Those of us who attended the Voice of the Martyrs talk at Greater Union Baptist Church last year saw a video clip of believers in a foreign country receiving suitcases filled with Bibles. They jumped up and down excitedly while the suitcases were being opened, they laughed, and they cried with happiness. That image comes to my mind when I read about the gospel of Mark being read in Bawke for the first time in the Ivory Coast. Bakwe is one of the local languages spoken in Ivory Coast, and at this time, the language had never existed in written form. The Leidenfrosts moved there to put together a team to translate the entire Bible into Bakwe, and you can read about their experiences in the book At the Edge of the Village. This book is a window into a culture I would otherwise never glimpse, and it is a favorite of mine for its humor and depth. I also admit to being a sucker for anecdotes involving cobras and mongooses. There is much that goes into translating into a language that has never been written down. As one of the family's Bakwe translators said, "This translation business really makes you think till it hurts."
When the translation team had completed the first rough draft of Mark they read it before the village, and the description of its reception is moving:
"As he read, the audience awoke as if from a dream and started to interact with him in customary Bakwe fashion, the fashion of all people who are truly listening. Interjections came from all corners of the room; first a grunt from the front, which is the equivalent of a hearty, 'Amen,' then an 'Awee!' from the back, a true Bakwe lament. As Alexis read on and on from God's Word, the crowd gave a continuous low murmur of approval, of shock, and of delight. They were all engaged with the reading, becoming a part of each scene as they added their comments or exclamations. When Alexis finished, all was silent again except for one sentence spoken somewhere from the heart: 'Man, God's Word is so sweet!'
As Alexis walked off his self-appointed stage, old men, young men, and children all surrounded him, each asking for a copy of Mark. They had to have a copy of that book. Alexis apologized, 'It's not finished yet- you must wait.' 'No, we don't want to wait. Give us that book!' Alexis tried to explain that it was only a rough draft of stapled papers and it would be better for them to wait. Give us a little more time and it would be published. But the old men were not to be denied since Alexis was comparatively young, and in the end he had to give in. Slowly one rough draft went into the weathered hands of the chief, and then another draft went to one elder, and another, until all our copies were gone. Alexis smiled as he got back in the car with Csaba and said, 'Well, we'll just have to print some more.'
They know what we forget, and they express what we are sometimes silent about: God's Word is so sweet.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Participation in the Local Chruch
There are so many people who name the name of Christ, yet they aren't attached to any local congregation of believers. Many professing Christians find themselves unable or unwilling to find a weekly gathering of saints where they can avail themselves of the teaching that God has provided through qualified elders and gifted teachers, and therefore they are not in a position to use their gifts for the benefit of the body of Christ. This should not be.
I know I run the risk of preaching to the choir when I write to Christians about the importance of corporate worship. But even those Christians who attend church faithful every Sunday need to be continually reminded of the importance of that gathering. We also need to to be reminded of the purpose for that time together in corporate prayer, singing, and learning.
As with all the things which Christians ought to do, we do so because it is commanded. Whether or not it seems expedient to our own goals on any particular Sunday to gather with the saints (or what ever day your church gathers for corporate worship), we know that the Lord gives His commandments for our own good. And we are told that the gathering of saints ought not be neglected (Heb 10:25). A commandment from the Lord ought to be sufficient reason for us to gather regularly.
Thankfully, we are also given more information as to God's purpose in our coming together. Ephesians 4:11-12 tells us that the gifts God has given leave us in need of each other. These gifts have been given to equip us and to edify us. We need to sit under the teaching of qualified elders to this end. If you believe the true gospel, you are a part of the body of Christ, part of a body which has need of the other parts. Wouldn't you laugh if your hand actually told you that it didn't have any need of your eye? And yet how many Christians say that very thing through their choice to forsake the corporate gathering of Christians for a Sunday at home? God has given spiritual gifts to His people, and those gifts don't all reside in you or in your household (1 Corinthians 12). The men who have been appointed to preach have been given words of encouragement and rebuke that you need to hear. That is why, when the pastor teaches on specific sins to be avoided, you may feel as if he's talking about you. And when he gives comfort from God's Word, that comfort supplies what was needed for you.
If you believe the true gospel, you are not only in need of the other parts of the body of Christ, but you yourself are needed and have something to offer others. The Scriptures do not teach an 80-20 principle. Perhaps it is because we are so comfortable receiving from others in body without offering anything of ourselves that we can so easily decide to withdraw, claiming to love Christ without connecting with the people of God. It's when we think we've done the church a favor by being in the building between 11 and 12:30 that we're in danger of benefiting no one. How often do we hear ourselves or others say, what this church needs is a good cleaning, or some one to reach out to the youth, or some one to replace the hymnals, while we ourselves don't clean the church, don't reach out to the youth, and don't replace the hymnals? Or worse yet, are we not even present enough to know what the church needs? When you are present, you have more to contribute to the the needs of the local church than just attendance.
Sometimes there is a tendency to constantly be looking for the perfect church, and that keeps some from ever joining with a community of believers. As C. S. Lewis writes in The Screwtape Letters, “...if a man can't be cured of churchgoing, the next-best thing is to send him all over the neighborhood looking for the church that 'suits' him until he becomes a taster or a connoisseur of churches.” He continues in this fictional book, written from the point of view of a demon wishing to upset the faith of a believer, “...the search for a 'suitable' church makes the man a critic where the Enemy [God] wants him to be a pupil.” We certainly do need to be critical enough in the search for a church to find a congregation with leadership which faithfully proclaims the Word of God without compromising the truth to make it more palatable. But the goal is not to find the perfect building with perfect people and perfect preaching. We need to remember which side of glory we are on. May God grant us the humility to be willing to be submissive to elders and the willingness to make ourselves available for our brothers and sisters in Christ. In that way we give the corporate gathering a high place in our affections.
I know I run the risk of preaching to the choir when I write to Christians about the importance of corporate worship. But even those Christians who attend church faithful every Sunday need to be continually reminded of the importance of that gathering. We also need to to be reminded of the purpose for that time together in corporate prayer, singing, and learning.
As with all the things which Christians ought to do, we do so because it is commanded. Whether or not it seems expedient to our own goals on any particular Sunday to gather with the saints (or what ever day your church gathers for corporate worship), we know that the Lord gives His commandments for our own good. And we are told that the gathering of saints ought not be neglected (Heb 10:25). A commandment from the Lord ought to be sufficient reason for us to gather regularly.
Thankfully, we are also given more information as to God's purpose in our coming together. Ephesians 4:11-12 tells us that the gifts God has given leave us in need of each other. These gifts have been given to equip us and to edify us. We need to sit under the teaching of qualified elders to this end. If you believe the true gospel, you are a part of the body of Christ, part of a body which has need of the other parts. Wouldn't you laugh if your hand actually told you that it didn't have any need of your eye? And yet how many Christians say that very thing through their choice to forsake the corporate gathering of Christians for a Sunday at home? God has given spiritual gifts to His people, and those gifts don't all reside in you or in your household (1 Corinthians 12). The men who have been appointed to preach have been given words of encouragement and rebuke that you need to hear. That is why, when the pastor teaches on specific sins to be avoided, you may feel as if he's talking about you. And when he gives comfort from God's Word, that comfort supplies what was needed for you.
If you believe the true gospel, you are not only in need of the other parts of the body of Christ, but you yourself are needed and have something to offer others. The Scriptures do not teach an 80-20 principle. Perhaps it is because we are so comfortable receiving from others in body without offering anything of ourselves that we can so easily decide to withdraw, claiming to love Christ without connecting with the people of God. It's when we think we've done the church a favor by being in the building between 11 and 12:30 that we're in danger of benefiting no one. How often do we hear ourselves or others say, what this church needs is a good cleaning, or some one to reach out to the youth, or some one to replace the hymnals, while we ourselves don't clean the church, don't reach out to the youth, and don't replace the hymnals? Or worse yet, are we not even present enough to know what the church needs? When you are present, you have more to contribute to the the needs of the local church than just attendance.
Sometimes there is a tendency to constantly be looking for the perfect church, and that keeps some from ever joining with a community of believers. As C. S. Lewis writes in The Screwtape Letters, “...if a man can't be cured of churchgoing, the next-best thing is to send him all over the neighborhood looking for the church that 'suits' him until he becomes a taster or a connoisseur of churches.” He continues in this fictional book, written from the point of view of a demon wishing to upset the faith of a believer, “...the search for a 'suitable' church makes the man a critic where the Enemy [God] wants him to be a pupil.” We certainly do need to be critical enough in the search for a church to find a congregation with leadership which faithfully proclaims the Word of God without compromising the truth to make it more palatable. But the goal is not to find the perfect building with perfect people and perfect preaching. We need to remember which side of glory we are on. May God grant us the humility to be willing to be submissive to elders and the willingness to make ourselves available for our brothers and sisters in Christ. In that way we give the corporate gathering a high place in our affections.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Baptism: Who Has the Burden of Proof?
When discussing baptism and examining the Scriptural evidence for believers baptism and that for infant baptism, one foundational question which always surfaces is, which side has the burden of proof? Does the practice of infant baptism rest on already established commands of Scripture, given prior to the New Testament era, and therefore there need not be any explicit New Testament teaching in support of infant baptism in order for it to be the practice of the church? Or is baptism, being a New Testament ordinance, new, and therefore it is something which requires explicit teaching regarding who is to receive it? Paedobaptists, those who believe that the children of believers are to be baptized, regardless of their personal faith, look at the household baptisms in Acts and say, “Where does it say that all those who were baptized are believers?” Credobaptists, those who believe that only professing believers are to be baptized, look at the record of Acts and say, “Where does it say that unbelieving infants are being baptized?” Our prior commitments cause us to find support for our own view in the same passages which lead others to the opposite conclusion. This show the difficulty of the task at hand.
In a real sense, each side has the burden of proving from Scripture with clear, reasoned arguments why they hold to a particular view of baptism. Neither side can say, I just assume a particular view and will hold to it unless convinced otherwise. Our doctrine ought not be formed from tradition or the convictions of others, but from God's Word alone.
Thankfully, there are many areas of argreement between credobaptists like myself who hold to covenant theology, and paedobaptists. Although there were temporal aspects to the covenant made with Abraham, we see that the covenant God made with Abraham is not forgotten or erased by the coming of the new covenant. The old covenant types are fulfilled in the coming of the new, and God's promise to bless the nations through Abraham's seed is fulfilled in the coming of Christ. The coming of the Messiah and the beginning of the New Testament era do not give us liberty to dismiss previously given commands without Biblical warrant, as if nothing written in Scripture prior to Matthew chapter one matters for us today. This is no new idea: There are theologians who have held to covenant theology while also embracing credobaptism, such as John Bunyan, Charles Spurgeon, and John Gill.
Paedobaptists have challenged credobaptists to show where there has been a repeal of the command to give the sign of the covenant to infants. When this challenge is given, it is useful to remind ourselves what the actual sign of the covenant in the Old Testament, was: That sign was circumcision. It is true that the sign of the old administration cannot be done away with without explicit teaching. Yet there is explicit teaching in this direction. When we look at the diversity between the old and new covenants, we do see that circumcision has been abrogated as a command for God's people (Galatians 6:15). Circumcision was the sign of the old covenant, and it is called a sign and seal of the righteousness of God to Abraham in Romans 4. All that is needed to show that there has been a change in the administration of the old testament sign and seal is to read what the New Testament says about circumcision.
Sometimes when reading the arguments for paedobaptism, it sounds as if its proponents think that it is paedobaptism and not circumcision which was the sign of the old administration, as if infant baptism was an Old Testament practice. Bryan Chapell writes in The Case For Infant Baptism, “...opponents of infant baptism face the absence of a specific command to deny children the covenant sign and seal...It seems highly probable that if the apostles had changed that practice, that change would have been recorded in the New Testament...”. Since the covenant sign in the Old Testament was circumcision, the change in practice is specifically taught when Paul writes that circumcision is nothing (1 Corinthians 7:19). This could not have been said under the Old Testament economy. If the argument was whether or not circumcision is still commanded to be performed on eight day old male infants, then the burden of proof is certainly on the one arguing there has been a change, and the proof is ample. In the same way, if infant baptism was the Old Testament sign and seal instituted by God, then the burden of proof would rest on those claiming it is no longer commanded. But no one is claiming either of these positions in the debate on baptism. Paedobaptists do believe that the Bible teaches there has been a change with regards to the Old Testament sign. They believe, however, that it is not enough for God to say that circumcision has been done away with, but all the specifics of how that sign was to be administered must also be explicitly mentioned as abgrogated, or we will apply the “how” from the old covenant sign to a different “what.”
We are not allowed to switch from noticing similarities to extrapolating commands. One can see similarity between circumcision and baptism without saying, as James Bannerman does, “...that whatever you can say about circumcision you can say about baptism, because their meaning is identical.” This would lead us to conclude that only males are to be recipients of baptism, as only males received the sign of circumcision in the Old Testament. But we see that is not the case from Lydia's baptism in Acts 16. There are similarities between the priestly office in the Old Testament and the New Testament office of elder. But we are not free to draw lines where the Bible hasn't, and say that the priestly garments under Moses are commanded for an elder of a New Testament church. And the silence of the New Testament on the subject of priestly clothing is not support for such a view. Just because we see similarities in the significance of two symbols doesn't mean we can borrow the explicit commands regarding one and attach them to the other.
It is generally agreed by both paedobaptists and credobaptists that John the Baptist did not baptize infants. He, in fact, when approached by the multitudes to be baptized, though they were descendants of Abraham, refused them, saying, “...bear fruits worthy of repentance...” (Luke 3:7-9). Whether or not one considers the baptism of John to be Christian baptism, this passage shows that despite Israel's long history of infants receiving the sign of the covenant, John the baptist did not believe that one can deduce from that a command to include the children of Abraham in this new ordinance. Nor does he direct us to observe whether or not those in the multitude are the children of believers, though that's what we would expect if the history of children being born into the old covenant teaches who are the proper recipients of a new ordinance. That communion is generally not administered to infants in paedobaptist churches shows that the long history of children being included in the old covenant regardless of their personal faith does not automatically determine the New Testament church practice.
Having examined the issue of the burden of proof, the proper subject of baptism is not determined by this. The New Testament teaching regarding baptism and new covenant membership must still be considered and evaluated. We see that we cannot conclude that “...the silence of the New Testament regarding the baptism of infants militates in favor of rather than against this practice,” as Charles Marcel writes. Hebrews 8 and 10 tell us what is new about the new covenant, and that is a good place to direct our attention. Godly men and women have come down on both sides of this debate. And many have reminded us not to ignore the continuity between the covenants. But also let us not form a view of baptism that minimizes the diversity of the covenants.
In a real sense, each side has the burden of proving from Scripture with clear, reasoned arguments why they hold to a particular view of baptism. Neither side can say, I just assume a particular view and will hold to it unless convinced otherwise. Our doctrine ought not be formed from tradition or the convictions of others, but from God's Word alone.
Thankfully, there are many areas of argreement between credobaptists like myself who hold to covenant theology, and paedobaptists. Although there were temporal aspects to the covenant made with Abraham, we see that the covenant God made with Abraham is not forgotten or erased by the coming of the new covenant. The old covenant types are fulfilled in the coming of the new, and God's promise to bless the nations through Abraham's seed is fulfilled in the coming of Christ. The coming of the Messiah and the beginning of the New Testament era do not give us liberty to dismiss previously given commands without Biblical warrant, as if nothing written in Scripture prior to Matthew chapter one matters for us today. This is no new idea: There are theologians who have held to covenant theology while also embracing credobaptism, such as John Bunyan, Charles Spurgeon, and John Gill.
Paedobaptists have challenged credobaptists to show where there has been a repeal of the command to give the sign of the covenant to infants. When this challenge is given, it is useful to remind ourselves what the actual sign of the covenant in the Old Testament, was: That sign was circumcision. It is true that the sign of the old administration cannot be done away with without explicit teaching. Yet there is explicit teaching in this direction. When we look at the diversity between the old and new covenants, we do see that circumcision has been abrogated as a command for God's people (Galatians 6:15). Circumcision was the sign of the old covenant, and it is called a sign and seal of the righteousness of God to Abraham in Romans 4. All that is needed to show that there has been a change in the administration of the old testament sign and seal is to read what the New Testament says about circumcision.
Sometimes when reading the arguments for paedobaptism, it sounds as if its proponents think that it is paedobaptism and not circumcision which was the sign of the old administration, as if infant baptism was an Old Testament practice. Bryan Chapell writes in The Case For Infant Baptism, “...opponents of infant baptism face the absence of a specific command to deny children the covenant sign and seal...It seems highly probable that if the apostles had changed that practice, that change would have been recorded in the New Testament...”. Since the covenant sign in the Old Testament was circumcision, the change in practice is specifically taught when Paul writes that circumcision is nothing (1 Corinthians 7:19). This could not have been said under the Old Testament economy. If the argument was whether or not circumcision is still commanded to be performed on eight day old male infants, then the burden of proof is certainly on the one arguing there has been a change, and the proof is ample. In the same way, if infant baptism was the Old Testament sign and seal instituted by God, then the burden of proof would rest on those claiming it is no longer commanded. But no one is claiming either of these positions in the debate on baptism. Paedobaptists do believe that the Bible teaches there has been a change with regards to the Old Testament sign. They believe, however, that it is not enough for God to say that circumcision has been done away with, but all the specifics of how that sign was to be administered must also be explicitly mentioned as abgrogated, or we will apply the “how” from the old covenant sign to a different “what.”
We are not allowed to switch from noticing similarities to extrapolating commands. One can see similarity between circumcision and baptism without saying, as James Bannerman does, “...that whatever you can say about circumcision you can say about baptism, because their meaning is identical.” This would lead us to conclude that only males are to be recipients of baptism, as only males received the sign of circumcision in the Old Testament. But we see that is not the case from Lydia's baptism in Acts 16. There are similarities between the priestly office in the Old Testament and the New Testament office of elder. But we are not free to draw lines where the Bible hasn't, and say that the priestly garments under Moses are commanded for an elder of a New Testament church. And the silence of the New Testament on the subject of priestly clothing is not support for such a view. Just because we see similarities in the significance of two symbols doesn't mean we can borrow the explicit commands regarding one and attach them to the other.
It is generally agreed by both paedobaptists and credobaptists that John the Baptist did not baptize infants. He, in fact, when approached by the multitudes to be baptized, though they were descendants of Abraham, refused them, saying, “...bear fruits worthy of repentance...” (Luke 3:7-9). Whether or not one considers the baptism of John to be Christian baptism, this passage shows that despite Israel's long history of infants receiving the sign of the covenant, John the baptist did not believe that one can deduce from that a command to include the children of Abraham in this new ordinance. Nor does he direct us to observe whether or not those in the multitude are the children of believers, though that's what we would expect if the history of children being born into the old covenant teaches who are the proper recipients of a new ordinance. That communion is generally not administered to infants in paedobaptist churches shows that the long history of children being included in the old covenant regardless of their personal faith does not automatically determine the New Testament church practice.
Having examined the issue of the burden of proof, the proper subject of baptism is not determined by this. The New Testament teaching regarding baptism and new covenant membership must still be considered and evaluated. We see that we cannot conclude that “...the silence of the New Testament regarding the baptism of infants militates in favor of rather than against this practice,” as Charles Marcel writes. Hebrews 8 and 10 tell us what is new about the new covenant, and that is a good place to direct our attention. Godly men and women have come down on both sides of this debate. And many have reminded us not to ignore the continuity between the covenants. But also let us not form a view of baptism that minimizes the diversity of the covenants.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Children and Corporate Worship
A woman recently visited my church and noticed all the children running around the building before the service started. I know these kids well, and sometimes eight of them can sound like 20 when they are fully in character, my three doing more than their share of the play and noise. After church, this woman asked my pastor if we had an upstairs or another room where all the children went during service. She hadn't heard kid noises during the service, so she assumed the children weren't in the room with her. She was surprised to find out that all the children were there through the whole service.
Having children in the church service with the adults has come to be called family integrated worship. And having our children sitting by us during church seems so normal to me. But I know that to some, is it is something they have never seen and can't picture. I hear people ask questions like, will it make the child hate church when he is older? Are they able to get anything out of the sermon? Wouldn't a room for kids of the same age and one adult to facilitate be more fun for the children? Isn't it disruptive to the congregation to have children in the service?
These questions are worthy of an answer. But these questions are the wrong place to start. When deciding what church should look like for our children, we ought to start with:
What are the qualifications for an elder?
What are the necessary marks of a church?
Christians are commanded to sit under the preached Word by a pastor who meets the Biblical qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1-7). If you agree with this, then you will agree that believers, who happen to be children, ought to participate in corporate worship, not only in a Sunday school class with a teacher who does not meet the Biblical requirements of an elder. Learning in a Sunday school class can be a good addition to the gathering of the saints, but Sunday school is not a replacement for church.
Christians are commanded to partake communion as a corporate body. Believing children who are kept out the main church service often are kept from ever seeing another take communion, and they are not given the opportunity to take communion themselves. Unbelieving children and those who are so young that it is next to impossible to discern a credible profession of faith in the gospel can witness the church body partaking of communion, and like the children present at the first passover celebrations, ask, why do you do this?
Children are addressed in Ephesians (6:1) and Colossians (3:20), which are letters written to churches in the apostolic era. These letters were read in the churches. It seems to be assumed that the children would be present with their parents to hear these words. At my church, there are many children who are so young that it is next to impossible to discern a credible profession of faith. But they are there hearing the gospel every week. And just as John the Baptist leapt for joy in the womb at the greeting of Mary (Luke 1:41-45), so can those little ones sitting in church be regenerated by the preached Word and the Spirit, no matter how impossible our experience declares that to be.
Some have said that having age-segregated churches enables everyone to learn at their own maturity level. But a ten year old who has been taught theology and has been a Christian for 5 years can be more mature in the faith than a 40 year old who is a new convert. And somehow, 40 year olds who are new converts and 40 year olds who have been in the faith 20 years can all learn from the same sermon.
I know there are people who grew up in church with their parents and hated it. But there are people who grew up in Sunday school and hated it. Some people grew up having the Bible read to them as children and hated it. That doesn't seem to be a good reason to say, I won't read the Bible to my children. It doesn't seem that we as Christians should want to say to our children (by our words or our actions), don't come hear God's Word preached because I know you wouldn't like it. His Word is efficacious, so why would we tell our little ones it isn't for them when it's preached?
Last month, five children were baptized at my church. They were baptized on the basis on their profession of faith in the gospel and in obedience to God's command. It was a reminder to me of the benefits of family worship, since we were able to rejoice with our church family together and be reminded of some important truths together. We were reminded in those baptisms that entrance into the kingdom of God is not on the basis of age (one was as young as six), race, or the profession of faith given by one's parents. My sons watching these baptisms leaned over and told me that they remember their own baptisms. My three year old asked questions quietly as she watched. I am glad she is right there in the service with us on Sundays, hearing God's Word from a pastor who meets the Biblical requirements of an elder, and not excluded from corporate worship.
Having children in the church service with the adults has come to be called family integrated worship. And having our children sitting by us during church seems so normal to me. But I know that to some, is it is something they have never seen and can't picture. I hear people ask questions like, will it make the child hate church when he is older? Are they able to get anything out of the sermon? Wouldn't a room for kids of the same age and one adult to facilitate be more fun for the children? Isn't it disruptive to the congregation to have children in the service?
These questions are worthy of an answer. But these questions are the wrong place to start. When deciding what church should look like for our children, we ought to start with:
What are the qualifications for an elder?
What are the necessary marks of a church?
Christians are commanded to sit under the preached Word by a pastor who meets the Biblical qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1-7). If you agree with this, then you will agree that believers, who happen to be children, ought to participate in corporate worship, not only in a Sunday school class with a teacher who does not meet the Biblical requirements of an elder. Learning in a Sunday school class can be a good addition to the gathering of the saints, but Sunday school is not a replacement for church.
Christians are commanded to partake communion as a corporate body. Believing children who are kept out the main church service often are kept from ever seeing another take communion, and they are not given the opportunity to take communion themselves. Unbelieving children and those who are so young that it is next to impossible to discern a credible profession of faith in the gospel can witness the church body partaking of communion, and like the children present at the first passover celebrations, ask, why do you do this?
Children are addressed in Ephesians (6:1) and Colossians (3:20), which are letters written to churches in the apostolic era. These letters were read in the churches. It seems to be assumed that the children would be present with their parents to hear these words. At my church, there are many children who are so young that it is next to impossible to discern a credible profession of faith. But they are there hearing the gospel every week. And just as John the Baptist leapt for joy in the womb at the greeting of Mary (Luke 1:41-45), so can those little ones sitting in church be regenerated by the preached Word and the Spirit, no matter how impossible our experience declares that to be.
Some have said that having age-segregated churches enables everyone to learn at their own maturity level. But a ten year old who has been taught theology and has been a Christian for 5 years can be more mature in the faith than a 40 year old who is a new convert. And somehow, 40 year olds who are new converts and 40 year olds who have been in the faith 20 years can all learn from the same sermon.
I know there are people who grew up in church with their parents and hated it. But there are people who grew up in Sunday school and hated it. Some people grew up having the Bible read to them as children and hated it. That doesn't seem to be a good reason to say, I won't read the Bible to my children. It doesn't seem that we as Christians should want to say to our children (by our words or our actions), don't come hear God's Word preached because I know you wouldn't like it. His Word is efficacious, so why would we tell our little ones it isn't for them when it's preached?
Last month, five children were baptized at my church. They were baptized on the basis on their profession of faith in the gospel and in obedience to God's command. It was a reminder to me of the benefits of family worship, since we were able to rejoice with our church family together and be reminded of some important truths together. We were reminded in those baptisms that entrance into the kingdom of God is not on the basis of age (one was as young as six), race, or the profession of faith given by one's parents. My sons watching these baptisms leaned over and told me that they remember their own baptisms. My three year old asked questions quietly as she watched. I am glad she is right there in the service with us on Sundays, hearing God's Word from a pastor who meets the Biblical requirements of an elder, and not excluded from corporate worship.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Children Turning Into Teenagers
Instead of dreading the day when my children turn into teenagers, I think often about what I hope my children are like at that age. All the warnings I've received from parents with older children which essentially say, “just wait until your children are older,” haven't discouraged me yet. I look forward to that time. I want to raise my children to be likeable, even at the age we are supposed to not like them, the age we are suppose to call adolescence.
A good economist thinks two or three steps beyond the immediate effects of a given policy, even if that policy claims to be for the people, for the children, for education, for the environment, or for the poor. And parents need to be good economists. We need to know what the long term goal is. It's not enough to determine if a given behavior in our children bothers us now. We should ask, what will this behavior look like coming from an older person? Even though my children are small, this gives me much to think about.
I hope my children as teenagers interact politely with each other and with us, their parents. I want them to know that there is wisdom to be gained from the adults in their sphere of life, and to accept the word "no" with humility. This means I have to teach them now that things which are unpleasant can be beneficial, and I believe that through hard work (weeding, shoveling manure, laundry, cleaning, memorizing) they are learning this. I hope that they are people with self control, gained from years of practice reigning in their will. When I think about it, I guess what I want for my children as teenagers isn't much different from what I expect to see at their ages now.
It is not essential to me that my children as teenagers are college bound. This doesn't mean I see no value in the college experience, and I had a rather good one. But I know that college degrees don't guarantee reasoning ability or wisdom, and it is equally clear to me that intellectual goals can be achieved apart from a four year institution. I do hope that they value knowledge, can dissect different ideas, and are enthusiastic learners. I want them to value logically consistency, and I hope they are able to recognize inconsistency in their own arguments. I was so proud when my nine year old recognized the logical fallacy of asserting the consequent (though not by name) while watching a documentary on the planets. I also hope that their attitude in disagreement is humble and not disdainful or dismissive of others. I guess what I hope for my children as teenagers is not much different from what I want for myself.
I hope my children as teenagers know the Scriptures well enough to teach and to refute false ideas. I hope that their participation in our local church is more than the habit of sitting still, but I hope that they seek to be a blessing to those around them. I hope that they don't see their time as their own possession to be spent only for their own benefit, using all their time for their own education and pleasure. This means that starting now, we can't use our time only for our own pleasure and education. So when I think about it, I guess my goals for them as teenagers aren't much different than what I hope for them as adults.
These goals will keep me very busy. Because I don't believe that the character of our teenagers is randomly determined or completely a product of hormones. In the qualifications for elders listed in 1 Timothy 3, we read that if a man's children are unruly, then his household in not being ruled well. This is a sobering warning. This is a serious task. And I know that I need to start now.
A good economist thinks two or three steps beyond the immediate effects of a given policy, even if that policy claims to be for the people, for the children, for education, for the environment, or for the poor. And parents need to be good economists. We need to know what the long term goal is. It's not enough to determine if a given behavior in our children bothers us now. We should ask, what will this behavior look like coming from an older person? Even though my children are small, this gives me much to think about.
I hope my children as teenagers interact politely with each other and with us, their parents. I want them to know that there is wisdom to be gained from the adults in their sphere of life, and to accept the word "no" with humility. This means I have to teach them now that things which are unpleasant can be beneficial, and I believe that through hard work (weeding, shoveling manure, laundry, cleaning, memorizing) they are learning this. I hope that they are people with self control, gained from years of practice reigning in their will. When I think about it, I guess what I want for my children as teenagers isn't much different from what I expect to see at their ages now.
It is not essential to me that my children as teenagers are college bound. This doesn't mean I see no value in the college experience, and I had a rather good one. But I know that college degrees don't guarantee reasoning ability or wisdom, and it is equally clear to me that intellectual goals can be achieved apart from a four year institution. I do hope that they value knowledge, can dissect different ideas, and are enthusiastic learners. I want them to value logically consistency, and I hope they are able to recognize inconsistency in their own arguments. I was so proud when my nine year old recognized the logical fallacy of asserting the consequent (though not by name) while watching a documentary on the planets. I also hope that their attitude in disagreement is humble and not disdainful or dismissive of others. I guess what I hope for my children as teenagers is not much different from what I want for myself.
I hope my children as teenagers know the Scriptures well enough to teach and to refute false ideas. I hope that their participation in our local church is more than the habit of sitting still, but I hope that they seek to be a blessing to those around them. I hope that they don't see their time as their own possession to be spent only for their own benefit, using all their time for their own education and pleasure. This means that starting now, we can't use our time only for our own pleasure and education. So when I think about it, I guess my goals for them as teenagers aren't much different than what I hope for them as adults.
These goals will keep me very busy. Because I don't believe that the character of our teenagers is randomly determined or completely a product of hormones. In the qualifications for elders listed in 1 Timothy 3, we read that if a man's children are unruly, then his household in not being ruled well. This is a sobering warning. This is a serious task. And I know that I need to start now.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Content and Motives
Vincent Donovan lived in Tanzania before and after it achieved its independence from Britain. He was there as the British national anthem was sung for the last time, the British Union Jack being lowered, and the new flag of Tanganyika flew for the first time. He was a Catholic missionary living in Tanzania (then Tanganyika) in the late1950s through the 1970s. He spent his time there with very little of the comforts which we enjoy, living among the Masai and later the Sonjo people. He watched his hometown disappear out of the back of a train, he learned Swahili and the Masai language, and he lived in tent without access to running water. He writes to his family and friends to kiss the faucets and taps at home for him. In one of his letters home, he says, “...it is not easy work. It is hard. It is discouraging. It is thankless. It is lonely. But I wouldn't willingly change it for any other work in the world.”
Donovan taught the Beatitudes to a people for whom mercy was a vice and not a virtue. “They told me that a man who was wronged by another man was not a man unless he worked out his own revenge...,” he writes. “This revenge is not an empty word... I have seen it worked out in the most horrible forms. I have reached the point of not being able to be shocked or startled at anything anymore. But I couldn't help thinking how unfit I have become for chatting with the Sodality women of St. Bridget's in Connecticut about their difficulties in arranging a cake sale.”
He endured these difficulties in order to bring his religion and his gospel to the people of Tanzania. His letters home to his family and friends make evident his compassion for the people he lived among. But what was his message? What is the content of the religion he traveled so far to spread? The content of his gospel which he taught is written in The Missionary Letters of Vincent Donovan:
“Once there was a young maiden, a virgin, who was very beautiful and very good. She was so beautiful and so good and so holy... that God wanted her for Himself. ... And so that girl, who was called Mary, agreed, and she became the espoused one of God Himself. ... And so after some time, God, by His invisible power, without even appearing on earth, placed a child in Mary's womb... He was the greatest warrior and chief who had lived up until now. ... Every brave man can join the tribe of Christ. ... Christ is our head and he needs brave, good warriors for his tribe and his chiefdom.”
All those years of preparation and travel and hardship to bring them a message of works, a message which says God will accept your goodness, if you have enough goodness. No mention is made of the reason man needs a savior (sin), and no mention of Christ's death and the purpose of Christ's death (atonement). Donovan left out all discussion of sin consciously. To teach the doctrine of original sin, he said, was to engender hopelessness. “The Sonjo and the Masai consider their ancestors beautiful...it is no part of the Christian message to tell them that they are not...that their ancestors and their peers were and are steeped in sin...” So in an effort to not bring them any bad news, he ended up with no gospel at all.
Sometimes it is tempting to think that we ought to be approving of all things done from a caring motive. We are told by the world that it is unloving to disagree with people. It is even called hateful to say that another person's beliefs are wrong. Like a child who dislikes discipline, we are told that to love someone means to approve of them and all of their choices. But just as a wise parent knows that love sometimes requires hard truths, being loving sometimes means telling someone that they are wrong. Christians are accused of violating society's law of non-judgment. The god of tolerance loves everyone- almost. There are a handful of ideas one can be disdainful of, like the truth claims of Christianity, and one will still consider themselves open minded and tolerant.
The command to love one's neighbor is meaningless without further explanation. What does it mean to love someone? Whose notion of love are we to emulate? Some people come up with their own notion of what love looks like; they invent their own ethical code, and they expect others to live by it. And those codes can be as detailed as any organized religion. But Christians are to define love according to the Scriptures. It is God who is the law giver.
Paul writes in Philippians 1:17 that it is the message, not the motive, that is central. “Some indeed preach Christ from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice.” Paul is obviously not saying that it is good to preach from selfish ambition. But the gospel can change hearts apart from the motives of the one bringing the message.
So when we pray for missionaries, we ought to pray that their message would be undiluted. We need to pray that God will make His people able to faithfully communicate His truth. It is in this way that the church is “the golden casket,” as described in O Word of God Incarnate, “where gems of truth are stored.”
Donovan taught the Beatitudes to a people for whom mercy was a vice and not a virtue. “They told me that a man who was wronged by another man was not a man unless he worked out his own revenge...,” he writes. “This revenge is not an empty word... I have seen it worked out in the most horrible forms. I have reached the point of not being able to be shocked or startled at anything anymore. But I couldn't help thinking how unfit I have become for chatting with the Sodality women of St. Bridget's in Connecticut about their difficulties in arranging a cake sale.”
He endured these difficulties in order to bring his religion and his gospel to the people of Tanzania. His letters home to his family and friends make evident his compassion for the people he lived among. But what was his message? What is the content of the religion he traveled so far to spread? The content of his gospel which he taught is written in The Missionary Letters of Vincent Donovan:
“Once there was a young maiden, a virgin, who was very beautiful and very good. She was so beautiful and so good and so holy... that God wanted her for Himself. ... And so that girl, who was called Mary, agreed, and she became the espoused one of God Himself. ... And so after some time, God, by His invisible power, without even appearing on earth, placed a child in Mary's womb... He was the greatest warrior and chief who had lived up until now. ... Every brave man can join the tribe of Christ. ... Christ is our head and he needs brave, good warriors for his tribe and his chiefdom.”
All those years of preparation and travel and hardship to bring them a message of works, a message which says God will accept your goodness, if you have enough goodness. No mention is made of the reason man needs a savior (sin), and no mention of Christ's death and the purpose of Christ's death (atonement). Donovan left out all discussion of sin consciously. To teach the doctrine of original sin, he said, was to engender hopelessness. “The Sonjo and the Masai consider their ancestors beautiful...it is no part of the Christian message to tell them that they are not...that their ancestors and their peers were and are steeped in sin...” So in an effort to not bring them any bad news, he ended up with no gospel at all.
Sometimes it is tempting to think that we ought to be approving of all things done from a caring motive. We are told by the world that it is unloving to disagree with people. It is even called hateful to say that another person's beliefs are wrong. Like a child who dislikes discipline, we are told that to love someone means to approve of them and all of their choices. But just as a wise parent knows that love sometimes requires hard truths, being loving sometimes means telling someone that they are wrong. Christians are accused of violating society's law of non-judgment. The god of tolerance loves everyone- almost. There are a handful of ideas one can be disdainful of, like the truth claims of Christianity, and one will still consider themselves open minded and tolerant.
The command to love one's neighbor is meaningless without further explanation. What does it mean to love someone? Whose notion of love are we to emulate? Some people come up with their own notion of what love looks like; they invent their own ethical code, and they expect others to live by it. And those codes can be as detailed as any organized religion. But Christians are to define love according to the Scriptures. It is God who is the law giver.
Paul writes in Philippians 1:17 that it is the message, not the motive, that is central. “Some indeed preach Christ from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice.” Paul is obviously not saying that it is good to preach from selfish ambition. But the gospel can change hearts apart from the motives of the one bringing the message.
So when we pray for missionaries, we ought to pray that their message would be undiluted. We need to pray that God will make His people able to faithfully communicate His truth. It is in this way that the church is “the golden casket,” as described in O Word of God Incarnate, “where gems of truth are stored.”
Thursday, June 30, 2011
I Love Hymns
In C. S. Lewis' story The Last Battle, many of the talking beasts in Narnia were deceived by a donkey wearing a lion's skin, who was giving orders and claiming to be the lion Aslan. When orders were given which seemed out of character for the real Aslan, doubts arose, but one line was repeated which kept the animals from entertaining serious doubts against the imposter: “He's not a tame lion, you know.” One line of truth used to conceal other truths, like Satan quoting Scripture to Jesus in His wilderness temptation. Feist is almost right when she says, the truth lies.
God help the church to not be so easily deceived when the world echos the serpents words, “Did God really say...”. It is one of my goals as a parent to have my children know the truth so well, even at their young ages, that they would be able to recognize a false gospel and other doctrinal errors. That is one of the reasons I love my children learning hymns. So many important doctrines are communicated in the hymns I love. And when I hear my little ones singing, “God and sinners reconciled...” from Hark! The Herald Angels Sing, I hope that their minds are being fortified against error through the truths they are enmeshed in.
Even if not everyone loves the tunes which the great hymns are set to, no one should miss the doctrine contain in them. We learn about God's sovereignty in Praise to the Lord, the Almighty: “Praise to the Lord, who o'er all things so wonderously reigneth.” We see our own frailty in Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing: “Let thy goodness, like a fetter, bind my wandering heart to thee. Prone to wander, Lord I feel it, prone to leave the God I love.” We see the power of the gospel in O For A Thousand Tongues: “He breaks the power of canceled sin...His blood can make the foulest clean, His blood availed for me.” We learn about Christ's three-fold office in Praise Him! Praise Him!: “Prophet and priest and king!” The trinity is articulated in Holy God We Praise Thy Name, which says, “Though in essence only one, undivided God...”. God's immutability is seen in Great is Thy Faithfulness: “Thou changest not, thy compassions they fail not...”. We admit our likeness to Adam, and Christ's role as the second Adam in Hark! The Herald Angels Sing: “Adam's likeness now efface, Stamp Thine image in its place: Second Adam from above, reinstate us in Thy love.” God's Word is called, “..the golden casket where gems of truth are stored...the chart and compass...[which] guides, O Christ, to Thee.” in O Word of God Incarnate. We see what our affections ought to be in Spirit of God, Descend Upon My Heart: “...make me love thee as I ought to love...I see the cross, there teach my soul to cling...teach me the patience of unanswered prayer...”. We are reminded of God's purpose for trials in How Firm a Foundation: “When through fiery trials thy pathway shall lie...The flame shall not hurt thee; I only design Thy dross to consume and thy gold to refine.”
I know I will wince tomorrow about the hymns I forgot to include which deserve to be mentioned. I'm sure I've mentioned enough to get my point across. But I have to include this funny depiction of the difference between chorus and hymns:
A Funny Little Story About Hymns and Praise Songs
By Author Unknown
An old farmer went to the city one weekend and attended the big city church. He came home and his wife asked him how it was.
“Well,” said the farmer. “It was good. They did something different, however. They sang praise choruses instead of hymns.”
“Praise choruses?” asked the wife. “What are those?”
“Oh, they’re okay. They’re sort of like hymns, only different,” said the farmer.
“Well, what’s the difference?” asked the wife.
The farmer said, “Well it’s like this … If I were to say to you, ‘Martha, the cows are in the corn,’ well that would be a hymn. If, on the other hand, I were to say to you, ‘Martha, Martha, Martha, Oh, Martha, MARTHA, MARTHA, the cows, the big cows, the brown cows, the black cows, the white cows, the black and white cows, the COWS, COWS, COWS are in the corn, are in the corn, are in the corn, in the CORN, CORN, CORN, COOOOORRRRRNNNNN,’ then, if I were to repeat the whole thing two or three times, well that would be a praise chorus.”
As luck would have it, the exact same Sunday a young, new Christian from the city church attended the small town church. He came home and his wife asked him how it was.
“Well,” said the young man, “It was good. They did something different, however. They sang hymns instead of regular songs.”
“Hymns?” asked the wife. “What are those?”
“They’re okay. They’re sort of like regular songs, only different,” said the young man.
“Well, what’s the difference?” asked the wife.
The young man said, “Well it’s like this … If I were to say to you, ‘Martha, the cows are in the corn,’ well that would be a regular song. If on the other hand, I were to say to you,
Oh Martha, dear Martha, hear thou my cry
Inclinest thine ear to the words of my mouth.
Turn thou thy whole wondrous ear by and by
To the righteous, glorious truth.
For the way of the animals who can explain
There in their heads is no shadow of sense,
Hearkenest they in God’s sun or his rain
Unless from the mild, tempting corn they are fenced.
Yea those cows in glad bovine, rebellious delight,
Have broke free their shackles, their warm pens eschewed.
Then goaded by minions of darkness and night
They all my mild Chilliwack sweet corn chewed.
So look to that bright shining day by and by,
Where all foul corruptions of earth are reborn
Where no vicious animal makes my soul cry
And I no longer see those foul cows in the corn,
then, if I were to do only verses one, three and four, and change keys on the last verse, well that would be a hymn.”
God help the church to not be so easily deceived when the world echos the serpents words, “Did God really say...”. It is one of my goals as a parent to have my children know the truth so well, even at their young ages, that they would be able to recognize a false gospel and other doctrinal errors. That is one of the reasons I love my children learning hymns. So many important doctrines are communicated in the hymns I love. And when I hear my little ones singing, “God and sinners reconciled...” from Hark! The Herald Angels Sing, I hope that their minds are being fortified against error through the truths they are enmeshed in.
Even if not everyone loves the tunes which the great hymns are set to, no one should miss the doctrine contain in them. We learn about God's sovereignty in Praise to the Lord, the Almighty: “Praise to the Lord, who o'er all things so wonderously reigneth.” We see our own frailty in Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing: “Let thy goodness, like a fetter, bind my wandering heart to thee. Prone to wander, Lord I feel it, prone to leave the God I love.” We see the power of the gospel in O For A Thousand Tongues: “He breaks the power of canceled sin...His blood can make the foulest clean, His blood availed for me.” We learn about Christ's three-fold office in Praise Him! Praise Him!: “Prophet and priest and king!” The trinity is articulated in Holy God We Praise Thy Name, which says, “Though in essence only one, undivided God...”. God's immutability is seen in Great is Thy Faithfulness: “Thou changest not, thy compassions they fail not...”. We admit our likeness to Adam, and Christ's role as the second Adam in Hark! The Herald Angels Sing: “Adam's likeness now efface, Stamp Thine image in its place: Second Adam from above, reinstate us in Thy love.” God's Word is called, “..the golden casket where gems of truth are stored...the chart and compass...[which] guides, O Christ, to Thee.” in O Word of God Incarnate. We see what our affections ought to be in Spirit of God, Descend Upon My Heart: “...make me love thee as I ought to love...I see the cross, there teach my soul to cling...teach me the patience of unanswered prayer...”. We are reminded of God's purpose for trials in How Firm a Foundation: “When through fiery trials thy pathway shall lie...The flame shall not hurt thee; I only design Thy dross to consume and thy gold to refine.”
I know I will wince tomorrow about the hymns I forgot to include which deserve to be mentioned. I'm sure I've mentioned enough to get my point across. But I have to include this funny depiction of the difference between chorus and hymns:
A Funny Little Story About Hymns and Praise Songs
By Author Unknown
An old farmer went to the city one weekend and attended the big city church. He came home and his wife asked him how it was.
“Well,” said the farmer. “It was good. They did something different, however. They sang praise choruses instead of hymns.”
“Praise choruses?” asked the wife. “What are those?”
“Oh, they’re okay. They’re sort of like hymns, only different,” said the farmer.
“Well, what’s the difference?” asked the wife.
The farmer said, “Well it’s like this … If I were to say to you, ‘Martha, the cows are in the corn,’ well that would be a hymn. If, on the other hand, I were to say to you, ‘Martha, Martha, Martha, Oh, Martha, MARTHA, MARTHA, the cows, the big cows, the brown cows, the black cows, the white cows, the black and white cows, the COWS, COWS, COWS are in the corn, are in the corn, are in the corn, in the CORN, CORN, CORN, COOOOORRRRRNNNNN,’ then, if I were to repeat the whole thing two or three times, well that would be a praise chorus.”
As luck would have it, the exact same Sunday a young, new Christian from the city church attended the small town church. He came home and his wife asked him how it was.
“Well,” said the young man, “It was good. They did something different, however. They sang hymns instead of regular songs.”
“Hymns?” asked the wife. “What are those?”
“They’re okay. They’re sort of like regular songs, only different,” said the young man.
“Well, what’s the difference?” asked the wife.
The young man said, “Well it’s like this … If I were to say to you, ‘Martha, the cows are in the corn,’ well that would be a regular song. If on the other hand, I were to say to you,
Oh Martha, dear Martha, hear thou my cry
Inclinest thine ear to the words of my mouth.
Turn thou thy whole wondrous ear by and by
To the righteous, glorious truth.
For the way of the animals who can explain
There in their heads is no shadow of sense,
Hearkenest they in God’s sun or his rain
Unless from the mild, tempting corn they are fenced.
Yea those cows in glad bovine, rebellious delight,
Have broke free their shackles, their warm pens eschewed.
Then goaded by minions of darkness and night
They all my mild Chilliwack sweet corn chewed.
So look to that bright shining day by and by,
Where all foul corruptions of earth are reborn
Where no vicious animal makes my soul cry
And I no longer see those foul cows in the corn,
then, if I were to do only verses one, three and four, and change keys on the last verse, well that would be a hymn.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)