Book Review 2: The Jesus You Can't Ignore by: John Macarthur

    

• 

     The Jesus You Can't Ignore is a new book written by John MacArthur. In it he takes the time to go over Jesus' interactions with the religious elite of his time. MacArthur's point is to show the side that he (rightly) believes is largely ignored by Christians Jesus is not the blond, feather-haired hippie we were raised to seem, but a man who embraces conflict when it came to the sins of the religious elite of his day. MacArthur goes through each interaction in its own dedicated chapter and argues his points well. The book itself is very well written and the arguments MacArthur presents are clear logical and easy to grasp.

     There is only one problem with The Jesus You Can't Ignore. MacArthur is technically correct in most of the things he says. Yes, Jesus dealt harshly with the Pharisees and Sadducees but the thrust of this book seems not to be directed at today's religious elite but rather at everyone. Yes, Jesus dealt severely with the teachers and scribes but tenderly with the rest of the people He was tender and gracious. It is here that MacArthur loses the point. MacArthur wants people to contend for the faith and stand up for truth, this is not a bad thing, but like Paul at Mars Hill, we need to know our audience and tailor our response to them. Our response to a hypocritical pastor should be different than our response to an un-believer bad mouthing Christianity. This book is great if it is read with discernment and the proper application of Proverbs 26:4-5

 

 

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their BookSneeze.com <http://BookSneeze.com> book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 <http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

I might have gotten in trouble for this...

*Edit* Wisdom has a funny way of catching you sometimes, I like to rock the boat, I don't like Fred Phelps, or the false gospel he stands for, but rather than throw mud from here, I'd rather preach love from the pulpit.

"The only thing I've ever had to apologise for is my tongue"
-Laurie Kenedy FEBCAST



Thanks Laurie
-Kevin

The Two Kinds of Marriage Redux

Geoff Ashley

I had a recent conversation with a pastor from The Village Church in Texas. (Some of you may recognize this as the church Matt Chandler leads.) Anyway The conversation we had sparked some more thinking on my position on marriage, nothing monumental changed, but I thought I'd share the exchange with you here.

Kevin,
Thank you for writing. I think that the article stands or falls on the strength of the distinction between legal and sacramental marriage, a distinction which is not evidenced within the biblical text itself. As that is our ultimate authority for faith and practice, I would be careful lest we restrict that which was intended as common grace to only those who are believers. Most theological reflection on marriage over the past 2000 years has leaned toward it being a gift to humanity in general and not specifically to the elect. Though there are deeper implications for the elect, the gift is still never restricted in the text. Adam and Eve represent all humanity as our ancestors, not simply Christians. I don't know that we have any biblical merit to limit that which was given to them.
 

 I have never wrestled through the implications of Canadian law in thisarea, but I would want to make sure that giving up the right to

perform marriage was done with pure motives and not simply fear of reprisal(legally or otherwise). That would be where I would be wrestling. We

are certainly called to give up rights at times for the good of others,

but I'm not sure that I see giving up ordination as an example of such atime. What decision best exalts the glory of Christ and the good of

your fellow man (believer and otherwise)?

 I feel for you and for all who desire to be faithful in environments more restrictive than my own. Thanks for writing. Let me know if there is anything else we can do to help.

 Grace and peace.
 --geoff

The guy's name is Geoff Ashley, he raised a number of good points that I hadn't really thought through or articulated fully, so I replied...

Geoff,


Thanks so much for getting back to me so quickly. I wanted to send you a message saying how much I really appreciated your input, you made me 
think through a couple of things and hopefully come up with a better way to articulate some of them.

You're definitely correct that there is no biblical distinction between 
legal and sacramental marriage. There is simply the gift of marriage 
offered by God to His creation. Where I see a distinction is in the 
culture. The marriage God gave was set up as a covenant (See Genesis 2 
and most of the book of Hosea) but our culture sets it up as simply a 
contract which can be broken for any reason (literally, I don't know 
about Texas, but up here, all you need for a divorce is to live apart 
for a year). On this is my heart and the crux of my argument.

The marriage that God gave was set up as covenant. The marriage we as 
clergy solemnize is seen by the solemnizing state as a simple contract. 
Christians then, who are seeking marriage are bound by both; marriage as covenant as God gave, and marriage by contract as Romans 13: 1-2 (and 
any number of practical reasons) dictates. The need for the distinction 
between legal and sacramental marriages, in my view, is becoming more 
pronounced with governments moving away from the biblical standard of 
marriage as covenant.

You were right to challenge my motives as well. It is important that we 
don't compromise scripture for the sake of our comfort. I'd be lying, 
though, if I said I didn't recognize that my stance on this conveniently

avoids the gay marriage question. My motivation though comes not from 
this question, alone, but from what the government has historically been doing to marriage (specifically in the realm of divorce) that has made 
marriage into something that is not the same as what God gave. That 
said, I certainly wouldn't force a "remarriage" on a married couple who 
comes to faith, I'd simply explain that the marriage they have is not a 
contract, but rather a covenant.

It's this fundamental difference (contract/covenant) that motivates my 
position regarding solemnizing marriages as clergy. I believe that we 
(at least in Canada) are sending mixed messages when we will perform one ceremony that is the solemnization of a legal contract while at the same time preach and teach about marriage as a covenant.

I found Geoff's insights to be really thoughtful and I'd value more thoughts on the topic.

Only The Good...

Recently, Pastor Mark Driscoll preached on the calling of the twelve apostles in Luke 6. In one of the key sections of that sermon, he encourages Christians to: "Die with your boots on" The gist of this is:

You're either going to go out like Judas or Jesus—that's how your life is going to end. You're going to go out like Jesus, faithful to the end, whatever the cost, or you're going to go out like Judas, prematurely, tragically, rebelliously, shamefully. I want you to keep your boots on, finish strong, run your race, see it through to the end, be a completer, a finisher, a closer of the things God has given you to do.

He goes on to describe how both tradition and history describe the deaths of nine of the apostles. The full text is available here.

I say this now because it is fitting on a couple of levels. A good friend of mine from college, Craig Simmons and his wife Kristin were in South Korea teaching ESL and living out the great commission. On June 9, Craig was walking home and was hit by a bus. The next week was filled with an outpouring of love, prayer and faithful facebook updates, keeping everyone in the loop. Despite apparent improvement in his condition, this past Tuesday (June 16) Craig Simmons died with his boots on. The reason that the Driscoll sermon is so fitting is that Craig introduced me to Driscoll's ministryback in my first year of Bible College. I owe a lot of owe a lot of who I am to the Spirit's work through Craig.

I miss my friend, and I grieve with his wife and with the friends and family who miss him more than I ever could, but I can't help but be reminded of Philippians 1:21. I know this too, not every man is blessed enough to die with their boots on, and one day, I will see my friend again, I can only pray that I get there with a set of boots too.

Well done buddy
See you soon.

 

Book Review 1: Change Your Church for Good by: Brad Powell.

This review is for: Change Your Church for Good by Brad Powell.




Change Your Church for Good by Brad Powell, is a book written for church leaders and pastors interested in church revitalization. It is a very well-written and logically presented book. Powell seems to be a very organized writer and structures the book into five parts: The first describes (quite accuratley) the state of the North American Church. The second part describes the type of leaders needed to facilitate the change that is needed, the third part describes mission and vision casting, the fourth part is the execution and the fifth is a sort of epilogue.

One thing here is certain, This book was not written for me. I'm in my mid twenties, I'm part of what's called the “emerging generations”, this book is clearly written to pastors and leaders from the Baby boomer and Gen-X generations. I say that , mainly because of the tone of the book. Powell comes across as downright arrogant in certain sections. This, however is where I must confess my own bias. I recently read another book that was written along the same lines but to my generation. Dan Kimball's “They Like Jesus But Not The Church” says many of the same things that Powell is saying but he comes across much more humble (almost annoyingly in some sections) than Powell. Please do not misunderstand me I'm not saying that Powell and baby boomers are arrogant, but the language used is highly propositional and can come across that way to post-modern enculturated kids like me.

One last point. At one place in the book, Powell make the comment: “Everything rises and falls on leadership” I cannot stress enough how much I disagree with this statement. Everything rises and falls on Jesus, and the Gospel. My only real issue with the book is that it reads like a business plan. Much of the advice can easily be transplanted to the business world. The church is not a business, everything rises and falls on the head of the church: Jesus Christ.

Final Word: This is a great book if you are 40 or over and a church leader or pastor of a church that needs revitalization. If you're younger than that, it's good, but you'll get more out of Kimball's book.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their BookSneeze.com <http://BookSneeze.com> book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 <http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Blasphemy?

An interesting thing happenned at work this week.






As a Christian there are things I, as a rule, don't say and certain things I won't say; blasphemy being one of the latter. Colossians 3:5-8 speaks on this directly when it talks about obscene talk, and so, as a Christian who believes the Bible, I seek to follow Paul's instruction by God's Grace.

The problem comes when we ignore the context and audience of this passage. The book is actually a letter written by the Apostle Paul to a church in Colossae; it's written to Christians. Paul is giving instruction on living to Christians. Why is it then that we (as Christians) get offended or freak out when a non-Christian does something that is in contradiction to these instructions? If a Brother or Sister gets frustrated and says something like "oh for christsakes!" we have a right (duty) to lovingly correct them, just like any other sin.  Why is it then that we get so upset when someone who is not a believer does the same thing? Yes, it's blasphemy, and it is sinful to take God's name in vain this isn't news to us, but guess what, blaspheming is the least of these people's problems. They're going to hell because they haven't repented of sin (all of it) and placed faith in Christ. They already have the judgement of God on them, what more could our reaction possibly add?

All we are communicating is God's anger, we're not communicating God's grace at all. When we show our overt displeasure at the language of our friends, we're preaching morality, not Gospel. Works, not Grace. At this point, I'm not concerned with the state of your tongue, but the state of your soul.

-Kevin

Manhood ReLaunched?

Those of you who know me in the real world know that I have a thing about gender roles, I like them. I am of the firm conviction that God created men and women equal, but different and because of that when I saw this ad campaign by Dockers, I had to weigh in...
 

In case you can't read it:

 Once upon a time, men wore the pants, and wore them well. Women rarely had to open doors and little old ladies never crossed the street alone. Men took charge because that’s what they did. But somewhere along the way, the world decided it no longer needed men. Disco by disco, latte by foamy non-fat latte, men were stripped of their khakis and left stranded on the road between boyhood and androgyny. But today, there are questions our genderless society has no answers for. The world sits idly by as cities crumble, children misbehave and those little old ladies remain on one side of the street. For the first time since bad guys, we need heroes. We need grown-ups. We need men to put down the plastic fork, step away from the salad bar and untie the world from the tracks of complacency. It’s time to get your hands diry. It’s time to answer the call of manhood. It’s time to WEAR THE PANTS.

The people at Dockers also sponsored this documentary.


The ad has garnered has garnered negative attention from some feminist and women's Lib groups. But in a very real way they hit the nail on the head. If men simply "manned-up" and led as the leaders we were created to be (note: leading and oppressing/being the boss are different things) North american culture wouldn't be nearly as jacked up as it is.

Comments?

Moral Dilemas Special

So, I know, I promised ten, but I've been so encouraged by some of the responses that I had to include one of my own.

11. Worth


You're hanging out in a field in the middle of nowhere, you know, getting some alone time. Suddenly a man comes out of the woods into the clearing you're standing in. With him is a horse and another man, bound and gagged. He walks up to you and hands you a weapon. He tells you: "You must either shoot this man (whom you've never met nor seen) or shoot this horse (same). Whichever of the two you spare I will set free and release. If you refuse I will kill all three of you.

1) he's telling the truth, he'll release the survivor.
2) you can't kill the man making the offer.

What do you do, and why?

-Kevin

Moral Dilemas pt.10

Lifeboat

You are going on a cruise. 2 days into the cruise your ship experiences technical difficulties and the captain says it needs to make an unscheduled stop. A couple of hours later the captain makes another announcement that the ships hull has been breached and that you will all need to start heading to life rafts and abandon ship. The ships life rafts are lowered as people begin to pile in and you get on board one of the life rafts.

As it is lowered however, it hits the side of the ship, putting a hole in the side of the raft, and when it hits the water it begins to sink. There are 10 people in the boat and to prevent it sinking, you quickly work out that by having 9 people working for 10 minutes while 1 person rests you can bail the water out with their hands, quick enough to keep the water at bay and preventing it from sinking, but you have to continually keep it up to ensure that the boat doesn’t sink. By being able to rest one person you are greatly able to increase the length of time you can keep the boat afloat, however if the rescue team doesn’t turn up you calculate that within 5 hours the boat will sink and you will all die.

While taking your break, you glance over to another boat and notice that a friend of yours who you met on the boat is there and has noticed your predicament. He is signaling for you to come over and join them on their boat so you don’t have to continue bailing water out. There is only just enough room for one more person. You also notice that their boat is moving away rapidly with the current, but your boat can’t keep up because the hole is affecting its buoyancy.

You estimate that if you jump ship, you will force all 9 remaining crew members to bail water continuously, which will reduce the total time they can stay afloat to just 2 hours, but will ensure that you will be able to live long enough to be rescued.

If you stay aboard, you will not have another chance to jump ship, and there’s no guarantee that the rescue will arrive in 5 hours, meaning you will drown, however by staying you give everyone a better chance of survival.

As you watch the boat with your friend drift away, you realize you have about 30 seconds to make a decision:
a) Do you stay on your current boat and help keep it afloat as long as possible and hope that the rescue will arrive in 5 hours
b) Do you go to your friends boat, ensuring your rescue, but reducing the chances of the others on the boat being rescued?

James and Media

I was reading in James tonight, and I had to stop in verses 26-27 of the first chapter. It's not often that I have to stop like I did, usually I can finish a book like James in one sitting and then Meditate and think on what I've read. But this section stopped me dead:  

"If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world."

The relevant part is at the end. Christians are called to keep ourselves "unstained" from the world. The language James is using is the same as 1 Peter 1 talking about the sacrificial Lamb being without blemish. this got me thinking (again) about what Christians should and should not partake in when it comes to media.

Pastor James Harleman from Seattle has his own site where he reviews movies that most Christians won't even watch. (reviews available here) he explains why here but a shortened quote may help those who don't want to read the whole thing:

"We are image-bearers of our Creator, a master storyteller whose narrative spans all of creation, a metanarrative in which we all play a part. Made in the image of our Creator, we have a yearning to both create, and be entertained, by narrative"

By connecting "secular" narratives created by that save God-given creativity to the metanarrative of the scriptures, Harleman takes cultural engagement to a new level.The question now is what is acceptable to watch and what is not.

The answer to this comes from Jesus, in Mark 7:15 Jesus says this: “Hear me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” Yes, in context, Jesus obviously was not talking about movies or any form of media. The immediate context is food and eating. But the broader context applies directly doesn't it? I'll explain.

I had a conversation with my lovley wife tonight, we were talking about the recent controversy surrounding "South Park". Read about that here. In the end she won't watch South Park and certain other movies because the gratuitous language may cause her (and other good friends of ours who share the same postion) to fall into the same behaviour themselves. I on the other hand am free to watch the show and appreciate the (usually) excellent social commentary without it affecting by behaviour.

What we have here is a basic "weaker brother" situation. Some of us are free to watch things like South Park et al because they woun't blemish us or defile us and some cannot. Because the measure is mot what goes in, but what comes out.


Christianity: we have shades of grey too!


-Kevin

Moral Dilemas pt.9

The Mad Bomber

A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. Do you agree? If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the mad bomber’s innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why?

Moral Dilemas pt.8

Drug Bust

You are on holiday in Bali with your 18 year old son and wife. You have been there for a week and are ready to head home. All three of you are at the airport getting ready to board your plane, when an armed officer comes around with a sniffer dog. You have all your bags on a trolley, and the dog sniffs at both your wife and your bag, and passes over it, however when he gets to your sons bag, he begins to get a bit more active.
You look over at your son and he’s looking a little nervous. You know he’s smoked a little marijuana in his time, but generally, he’s a good kid, and you certainly didn’t think he’d actually be stupid enough to bring it back on the plane with him. At first you feel angry that he would do such a thing and start planning your responsibility lecture, but then you realize that you are in Bali, and they have a zero tolerance policy on drugs, meaning your son could be jailed for life, or worse, executed, if he does have some illicit materials in his bag.
You look at your wife and realize she has come to the same conclusion and has gone pale with fear.
The armed officer accompanying the dog is beginning to look more stern with every sniff the dog takes and looks directly at you and asks you to open to the bag.

You do, and as the officer begins to take things out of the bag, you see to your horror that there is a small quantity of marijuana stashed in with your sons belongings.
The officer looks at you and asks “Who’s bag is this?”

You realize you have to answer, but the answer won’t be easy. You see your wife in the corner of your eye, and she is about to step forward and claim it as her own; what do you say?

Moral Dilemas pt.7

Hit and Run

One morning you are driving to work, and as per usual you are running a bit late, so you are driving a touch faster than the speed limit. You reach down to your stereo to change the CD, when all of a sudden your car hits something solid. You spin to a stop, but not before several more cars have run into you and each other in an attempt to avoid the accident.

As you look up and out of your car, you can see that you hit a person, and that the person is not looking very good. In fact, you are sure that they are dead. You shakily get out of your car, and look around at the damage that has been caused. Several cars have been badly smashed up, but more importantly you have killed someone with your careless driving.

As you are standing there in shock, a woman comes up to you, tears running down her face, and obviously very shook up. As a natural reaction, you ask her what is wrong. She gives you a funny look, and then she explains that she just ran over someone. You ask her where this person is, and she points towards the person that you ran over!

You don’t understand why, but for some reason this woman thinks that she caused this accident and killed the person, when in fact you are well aware that you were the cause. Whoever accepts the blame is likely to be placed in jail for a very long time. If you let the woman take the blame, there is a very good chance you will get away with it all. However, there is also the chance that you could be placed in jail for even longer for trying to cover it up.

Moral Dilemas pt.6

Nieces and Daughters
You and your family are going away for the weekend. Your daughter is 7 and is best friends with your niece, who is also 7. Your families are very close and your daughter asks if your niece can come with you on your holiday. You have been on holidays together before and don’t see any problem, so you agree.
You arrive at your holiday destination and the house you are staying at backs onto a beach. The girls ask if they can go for a swim. You tell them that they have to wait until you have unpacked the car, but they can play on the sand directly in front of the beach. They run down to the sand, and you begin to unpack the car. After about 5 minutes, you hear screaming coming from the direction of the beach and it sounds like the girls.
You run down to see what the matter is, and you discover that they hadn’t listened to you and have gone for a swim. There is no one else on the beach and the girls are caught in a rip.
The girls are really struggling, particularly your niece who isn’t as strong a swimmer as your daughter.
You swim out quickly, but when you get there, you realize that there is no way you will be able to get both the girls back into shore on your own. You realize that an agonizing decision will need to be made.
You need to decide which of the girls you will rescue first, you have enough strength and energy to rescue them both, but you can only do it one at a time. You look at the two girls, and your niece is really struggling to hold her head above water and you know if you take your daughter back first, there will be little or no chance that she will survive.
Your daughter is struggling also, but is much stronger in the water and you estimate that if you take your niece back to shore first, there’s probably a 50% chance that your daughter will be able to stay afloat long enough for you return, but you simply don’t know how long she will hold on for.

Moral Dilemas pt.5

The Pregnant Woman
A pregnant woman leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the mouth of that cave. In a short time high tide will be upon them, and unless she is unstuck, they will all be drowned except the woman, whose head is out of the cave. Fortunately, (or unfortunately,) someone has with him a stick of dynamite. There seems no way to get the pregnant woman loose without using the dynamite which will inevitably kill her; but if they do not use it everyone will drown. What should they do?

Moral Dilemas pt.4

The Neighbor

You have a wonderful daughter. She is 8 years old and has always been a happy outgoing child. But a while ago something terrible happened, she was raped. You are quite sure that the person who raped her is your neighbor. Your daughter is so traumatized she has stopped speaking, but she in other ways been able to convince you that he is the one. Unfortunately not enough evidence can be found to convict him.

You try to put your life back together. You move to another house and try to help your daughter in any way you can, but it is clear that the experience has ruined her life and that of your family.

One evening you have taken your wife out to dinner at a restaurant when you spot your former neighbor at another table. He is eating alone and looks unhappy. You quickly finish eating and leave. The next day you find out that your former neighbors wife has been murdered. Enough evidence to convict him of the murder is soon found, and at first you are very happy, finally his will get what he deserves.

But then you remember that you saw him in the restaurant at the time of the murder. you know he did not murder his wife. Maybe he paid someone else to do it… You remember that the police said that it had been made it look like a burglary, maybe it was…

You sit down to think. If you keep quiet he will be convicted for the murder, and the real murderer will go free If you give him an alibi, he will go free, but you can’t be sure the real murderer will be found, and it is possible that the evil bastard paid someone to do it…

What do you do?

Moral Dilemas pt.3

Spam Filtering

You are the network administrator for a rather large company. You have a young family and need your job to support them. As part of your responsibility as a network administrator is to monitor the emails for the organization. Usually this just means occasionally allow through emails for staff members that have been accidentally blocked by the spam filters.

One day you get a helpdesk request from a staff member asking for an email to get released. Normally it’s standard procedure except this time the request has come from the wife of a very good friend of yours. You recognize the name on the helpdesk request so quickly attend to the problem. As part of the procedure you need to manually open up the email to ensure that it isn’t spam, so you do and you discover that it certainly isn’t spam. You find that it’s actually an email to your friends wife from her lover. You scan the rest of the contents of the email and there is no doubt that she has been having an affair for some time now.

You release the email, but you can’t decide what to do. You’re initial reaction is to call your friend up and tell him about the email, however you quickly realize that company policy is very strict about revealing the contents of confidential emails of staff members regardless of the contents and unless someone’s life is in immediate danger, under no circumstances are you permitted to reveal the information.

In any case you know that revealing this information presents great risk, because even if you don’t do it directly, there is a good chance that the dots will be joined somewhere along the line and you will be found out. However you feel that by not telling you friend that you are aiding his wife get away with adultery and this troubles you greatly.

What do you do?

Moral Dilemas pt.2

Continuing the series here's part 2.

The Accident
You are an emergency worker that has just been called to the scene of an accident. When you arrive you see that the car belongs to your wife. Fearing the worst you rush over to see she is trapped in her car with another man.
She sees you and although barely conscious, she manages to mouth the words “I’m sorry”…
You don’t understand, but her look answers you question. The man next to her is her lover with whom she’s been having an affair.
You reel back in shock, devastated by what her eyes have just told you. As you step back, the wreck in front of you comes into focus. You see your wife is seriously hurt and she needs attention straight away. Even if she gets attention there’s a very high chance she’ll die.
You look at the seat next to her and see her lover. He’s bleeding heavily from a wound to the neck and you need to stem the flow of blood immediately. It will only take about 5 minutes to stop, but it will mean your wife will definitely die.
If you tend to your wife however, the man will bleed to death despite the fact it could have been avoided.
Who would you choose to work on?

Moral Dilemas pt.1

So now that I'm no longer a student, it's time to put all that hard work to um...to work. Anyway, I'm starting a series on moral dilemas that I found in Listverse. Hoping for some good conversation.

so, onward

10. Concentration Camp

You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to hang your son who tried to escape and wants you to pull the chair from underneath him. He says that if you don’t he will not only kill your son but some other innocent inmate as well. You don’t have any doubt that he means what he says. What should you do?

Back and upragded

Hey everyone,

So the vacationès over and I have a new computer now so it doesnèt sound like the office is going to the moon now. but while I configure the thing itèll be a while before I post again..

On the Horizon:

-Pastoral qualifications
-S. Carolina trip.

-Kevin

Vacation

I'll be out for a week, posting resumes in March, thanks everyone!

-Kevin

The Two Kinds of Marriage.

     Recently, I have begun to think about marriage. This is not entirely true. For the last three to four years, my mind has been consumed by marriage, mostly my own, but now that I have joined the ranks of the matrimonially joined I've begun to think and work through what I believe a marriage is, both culturally and theologically. I've done this because as a guy who wants to plant a church the question will inevitably come up: "Will you perform our wedding?" 

     Tony Jones wrote a blog post in January of 2010 stating that he believes that pastors should give up the right to perform legal marriages. For the benefit of those who do not know me (including Tony Jones) he and I disagree on most of the things he says, but in this case, I think he hit the nail right on the head. His post finally put into words something I have been trying to articulate for about two years. Here is where I have landed.

     There are two kinds of marriage (thanks to Mr. Jones for giving them names) there is "Legal Marriage" and "Sacramental Marriage". Legal marriages then, are whatever the State (in my case Canada) says it is. In Canada, the legal definition reads:

"Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others."

     Legal marriage, then, is a contract. Entered into freely by two people who have decided to become legally married for whatever reason. A legal marriage is also relatively easy to end. Here in Canada, for example a marriage can be ended by three main means: 1) Adultery 2) Physical or mental Cruelty or 3) After having lived separately for a year. It's that easy. 

     Sacramental Marriage, then, as the name suggests, must conform to the biblical paradigm of marriage as set out by God and not legal authority. So then what is the Biblical paradigm? After a number of years, studying and pondering, I have come up with what I believe strongly to be the biblical paradigm for sacramental marriage.  We know that God created sacramental marriage to be between a man and a woman in Genesis 2, but what many people fail to realize is that not only is sacramental marriage designed to be heterosexual, it was also a gift given to God's people (Adam and Eve in this case) therefore we can presume that sacramental marriage is to be between a Christian man and a Christian woman. these are the prerequisites: 1) Heterosexual and 2) Christian. Once those prerequisites are met, there are three criteria that meet the basis for a biblical marriage covenant.

1) Commitment: Obviously, we start with a desire to marry and a commitment on the part of both the man and the woman to be married. Practically, this manifests as the engagement and marriage vows.

2) Community: This commitment between the bride and groom is to be made and affirmed by a community. Practically, this would work itself out as the actual marriage ceremony being witnessed by both the body of believers the couple is a part of and family. This criteria is crucial since without it, any couple can simply take steps 1 and 3 and say: "In God's eyes, we're married" as an excuse for pre-marital sex.

3) Consummation: Also known as: "The reason we signed up for this". This one is simple, without consummation, there is no covenant, it's just plain Biblical. Not speaking, of course, to extreme cases where sex is not possible, but getting young couples to consummate their marriage won't be a problem.

Briefly then: For there to be a sacramental marriage, there must be a commitment that is affirmed by the community of faith and consummated by the couple for a covenant of marriage to exist.

     With all of that said, where does this leave our loving couple and their pastor on the wedding day? Well we can't move on without mentioning Romans 13 and following the governmental authorities. In short, (again, this is in Canada) if a couple wants to be sacramentaly married, they must submit to legal marriage as well. Practically then, the couple would go to a Justice, become legally married, and then come to the church (or whatever venue) and have a sacramental wedding.

     Is this method more practically complicated than the current setup? Yes. Will this mean that pastors who refuse this ability to solemnize legal marriages will also lose the privilege of for example, signing as a guarantor? Yes (probably). Is this distinction necessary? Yes. The more Canada's laws and culture drift away from Christendom (for good or bad) and Christian ideals the more the church will have to take a stand for what God has ordained and still submit to our government.

     We live in a country where the divorce rate among believers is statistically equal the our secular neighbours. This must not be allowed to continue, it affects out witness which affects our Mission. Let us render to Caesar (or here, the Queen) what is Caesar's and keep God's gift to his people of sacramental marriage sacred.

River City Church blogposts pt.1

The following is a post I have posted elsewhere, in addition to my unique work here, I will post these theology posts from the River City blog as they appear.

In the first question we're posting at the River City Church blog, we're dealing with a specific verse and the subject of forgiveness, so let's start with the verse itself and get right into it.
“Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.” Luke 17: 3-4 ESV


The short answer here is yes…and no, however the short answer is incomplete.



As Christians, this verse calls us to forgive in a way that exceeds the cultural standards. The reason Jesus says: “Forgive seven times” is because in first century Hebrew (Jewish) culture, forgiving three times was honourable.[1] So, Jesus here is telling us to go beyond what is culturally acceptable and forgive completely. So in that regard, forgiveness is not withheld until repentance. This is not the end of the matter, however.
In Christian doctrine, we have two phrases called “Limited Atonement[2]” and “Unlimited Atonement[3]” I won’t bore you with  a long drawn out explanation of each, but the Wikipedia articles on each are pretty good. In a sentence they are this:

Limited Atonement: Jesus Christ's substitutionary atonement  on the cross (His death) is limited in scope to those who are predestined to salvation and its primary benefits are not given to all of humanity but rather just believers.

Unlimited Atonement: Jesus died as a propitiation for the benefit of mankind without exception.
Each of these positions have strengths and weaknesses, and good solid evidence can be found for both in Scripture[4].

This has led to a rise in a third position which is relatively new and called “Unlimited Limited Atonement” which Pastor Mark Driscoll describes this way: “By dying for everyone, Jesus purchased everyone as his possession, and he then applies his forgiveness to the elect, those in Christ, by grace, and he applies his wrath to the non-elect, those who reject Christ.  Objectively, Jesus’ death was sufficient to save anyone and, subjectively, efficient only to save those who repent of their sin and trust in him.  This position is called unlimited limited atonement, or modified Calvinism (Death by Love: Letters from the Cross, pg. 171-172)”





All of that is background so that you understand me when I say this: As Christians, we are called to forgive people just as God has forgiven all of us through His son  Jesus Christ, BUT for that forgiveness to be effective on the person who has sinned themselves, repentance is necessary.

Keep in mind as well that the verse says: “If your brother sins”. The term “brother” in this context is different than “neighbour”. Where neighbour would include all people, the term brother[5] specifically refers to the believing community.

In short, forgiveness is not conditional on repentance from the point of view of the forgiver, but in order for that forgiveness to be effective on or received by the sinner, yes, repentance is necessary.
Yours in Theology
-Kevin Seguin

---

[1] It’s also because seven is the biblical number for “total” or “complete” so Jesus was telling us to “Completely forgive”.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_atonement
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlimited_atonement
[4] Further reading on these terms will lead to discussions on Lapsarianism, Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism, these discussions are FASCINATING…really…
[5] Which, in context, also includes and could be translated: brother or sister.