Hebrews 4:2

2 For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. Hebrews 4:2 (ESV)

 

Now, to give you a bit of background: the author of Hebrews (whomever he or she may be, though my old-school grammar will use he all the way through here) has been comparing the Exodus of the Israelites to what God has done for all of humanity through Christ.  The author is also contrasting our responses to the response of the Israelites.

What chapter 4 covers is that the Israelites were not able to enter the Promised Land because they lacked obedience.  If you're familiar with the Old Testament, you know that God brought the Israelites to the edge of the Promised Land, told them to check it out and go take it.  They checked it out, then decided it was too much trouble.  Essentially, they said "We'd rather go die in the desert."  So they did.

Something to notice about the Israelites then, and it's what the author of Hebrews is pointing out: they lacked faith, and so they failed to act.  It's not the failure of their actions that leads to the criticism, rather it's the failure of their faith, but the failing of faith leads to disobedience.

So, what about us?  We're not leaving Egypt, at least most of us.  Rather, we're trying to walk in obedience in the life we have now.  Guess what?  Our faith is shown by our obedience.  It's not shown by calmly sitting back and claiming we have faith.  It's shown by our obedience.

This is what the author is saying: the word of God is united in our hearts only when we obey Him in faith.  Have you partnered your faith with obedience?  Obedience to profess faith, to live faith, and to share the faith? 

And our faith, well, it's strengthened by our obedience.  It's a self-reinforcing cycle. 

Doug

Remember where you were…

18 but you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you from there; therefore I command you to do this.

Deuteronomy 24:18 (ESV)

This verse comes after Moses has reminded the Israelites of God's commands about how to treat Egyptians and slaves, Edomites, and Ammonites and Moabites.  What are the differences?

Well, Ammonites and Moabites were to be excluded from the assembly of Israel for ever and ever, because of how they had treated Israel in the Exodus.  Edomites were supposed to be allowed within the assembly after a set time, because they had treated Israel well in the Exodus.

Then there's the command that Egyptians were to be allowed into the assembly.  Now, the people of Israel have just (well, 40 years before) left slavery in Egypt.  They had been subjected to oppression and even an attempt at genocide.  Yet, God doesn't command vengeance, rather hospitality and forgiveness.

He also commands that the slaves and servants of the Israelites be treated decently.  In fact, built into the Law is the requirement that slaves be able to attain freedom, and that Israelites be automatically freed after no more than 50 years.

Looking at this, I'm wondering about our tendency to forget where we come from.  How easy it is to attain to power and then use it badly, whether it be for revenge or simply to show how great we've become.

And it's the source of downfall.  Serious downfall.  When we think that God has blessed us so that we can demonstrate our newfound power and authority, we've missed the point.  God had appointed Israel to demonstrate His holiness to the people around them, to be the instrument of His glory and His work in the world.

It wasn't supposed to be about them and their national aggrandizement.  They were supposed to remember the deliverance they had received, to recall that God had chosen them, and that there was no personal merit to them, rather it was the gracious love of God.

Sound familiar?  That's us, as followers of Christ.  That's us, as Baptists.  That's us, as Americans.

As followers of Christ, we're supposed to be demonstrators of God's holiness, instruments of His glory, the body through which He works in the world.  Are we doing it?

Us Baptists claim to be followers of Christ, and so all that applies to us.  How does some of our behavior match up with that?  Are what we are known for as Baptists in line with this?

We Americans have been blessed by God.  It's true that a lot of that blessing has come through the determination and hard work of people, some of whom wouldn't even acknowledge God's hand in the work, but there is precious little other explanation for our birth and survival as a nation.  Yet we have, at times, not been what we should either.

The issue, though, is this: none of us can change our past.  We can learn from it and move forward.  The Israelites weren't told to spend time lamenting that they had gone to Egypt in the first place, but rather were instructed how to be from this point forward.

I think it's time that many of us realize that we are to remember where we came from, and let that affect our behavior from this point forward, not dwelling on the past, but growing from it.

 

Doug

Sermon Outline, October 10 PM

Ok, here's the sermon outline situation:  Sunday morning we observed the Lord's Supper.  I didn't record that, because it just doesn't audio record well, there's too many stops, starts, singings, waitings, and so forth.  Join us one Sunday and you'll see why.

Here's the outline for the Evening Sermon, with audio link here.

Sermon:

Text: Exodus 3

Title: Burning Bushes, Burning Bridges

Theme: Responding to God's Call

Location: FBC Almyra

Date: October 10 2010 PM

1. The Burning Bush:

   1. When God seeks your attention, He gets it

   2. When God speaks, you should listen

2. The Burning Bridge:

   1. Cut your ties with the life you leave behind

   2. Go forward towards obedience

3. The Present reality:

   1. We see God:

      1. Identify Himself to Moses

         1. By history ---of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob

         2. By character --Timelessness

         3. By name –YHWH

      2. Command Moses

         1. For Moses' protection: come no closer to the Holy One

         2. For Moses' provision: what to say to obey

         3. For Moses' potential: to do what God has called Him to do.

      3. Has not forgotten Israel

      4. Has no interest in excuses

   2. We hear God today:

      1. Not from a burning bush

      2. Rather from the Word

         1. The Word is always the final authority:

         2. God will not act in conflict with what He has already said and done

 

http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/8/17/2944457/October%2010%20PM%20Exodus%203.mp3

 

One other housekeeping note:  We're not having evening services Sunday, October 17, so there will be no sermon there, I'll be out of the pulpit October 24, so none then.  There should be morning the 17th, then morning the 31st.

Book Review: The Treasure of God's Word

The Treasure of God's Word: Celebrating 400 Years of the King James Bible

Some of you may not realize it, but an important milestone is next year:  2011 marks 400 years since the publication of the King James Version of the Bible. Now, many people will discount this, since they aren't major readers of the Bible in general, while others will discount the KJV for other reasons.  Others will certainly celebrate the KJV for both religious and linguistic reasons.

In the run-up to this anniversary comes this book.  It's the first I'm aware specifically targeted into that quadricentennial (yes, I looked that up) market.  It won't be the last.

Which is a good thing.  The book reports to readers that the KJV is highly influential, but does not go very far in describing that influence.  The primary content of the book are copy-and-paste sections from the Bible itself, which is certainly good content, but not really worth another book purchase if you own a Bible, especially a KJV.  The short, mini-essay style content that is interspersed between the Bible sections just doesn't hold up as a reason to purchase this book.

What are some of the difficulties I had here? 

At the simplest level, I felt the Scripture sections were too long and the information sections too short.  This makes the book seem more like an attempt to monetize than to inform or inspire.  Also, when the passages selected were specifically intended to show the strength and beauty of the English in the King James Bible, the more you read those words, the less impressive the modern writing is.  I don't know many authors that could generate content that would hold a candle.

A further difficulty was that the original content is more than just celebration of the King James, it comes across as almost too exalting.  If this was the first one read of Bible translations, you'd be shocked to later discover that there are issues with the KJV translation, rather than that it's the best there has ever been. In discussion of the heritage of the KJV, this book does address their existence, but does not acknowledge the debt the KJV has to the previous editions.  The reader is given the impression that the world of English Bibles was a complete mess until King James and the translators saved the day.

The historical reality is a little less clear.  There were prior Bible translations, and many of them were quite popular, except that they lacked official approval by the King and the state religion.  So, there are some issues left undiscussed.

Finally, there are a couple of references to the King James Version not simply as one translation of the Word of God into English, but as the Word of God in English.  It's a hint of treating this one translation as better than all others, and that I find questionable.

In all, this book could have been better.  Judged by its cover, it's beautiful, but on the inside, it falls into the trap of praising something by ignoring issues rather than addressing them.

 

Read Disclosures! to see that I received a free copy of this book from Booksneeze for the review.

Bunny Slipper

Swiped from I can haz cheezburger....the Baptist Blogger in his natural habitat!!

Bunny Slipper: "

Bunny Slipper

much better than bunneh coarnur…

LoL by: Unknown

Picture by: Jai Viray

» Recaption This!

» View All Captions

"

Confrontation in the Church, pt 2

Sometimes, it's not about sin.

Did you realize that?  Some confrontation in church happens, not because of sin, but because of either preference or qualifications.  For example:

1.  I am a pastor.  I do not lead music.  If you were to hear me singing one Sunday, you might confront me and ask me to make sure my wireless microphone is off next service.  There is a reason: I'm not qualified to sing into a microphone in the presence of people.  Your confrontation is about qualification.

2.  Our church has certain criteria for leaders.  Our church also participates with other churches to accomplish things we lack the resources to do individually.  The smallest unit of this is called a Baptist Association.  Our association meets next week to elect leaders.  Guess what?  Many of you readers of this blog aren't going to get elected, and if you showed up and wanted elected, you would be confronted and told to sit down and be quiet.  Why?  Because we have a preference that the leadership (and participants) in our annual meeting be people who are actually involved in the area.  You may think it unfair, but if your church hasn't given a dime into the Centennial Association, you don't get a vote, no matter how amazing you are.  It's our preference.

3.  There are times that church leaders have to be selected, and it's a tough choice.  Qualifications and preferences come into play.  It is not sinful to prefer one leader to another based on those issues, as long as you are honest about where you stand. Moreover, when a leader is selected publicly, presented publicly for debate and acclamation, then that will lead to a confrontation between that leader's supporters and detractors.

 

Now, as to a confrontation over preferences and qualifications, guess what?  It's not about sin.  It doesn't fit any actual Biblical model.  Why?  Well, here's some reality for you: except as it is printed in the Word of God, none of us hears God perfectly these days.  None. Nada. Zilch. Got it?  You and I are capable of mistaking the leading of the Spirit.  Really, we can mistake the printed Word to mean one thing and not another, so how much more the work of God inside of us? 

So, for example, having a preference for a leader, or against a leader isn't a sin.  You have to back up and see how you are handling that preference.  You can handle it sinfully.  If you are so against a person that you do not believe they can ever do right, you've gone too far.  If you are so for a person that you believe they can never do wrong, you're too far.

Likewise, to question a person's qualifications isn't covered in the Scripture.  There are Paul's defenses of his own ministry and God's defenses of Moses, but those are different.  How?  Both of these heard the audible voice of God and saw God (at the bush and on the road, remember?).  Did you?  Did this person who claims to be above question?  The fact remains that we use man-designed institutions to attempt to accomplish what God called us to do. 

It's like this: we know that God has called us to make disciples of all nations and to fellowship and assemble together.  God directs in the Bible that we are to study and learn the Word and grow together. So, we, in America, typically we build building, buy books, have chairs, have multiple churches pool money to support missionaries, create schools, orphanages, and so forth.  We see these man-made structures as being good stewards of the resources we have to accomplish God's commands.

Except that the qualifications for leading and guiding these institutions gets a little fuzzy.  There are some clear guidelines for pastors and elders and deacons, but what about all the other things we have in church and cooperative church life?  In these areas, it is not a matter of confronting sin, but rather of questioning qualifications for leadership.

As such, it's not covered by Matthew 18.  It's not even covered in Galatians 2, because that's about leading people to sin.  It's covered logically from the principles of Scripture: those who would lead should demonstrate why they should lead.  And those who would be followers have the right to ask questions about whether or not someone is qualified to be installed as a leader.  In fact, it's our responsibility to do so.

The difficulty has come because of this: we have mistaken the notion that we must be completely unified to accomplished our purpose together.  While some of the great armies of history were completely unified, do you think every soldier at D-Day was a member of the General Eisenhower fan club? Do you think they all voted for him in 1952?  They had a job to do, and they did it, because the overwhelming nature of their enemy was enough to forge unity in the necessities.

My point?  Confrontation, public confrontation, is a necessity.  The only method we have to select leadership is through prayerful consideration of qualifications and preferences, and to assert that someone can't raise a point about qualifications because they didn't follow Matthew 18 isn't a valid argument.  Public leadership requires public discussion of the issues surrounding it.  And those confrontations and discussions take the same platform as the leadership level.  In a Baptist church, for example, you wouldn't install a pastor that hadn't been publicly introduced and questioned by the whole church (at least you shouldn't).  Most small town churches still officially elect every role in the church every year, including the same organist that's been playing the organ for years (and is probably the only person in town that can play it!).  Wider platforms lead to wider roles.

As such, wider criticism, and a more diverse medium of confrontation.  I wouldn't expect a person to write a newspaper editorial to criticize a small-town pastoral candidate, although a bigger church in a bigger town might rate that.  A national leadership role will result in questions being raised in print, online, and in group discussions.  It's a necessity, because those questions need asked and answered publicly.

 

Just a few rambling thoughts.  I'll try to get back on track with shorter and better blog posts this week…

Confrontation in the Church

I'm not sure this is going to be pleasant, but it needs to be said, so I'm going to say some it.

There is a time and a place for private confrontation between Christians that have been sinned against by one or the other.

There is also a time and a place for public confrontation between Christians that have been sinned against by one or the other.

The guiding passages are these: Matthew 18:15-20; Luke 6:31; Galatians 2:11-21; Philippians 4:8; James 3 (really, the whole chapter).  Go, click, read, and then come back.  Or get your Bible to read these.  Now, this is not an exhaustive list.  This is a blog, not a book, so it's shorter and less comprehensive.

However, a few principles:

1.  Matthew records Jesus teaching his disciples about how to handle sins between each other.

2. Galatians records Paul's confrontation of Peter over Peter joining with the Judaizers. ("The Judaizers" is the term used to describe the people that taught in the early church that to be a good Christian, one had to be as perfectly Jewish as possible.  They were attaching the weight of legalism to the liberty of the Spirit.)

3.  Luke, Paul in Philippians, and James all have some things for us to keep in mind as we tackle this subject.

Here is what I want to put out there for you to consider:

1.  Sometimes, sin affects our fellowship only with 1 or 2 people.  When that happens, a private, calm discussion should be adequate.  It should be handled that way.  This is the principle of Matthew 18.

2.  However, when church leaders sin, it gets into a whole different ballgame.  The public sin of a church leader requires the public rebuke of that sin, as we see in Galatians with Peter and Paul.  Why is this necessary?  Because we have to consider the impact their leadership has on the people around them.  When it is possible by public rebuke to counter the harm of bad leadership, it is necessary that public rebuke happen.

Now, there are some caveats to this: the first is intention.  If you are reviewing my tax returns from last year, and discover that I took more of a housing allowance than I should have, you ought to ask me, privately, first if I was aware of the issue.  If I was, I did it anyway, and have no remorse for it, then I'm in violation of Scripture, and should repent and correct my behavior.  If I won't, then, when the church's next financial report is presented, the question of the pastor's housing allowance should be put to the treasurer. However, if it's an honest mistake, then it's not healthy to broadcast it to the world. 

Note the assumption: church staff who are paid should have their salaries disclosed to the church. It is their business to be responsible for whether or not the tithes entrusted to the church are being used responsibly.  If you, as a church leader, cannot handle that disclosure, are you in the right business? They should vote on your pay as part of the budget every year, just like everything else. If you can't be forthcoming with what's coming home with you, why would you expect the people to trust you with other money?

The second caveat is this: consequence to the innocent.  There are times that pastors, church leaders, are caught in sin.  This can be sexual, financial, or power issues, among many others.  When there are specific victims, the impact and consequence to the innocent should be considered.  If you will destroy the innocent with a public rebuke, think twice about it.  Try the private rebuke first.

The third caveat is this: consequence to the body: if there are no victims, only that the pastor has, by his behavior, disqualified himself from the role, will it strengthen the church to bring it up?  Are you bearing with your weaker brethren in the church, or are you going to put a stumbling block before them?  Note: crimes need evidence handed to prosecutors, victims need the ability to find closure, any action of the pastor that has those elements must be brought to light.  It's not helpful to sweep abuse or theft under the rug.  One victim leads to two, leads to three, and if you conceal it, you take responsibility for the next one that wouldn't have happened.

Notice: however you look at this, it is not a lightweight task to pick up, but sometimes it is necessary.  If at all possible, allow for the opportunity to privately repent of private sin before making it public.  And seek to be as pure of heart and motive as you can be when you do it.  In fact, it's not something that anyone should seek to be doing very often. It is not your spiritual gift nor your calling to always find fault in others.  It is our accountability to one another in the body of Christ that's involved here.

This is all related to dealing with sin.  Whether it's what we would call a minor sin, like an embellished resume, or a major sin, like a fabricated one, this has to do with issues that, apart from repentance, disqualify one from claiming any role as a church leader.  And malfeasance with church finances or violations of trust, especially to victimize people are automatic disqualifiers. The only thing left at that point is to help the innocent: the victims and the pastor's family, because their lives are pretty wrecked at that point too.

Doug

One last note: perfection isn't going to happen.  This is why pastors need accountability and humility, just like anyone else.  If your church leaders are striving to follow Christ, but can admit their mistakes, and those mistakes are along the lines of what any normal believer makes, these are not disqualifying.  Now, a continual attitude that their sin doesn't matter is disqualifying, but that your pastor or church leader loses his temper with a bad referee while watching football doesn't mean he's not fit for the pulpit come Sunday.  If he's never sorry, or if it reveals a deeper issue with anger, it might.  Go back to your Bibles, folks, and get the fullness of what you should do there.  Never trust a blog to be your infallible guide.  Not even mine.