetical meaning of the book of Acts. The latter is a pastoral activity; the former is not.

Some may disagree with me – because it is hard (and perhaps some will argue "impossible") to separate the translation of the Greek language and the application of such a skill to exegesis. I will be glad to field those questions from those who have them.

Whew. That said, let's get to Pastor Zens' essay with gusto.

As we read his paper, let's remember that his own thesis is founded on what he say we ought to think of 1Tim 2:11-15. I think it's a fine idea to invest all kinds of time on a few limited verses, and it's also a fine idea to see how those verses exist in the whole body of Scripture – that is, how do these statement s measure up to or nuance a broader idea overall in Scripture?

My first concern, however, is that Pastor Zens has not produced "the overwhelmingly positive picture of Abraham's daughters painted in the New Testament". He lists 20 specific examples of this picture, but unfortunately he doesn’t devote a lot of exexgtical energy to spell out his interpretations for us. It would probably be useful to examine all 20 examples, and that will take more than one blog entry. I'll tackle the first 6 here, and continue with the rest as this series plays out.

His first example is this:

** Neither the Gospel narratives nor the recorded words of Jesus ever put restrictions on the ministry of women.

What it interesting here is that this is an unsubstantiated generalization – it speaks to something which the Gospels never mention, and uses that as evidence of something affirmative. Using this logic, we can say that the Gospel narratives nor the words of Jesus ever put restrictions on the ministry of children – so if someone has a bright child who seems good at public speaking, perhaps this child ought to be in pastoral ministry.

What is at stake here is not whether women are like children: what is at stake here is if we can use Scripture's silence on a matter to make an affirmative statement about that matter. This is a mistake in reasoning, and obscures Pastor Zens' point.

His next affirmation is this:

**Jesus fully accepted women as his disciples and they accompanied him in his travels with the male disciples (Luke 8:1-3). These women also supported the mission of Jesus with their own resources. These facts may be much more significant that it initially appears. In the first century it was unheard of for a Jewish rabbi to have female followers. Luke reports this rather matter-of-factly, yet this band of women, men and Jesus was hardly kosher to the curious onlookers as they went from city to village.

What is odd here is whether or not anyone credible is denying that women can be disciples of Christ: I don't know anyone who is a responsible preacher or teacher who is saying that women cannot be disciples; I don't know of anyone who says women shouldn't give of their resources to the church or the work of the ministry.

But there is a rather large gap between saying "women can be disciples" and "women can express teaching authority over the broader body of Christ". If we confuse what is at stake by equating examples of one thing with examples of another, we will come to false conclusions about our actual thesis. That is the type of reasoning we are encountering here.

What is again troubling, however, is the affirmation that Jesus allowing women to be under the teaching of a rabbi makes a positive statement about whether women can actually be a "rabbi" is also an argument from silence. Luke does report the presence of women among the disciples "matter-of-factly": Luke does not report, however, that these women were employed by Christ as teachers or leaders of the church.

**After Simeon took the baby Jesus in his arms and saw God’s salvation, Anna the prophetess “gave thanks to God and spoke of him [Jesus] to all the ones expecting redemption in Jerusalem” (Luke 2:25-38). Anna did not just proclaim Christ to women, but to “all.”

The question is actually whether or not Anna was teaching doctrine in the pastoral sense or exhorting people with a divine testimony. I am sure one rebuttal to my objection is, "cent, you're slicing the baloney pretty thin here: you're saying that not all prophecies are doctrinal statements? Or that speaking of the truth of the arrival of the Messiah is not 'doctrinal'? Then what exactly qualifies as doctrinal teaching?"

It's a good, fair question. To answer it, we have to consider what kind of burden Pastor Zens is trying to place on this brief passage. What he is trying to substantiate is "the overwhelmingly positive picture of Abraham's daughters painted in the New Testament" as it relates to 1Tim 2:11-15 – and ultimately that the restrictions Paul makes there against a woman "to teach or to exercise authority over a man". If Anna is an example which undercuts the idea that a woman ought not "to teach or to exercise authority over a man", then Pastor Zens is here saying that Anna was making authoritative demands on those to whom she spoke. What's interesting is that there's nothing here in Luke to buttress that idea.

Luke wrote this:

And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived with her husband seven years from when she was a virgin, and then as a widow until she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day. And coming up at that very hour she began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.

The word for "to speak" here is not a word which means "to educate" but to demonstrate or testify – you can compare it to the use of the same word in Heb 12:24 where the blood of Christ "speaks" better things than the blood of Abel does.

I admit it: foundationally, the testimony of women to Christ is necessary and important. What it does not do is establish women in positions of leadership in the church in the sense which Pastor Zens is seeking to establish in this article.

If you will forgive me for jumping around, this is underscored by his #6 example:

**A woman’s testimony was disallowed as evidence in first century courts. Yet the Lord chose females to be the first witnesses and proclaimers of his resurrection (John 20:1-2, 11-18; Luke 24:1-11, 22-24; Mark 16:1-8; Matt.28:1-11).

This is completely unquestionable – the testimony of the women is what caused the apostles to stop sitting around dumbfounded by the death of their Messiah. But again: even if God accepts women as witnesses and believers, does this establish that women are also established as spiritual leaders and pastors for the church? At best, the answer is "not by any direct statement".

Most problematic of this first set of evidences for me is Pastor Zens' nest affirmation:

**Jesus applauded the evangelistic efforts of the Samaritan woman (John 4:35-38). After experiencing a revelation of Jesus, she left her jar at the well and went to her city telling men, women and children about the Messiah (John 4:28-29). Everyone in Sychar knew about her history of broken relationships, yet she boldly proclaimed Jesus as the Messiah – a Redeemer even for those outside of Judaism!

The underlined text is what I find problematic – that in the events at the well, Jesus is said to have "applauded" (meaning: endorsed and affirmed as an example) the Samaritan woman.

Here's the text he cites, ESV:

Do you not say, 'There are yet four months, then comes the harvest'? Look, I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see that the fields are white for harvest. Already the one who reaps is receiving wages and gathering fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may rejoice together. For here the saying holds true, 'One sows and another reaps.' I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor. Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor."

Now, who is "you" here? It turns out that "you" are His disciples – the ones who left Him at the well to go into town for supplies. So Jesus is telling the disciples about how rich the harvest is that He is calling them to bring in. In that, he calls all the Samaritans "the fields … white for harvest". He does not mention the testimony of the Samaritan woman at all in making this statement.

Someone might object and say, "cent: the 'others' who have labored must include the woman! She testified about Christ to the Samaritans, and they came to see the Messiah! Isn’t that what Jesus is talking about?"

In the best case for that view, Jesus has made the woman among the many who have prepared the field for the harvest. This positioning might be construed as listing her among the Prophets – just like Anna, above. But the problem is that this role of testifying to people about the fact of the Gospel – which I concede is a role for any and for all believers – is not the same role as pastoring a flock or (as another related example) initiating church discipline. One is a role which is under the broad call of obedience all believers are expected to do, and the other is a narrower role which is actually, affirmatively defined by the New Testament.

To exaggerate Jesus' description in John 4 to "applauding" the Samaritan woman does a disservice to this particular text and makes the overall tenor of this essay less objective than it intends to be.

Last one for today:

**In the context of Jesus’ crucifixion the male disciples fled, yet the women were present and they helped in his burial (Matt.27:55-56,61; Mark 15:40-41; Luke 23:55-56; John 19:25-27).

I don't think there's any question that female disciples carried out this ministry to the crucified body of Christ. I'm not sure who would say otherwise. What is at stake, however, is if this particular event defines the role of women normatively as one of leadership and authority or if it expresses one ministry which women expressly did in one case which does not have any bearing on teaching, preaching, or local church leadership.

There are still 14 more examples from Pastor Zens to consider, but so far his examples do not point to anything approaching the exhortation in 1Tim 2 regarding whether or not to "permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man".

We'll see if further examination provides any richer substance in the rest of this paper.

Now and Zens [1]

My good friend and brother in Christ johnMark has linked me to a somewhat, um, interesting post at Wade Burleson’s blog – and before someone starts speculating due to my silence, I also consider Pastor Burleson a brother in Christ – perhaps more so because he is a messenger to the wayward SBC, and he’s an Okie, which is its own spiritual gift. That link is here.

The essay Pastor Burleson provides is from Jon Zens, about whom I admittedly know nothing. This paper would be my first occasion to read anything by Pastor Zens, and I’m sure we’ll both be sorry for that.

If you want to get the full force of the paper, go read it. I have excerpted it here to make a few comments. I may come back to it because it has a lot to consider.

The purpose of 1 Timothy is stated by Paul in 1:3-4 – “As I urged you upon my departure to Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus, in order that you may instruct certain persons to neither teach differently, nor to pay attention to myths and unending genealogies, which stir up questions rather than furthering the stewardship of God in faith.” “The key to understanding the letter,” Gordon Fee notes, “lies in taking seriously that Paul’s stated reason in 1:3 for leaving Timothy in Ephesus is the real one; namely, that he has been left there to combat some false teachers, whose asceticism and speculative nonsense based on the law are engendering strife, causing many to capitulate to the false teaching” (Gospel & Spirit, p.54).

1 Timothy is not a church manual for a pastor. It is a mandate for an apostolic assistant to deal with serious issues involving false teaching in Ephesus. Unfortunately, some women had become involved in this problem.

Well, who can deny what is said in the first paragraph – that Paul’s own words in 1Tim 1 set the context and scope of the letter for the reader? I would think that only a rather, um, inexperienced reader would try to raise a hand against this statement in order to say, “that’s simply false”.

The problem is this second paragraph, particularly the first sentence. What Pastor Zens is suggesting here is that the 1st letter to Timothy is written only to Timothy and only for the occasion in which Paul wrote to Timothy. Somehow, the idea that Scripture, being God-breathed, and being useful for many things (cf. Ps 119; Deu 6) in a broader context than the occasion in which it was written has been overlooked – and I choose that word carefully because Pastor Zens is, after all, a pastor.

This sentence – indeed, the weight of the paper – is balanced on a view of the letters to Timothy Pastor Zens summaries in this way:

Before coming to our passage in 1 Timothy, it is vital to note that the tradition of designating 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus as “Pastoral Epistles” is very misleading. One writer calls Timothy a “young pastor” (Kuske). Timothy and Titus were not resident pastors/elders. They were itinerant apostolic assistants. Paul at one point tells Timothy to “do the work of an evangelist” (2 Tim.4:5). In these three letters Paul gave his co-workers instructions regarding issues and problems faced by the assemblies they moved among and assisted.

The underscored distinction, above (my emphasis), is a hair-fine distinction at best. To use that distinction as the justification to dismiss the completely conventional and non-controversial view that Paul wrote to Timothy in order to instruct him on “godly leadership in the face of internal opposition” (Wallace) is over-reaching; it attempts too much. In that, the distinction between “pastor” and “itinerant apostolic assistants” is what, really? In the case of the former, I guess it means he stayed there forever, while the latter meant he stayed for a while and then, when the church had a decent set of elders, he moved on to another assignment. The problem is that if the latter is the case, aren’t the “itinerant apostolic assistants” acting in the place of pastors and elders until such people (not to poison the well) can be established?

There’s no question that the letters to Timothy and Titus are not complete "pastoral handbooks". They clearly lack a lot of the theological girth Romans, Hebrews, and even the 4 Gospels provide to the pastor or elder. But of course: that’s why all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. In the same way it would be odd to say that Romans is written only to address a specific need for the church in Rome as perceived by Paul (and therefore cannot be applied to the whole church), it is equally odd to say that 1 Tim ought to be so narrowly construed that our ability to use it to gain an understanding of pastoral ministry and ecclesiology is significantly impaired.

What is more troubling is the speculation – the direction of the speculation – Pastor Zens uses to set up the context of Paul’s exhortations to Timothy. When he says, “Unfortunately, some women had become involved in this problem,” Pastor Zens has presented us with a conclusion which we have to question. Is the correct implication of the controversy which Timothy is in Ephesus to confront/oppose that “some women have become involved” or that this teaching has somehow obfuscated the roles of men and women in the church, and that Timothy must set that right as well?

See: if Pastor Zens is right, then Paul’s warnings to Timothy about how women should or should not act are about some particular women who are false teachers and not about women in general. In fact, Pastor Zens banks on this narrow-band idea. But if the problem is farther-reaching, and the errors are causing order in the church to be undermined, which is a rather important issue for Paul (cf. 1 Cor 14), this essay falls far short of the mark at which it was aimed.

At this point, Pastor Zens devotes a great deal of time to 1 Tim 2:11-15, and sets up 1 Tim 2:1-10 for “immediate context”. The objection I would point out here is that the context of 1 Tim 2 is the groundwork Paul has laid in 1 Tim 1 – which Pastor Zens has hardly addressed at all.

In 1 Tim 1, Paul establishes his preeminent concern to Timothy clearly:

This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

Now, before we get to Hymenaeus and Alexander, what is Paul talking about when he says, “this charge”? He means this, which immediately precedes that phrase:

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 glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life. To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

Paul’s charge to Timothy – and you must read this carefully so you can use it the way Paul intended to use it – is that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully; that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient. That is, the function of the law is to expose and deal with those who are disobedient.

Paul’s charge to Timothy – as it was to the Corinthians, btw, in case we think this is some kind of innovative point by Paul – is to rebuke the disobedient by means of the law of God, and to this end raise up godly leaders to further that task. Thus if Paul is making a specific application to Timothy, he is making it as a specific application of a general principle which is applicable to the church today, and for the pastor today.

With that, this post has gone long on me, and I want to address some of the specific reasoning Pastor Zens has provided to us. Stay tuned for future developments.