I wish we did not have to talk about this. However, in the last 5 years, I have fellowshiped with resurging evangelicals who find their identity in their reformed interpretation.  This movement has become increasingly vocal and marginalising. I refuse to support or be part of a church or movement which makes either a reformed or non-reformed position a dividing plank of their platform. Allow me to share with you 3 reasons why I will not join the neo-reformed crusade.

1. Jesus was not ‘reformed’

A leading reformed church planter recently preached and tweeted “I am a Calvinist just like Jesus and the Apostle Paul”.** For me, this brings back bad memories of the ‘Jesus was a Baptist’ movement. Well, to be accurate, Jesus lived 1500 years before Calvin. Christians followed Jesus before reformed theology was even invented. In my experience, some of the adoration of Calvin seems akin to mormonism – to the point where Jesus and Paul are interpreted through the golden lenses of Calvin’s institutes. Or to put it another way, the logic is similar to the 1611 KJV re-inspiration theory. (i.e. full understanding was not complete until around 1500-1600). If reformed theology is Biblical, then it should be able to be fully defended and justified from Scripture without the need for Calvin.

2. Neo-Reformed is different to Historical Reformed.

The Reformation was a necessary response to middle ages Roman Catholic Church doctrine and practice. Started by Martin Luther in Germany, subsequent European leaders (including John Calvin) moulded the reformation movement to their political and theological understandings. The Reformation was a precursor to great spiritual awakenings. Today, Roman Catholic doctrine no longer has the same political/spiritual monopoly over the western masses. However the neo-reformed movement is resurging by creating a new enemy – psycho-Christianity. I am certainly not defending the bad doctrine of some ‘feel-good TV preachers’, but let’s be clear – this is not the same beast as the historical reformation.

3. The ‘Reformed Label’ is used as an egalitarian weapon

“They are not reformed” has been used as code for ‘Christians who are not in our clique and are probably heretical’. Rather than deal with the doctrines of foreknowledge, election and predestination, this slur plays the man and not the ball. In practice, modern use of the reformed label seems to be creating an exclusive new form of fundamentalism. As someone who emerged from fundamentalism, I find the personal attacks, the pride, and the lack of love particularly repulsive. For that reason alone, I choose not to be known by the reformed label. Godly evangelicals don’t need to constantly tell people how reformed they are – and how non-reformed you are. Having said that, Ben Kwok recently posted about biases he has witness from non-reformed Christians. So problem behaviours can cut both ways.

Reformed theology use to be known by the TULIP acronym. Today, the reformed label has evolved in some circles to mean different things depending on who is using it. So it is hard to pin down.   TULIP is helpful in that it explains some soteriological truth regarding God’s sovereignty, however it does not give the complete love picture of salvation that only the Scriptures can bring.   So for the sake of dealing with the issues, let me expand on TULIP’s points.

• T – Total Depravity of man:   The heart of man is inherently evil.  Salvation requires the intervening of the Holy Spirit to move us from spiritual death to spiritual life. - Ephesians 1   YET, while unregenerate man is depraved, he still retains the image of God with the free will to choose to do right (e.g. obey government by paying taxes).   In comparison to God, these acts of righteousness are still filthy rags.
• U – Unconditional election: Election to salvation requires repentance.   God provides the command and the power to repent both mentally (saving faith) and physically (visible faith).    YET, the command to repent does not negate our free-will actions to choose to ‘seek first God’s Kingdom’.  Our acts of faith are not works that earns us favour or standing with God but we choose them as a response because He first loved us.
• L – Limited Atonement:    Atonement is only applied to the elect.   YET, God died and shed his blood for the sins of the whole world. The price is paid for everyone.  That is why God can honestly say that He wants everyone to be saved.
• I – Irresistible Grace:   For those of us who ave received God’s grace, we understand why grace seems so irresistible.   YET the Bible is full of stories of people who resisted the grace that God offered to them (e.g. the rich young ruler, Pharoah, etc)
• P – Preservation of the Saints:  God gives man the power to repent (John 1:12) and the power to stay following Christ.  YET Christians don’t become preserved toy puppets.   Rather God gives His followers the power to persevere.   There is no earned merit in a Christian’s faithfulness, and some will chose to walk away from the faith (this is not hypothetical).  In His eternal foreknowledge, this is not a surprise to God. – Hebrews 6:4-6

If you meet an ugly calvinist or ugly non-calvinist, resist the temptation to throw the baby out with the bath water. God does foreknow and pre-destine his elect. (Romans 8:29) He also created man with a free will. Let’s conclude that the ugly person is just not expressing it well.

As I said before, the truth often lies in the middle of man-made debates and positions. I do not consider myself a follower of John Calvin or Joseph Aminius. I am simply a follower of The Way. So the next time, someone asks if you are reformed – don’t buy into the artificial game. Simply smile and say that you follow Jesus.

Blessings

-JC

*EDIT – My responses to TULIP were updated on Jan 16th to provide more clarity.  My position on TULIP remains the same.

** I have been told this was originally preached jest.   Here is a link to the sermon.     However, the comment was subsequently tweet by the Geneva Push and retweeted by other, hence I remain concerned. 

So when the details of sex scandals emerge, we minyans gobble the juicy details up. The whole business model of gossip magazines are built on this desire of the masses. Why do we love a ‘good sex scandal’?

Well, they take our mind of our own sins and failings and allows us to focus on those who are ‘more devious’ than us. Our voyeurism with people’s affairs indulge a form of ‘self-righteousness’ by cloaking our anger as ‘godly outrage’. We must not gain any perverse pleasure from consuming other people’s trials as entertainment. I want to approach this whole issue with a spirit of humility. But for the grace of God, there go any of us.

Scandals are scandals because of 3 factors

1. The nature of the allegations
2. The hypocrisy of the accused individual or institution
3. The refusal to quickly and completely confess and ask forgiveness

Christianity is particularly susceptible to sex scandals because of the nature of its teaching to abstain from sexual sin. The Catholic church has ongoing PR problems with its history of abuse. In recent times, fundamentalism is receiving its due share of attention.

Church and Christian institutions compound the allegations with their repeatable tendency to evade and minimalise the issues. While well meaning Christians often think they are focusing on Christ, by wishing away problems, failure to approach allegations head on only obscures Jesus’ message. On the other side of the coin, outraged and hurt Christians and former Christians morph their ‘godly outrage’ into ungodly witch hunts that infer greater cover-ups. Some of the internet rage and ‘vendettas’ on blogs are pushed by ‘haters’ who have ‘no skin in the game’. However, honestly, the culture of fundamentalism, gives them plenty of fuel for these conspiracies.

In the blogwatch section of this site, there are some references to BJU’s support of a board member – Chuck Phelps. While Mr Phelps was pastoring an IFB church, he mishandled his reporting and duty of care to a girl in his church who was raped by one of his church leaders. Phelps ‘forgive and forget’ approach allowed the abuse to continue. BJU’s support for Phelps is a case study of how not to respond to scandals. Like most well meaning Christians, I wish scandals would just go away. I greatly desire for Jesus to be preach unencumbered by our filthy rags. However, this can only happen if the issue is dealt with transparently and with justice.

The Wednesday night after the Phelp’s expose was aired on ABC’s 20/20 program, I attended a church pastored by a BJU graduate. The whole evening was devoted to how the media is anti-Christian, the victims are bitter and the issue is a snow job. Clearly, the boys club had been rallied. While I don’t believe the media is a bastion of truth, this response is not acceptable. BJU students and graduates are demanding a better response from their alma mater and are planning a protest day on December 12th.

By BJU’s own standards, they should remove him from their board. BJU has a catalog of rules for its students to help them live lives that are above reproach and abstain from the appearance of evil. While Phelps is not a demon, he is tainted by inability to see his error. Consistency alone demands his removal. I can see no upside for keeping him and all downside. If BJU representatives are reading this, I urge you to act now. Use the vacancy to promote a fresh clean skin. I believe God will continue to use BJU in proclaiming the gospel, but you must ensure that it not seen to be trivializing what happened or those who have been hurt.

To finish on a positive note. Correctly responding to sexual abuse issues is not just about mitigating risk. Championing justice and loving the vunerable is central to the Christian message. Embracing a strong, correct and decisive response will be positively welcomed. Such a response can provide a platform for promoting the light of the gospel and demonstrating that Christians are growing in their love for the Lord and his justice.

Blessings

- JC

My ‘day job’ is all about ‘career development’. I help people achieve their goals by analyzing their skills, providing development training and arranging targeted job interviews. It is satisfying to help people grow their careers, achieve their objectives and increase their pay packets.

Ministry: A Career?

However, I have previously spent time in paid pastoral ministry. One thought that vexes me is ‘Is appropriate to consider pastoral care a ‘career’? Should not ‘serving the Lord’ be a call?’ However, from a structural standpoint, there are pecking orders and job pathways in Christian organisations. Consider progression from deacon /youth worker to elder/pastor to Senior Pastor. Alternatively, pastors are often recognized and paid more based on the size of their church membership or the number of church staff they oversee.

God tells us that if someone desires the office of an elder, they desire a good thing. So, I am comfortable with the concept of growing ministry responsibility based on the leadership gifts that the Lord provides. However, one of the qualifications for a pastor is that he must not be motivated by money or greed. Therefore, the modern practice of desiring ministry career progressive can seem somewhat incompatible with following the Lord’s calling into ministry. Does that mean all pastors be paid the same amount regardless?

Ministry: A Call?

If someone seeks to enter full-time paid ministry, part of common ‘ordination processes’ is verification of a calling on their life. This is often done after one graduates from Bible college or after demonstration of certain gifting or skills.

However, if going into ministry is calling and not a career choice, then should it follow that entering pastoral work is a one way call? From a spiritual standpoint, I have seen plenty of people laud praise when a talent vocational Christian changes tack and enters ‘paid ministry’ or ‘missionary work’. The ‘Lord’s call is celebrated. But what about when someone leaves paid ministry for vocational employment? If someone leaves the pastorate to work in the secular world, have they necessarily abandoned the calling?

The whole concept of ministry is confused in the modern day church. Why do we place unique values on dedicated ministry compared to vocational ministry?

I suspect that the above questions often haunt our ministers and in particular our bi-vocational and part time ministers.

What are your thoughts?

A young couple in a church I attended in the US, claimed they did not need health insurance.  ”God would provide for their needs”, they firmly believed.   When they had a significant car accident and incurred hefty medical bills, the church asked its parishioners (who had been regularly paying their own insurance) to take special offerings to cover the costs of this couples medical bills.   This situation caused a fairly vigorous debate on “responsibility” vs. “faith”

In Australia, we are blessed to have a public health care system to fall back on.   But for how long is that sustainable?  As the baby boomers age, the percentage of our population who require expensive health services and aged care will dramatically increase.     This demographic change will provide fundamental challenges for our societies – particularly from a financial standpoint.

In previous generations, aging parents would have moved into their children’s homes to be supported.  However, with our increasingly busy, two-income family lives, along with advances in medical technology, we have shifted old people into clinical, but expensive aged care centres.   As a generation, the baby boomers did not have enough kids to support their population in old age.  So this issue will explode onto the scene in a few years.

50% of health care costs are incurred in the last 12 months of a person’s life.   All those costs achieve is delaying inevitable death.   The quality of life in those final 12 months is generally not good.    While I am not advocating euthanasia, I do wonder if it is responsible to be supporting an industry that is not sustainable.   There are also many other issues with locking away an entire generation in old peoples homes and villages.

Personally I think I would rather die at 80 with my bodily functions still operating, rather than at 85 in a machine-supported state.   I say that because I am confident in life beyond the grave.    For those who don’t know Jesus, it is understandable as to why they would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to push death back by a few months.

How should we as Christians approach these growing issues?

Blessings

- JC

Let me put my cards on the table about marriage:

I don’t believe the government should have any say in marriage.  Marriage is a religious ceremony established by God.  So to be consistent, why should atheists even bother getting married?    To be further consistent, why should Christian couples bother getting a marriage certificate issued by the state.

But the reality is that since the reformation, the jurisdiction of nation states has overlapped with religious institutions.   As governments have become increasingly secular, should we be surprised or complain that they seek to reinterpret laws to apply to the civil union practices of all its citizens?  including polygamists or homosexuals?

Since the fall, homosexuality has always been present.  However the global push for homosexual marriage is unprecedented.  But why do homosexuals want to get married?

1. To receive civil union rights such as  tax/employment benefits?   These mostly now exist for both defacto and gay couples.

2. To receive validation of their relationship?  Most people who are going to agree with gay relationships already accept it.  Homosexuality is not only legal, but openly celebrated on TV and in most institutions (excluding religious ones).

3. To destroy heterosexual marriage?   This seems to be the plan.   Let me elaborate.

Ephesians 5:22+ clearly states that marriage is a divine symbol of Christ redemption of his bride – the church.    Redefining marriage then becomes a symbolic attack on the gospel.    That is why gay marriage activism is subtly anti-gospel activism.     If marriage was established by God as between a man and woman, then gay marriage is an attack on the created order.   Redefining ‘martial love’ as more than a husband and a wife, is  by extension redefining  the gospel love that Christ has for his church.

As Christians, we can sometimes be disturbed at the moral decay of social conventions.  However, at the end of the day, even when our government legalizes gay marriage, it will not be bona fida.   God established marriage and only He can authorize true marriage.   Legitimacy is determined by His view and it is only His view that counts.

Apart from our voting and democratic petitioning privileges, the best way we can respond to gay marriage activism is to cultivate our own heterosexual marriages and to teach our children accordingly.    We must not modify or be ashamed of true marriage and the gospel.  As we grow in our marriages before God, then the gospel will shine more brightly in our lives.   Furthermore, we will long all the more for the coming marriage supper of the Lamb where the redemptive gospel will be fulfilled.

Blessings

-JC

Grassroots rebellion is growing.  Whether it be the Tea Party, the Arab Springs, London Riots, or the Occupy Wall Street movements, we  know one thing.  The masses are angry.   At one level, the common man has a right to be angry at our political and corporate leaders.  James tells us that it is the rich that oppress us.   But the frequency of the unrest on the streets, indicates that the days of our social status quo are numbered.

So how should we as Christians respond to these movements?

In response to Islamic Jihadism, one of my friends mused that we should have Christian Jihadism.   Anything less, is tantamount to fighting a battle with one hand tied behind our back.   But the Christian is called to a higher standard in our causes.  We must not only be right in our position, but also right in our approach.   We must respect authority even while disagreeing with it.  For the ‘Christian activist’, the ends cannot justify the means.

The result is that for Christian supported movements, anti-social strategies and violent behaviours are not an option.    At one level it feels like we have handicapped the Christian community and our values.   The church argument has often been made that we cannot legislate morality, so therefore we should not have political positions or passions.   We should just preach the gospel and not get involved.   While I agree we cannot legislate heart matters, we certainly can legislate moral compliance.   But the bigger question is ‘Should we spend our time trying to create a more just society through grassroots movements?’   ‘Should Christians be involved in public activism?’

What do you think?

Blessings

- JC

Complementarianism (n.) The belief that men and women have complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage and the church.  Leadership roles are prescribed for men; support roles are prescribed for women.

Egalitarianism (n.)  The belief that men and women are called to roles and responsibilities in  marriage and in the church based on their giftedness, regardless of gender.

Chauvinism (n.)  The belief that men and women are of intrinsically different worth, usually that men are superior to women.

Okay, I admit it– obviously chauvinism is not a legit third position.  While it should be clear to all that chauvinism is in direct opposition to biblical truth, we see it practiced (if not labeled) in many independent Baptist churches today.  That’s why I include it as a third stream of thought even though it is really only a distortion of complementarianism.  This post by blogger Wendy Alsup, who calls herself a complementarian, addresses some common pitfalls with the complementarian position.  Concluding with an exhortation to  handle the Word precisely, she draws us into a valid debate in the gender role discussion.  Read it for yourself here.

What do you think are the dangers of the complementarian position?

From a secular standpoint:

Modern Israel was established in 1948 by the United Nations as a safe-home of for the Jewish people post WWII.   Since then conflict and demographic changes have meant a return to 1967 boundaries is like trying to unscramble an egg.   The right of return principle is arbitrary.  Why not return the Holy Land to the Italians (Romans) or Greeks or the Jews again, or the Canaanites?  There is archaeological evidence that all those people groups occupied the same land before each other.

Historically, the West has politically supported Israel out of sympathy for the Holocaust and out of support for its democratic stability and economic growth in the Middle East Region.   Countering that, the West has been wary of Palestinian association with terrorism.   Yet, we cannot help but be moved by the suffering of the Palestinians.   However, both of these secular position are changing.   Western power and influence is fastly declining in a post GFC world.   Academia is leading a BDS (boycott, divest, and sanction) movement against Israel. Reports of regular skirmishes such as the flotilla raid or response to rocket attacks are resulting in Generation Y largely declaring themselves ‘pro-Palestinian’.

But the ripples of allegiances spread around the globe.   Political commentators have blamed the Democrats lost of the Ny-9 seat on Obama’s policies towards Israel.   While GOP Presidential candidate, Michelle Bachmann, has linked future US prosperity to its support of Israel.  Even more broadly, much of Al Qaeda’s aggression is claimed to be justified on the basis of the West’s support for Israel.   The Arab Spring uprisings are uncovering an anger towards Israel that was masked by corrupt dictators.

If the secular world could find a silver bullet to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, then it seems much of the world’s ails would be solved.  Many leaders have tried and so far all have failed.   Yet, all of the above seem like only surface issues compared to the religious passions that surround the Holy Land.

From a religious standpoint there are different angles on Israel:

The Islamic fundamentalist standpoint:   The Islamic caliphate once included the Holy Land.  Given a Jewish state has taken back part of the caliphate, Israel’s very existence is an affront to the validity of the Islamic faith.   That is partly why Hamas and Iran are committed to Israel’s eradication.   Many muslims are waiting for the 12th imam (Mahdi) to finally usher in the peaceful rule they seek.

The Jewish orthydox standpoint:   The Jewish people are God’s chosen people who were given the Holy Land as a sign of their promised inheritance.    The Jewish glory days of David and Solomon were centred on Jerusalem and the temple.  The Jews connection to Jehovah and future redemption is linked to traditional practices surrounding the temple.

The Christian fundamentalist standpoint:    One Christian view is replacement theology (which sees NT references to Israel  as being replaced by the Christian church).  An alternative understanding is dispensational theology (which sees a revived Israel as a focus of God’s attention in the end times).   There are shades of interpretation in-between these two positions.  The many ‘Christian interpretations’ of Israel alone have have resulted in anger and division.

While the above summary of secular and religious views is simplistic, they demonstrate why a peaceful resolution seems elusive.

Personally, Romans 9-11 convinces me that even in this church age, God is not finished with the Jewish people.   However, I choose not to be dogmatic as to how this will unfold.   Even if modern Israel is pushed into the sea, my faith in Jesus will not be shaken.   Ultimately, peace in the Middle East – and the world in general – will only come once the Prince of Peace returns.    Since Jesus is our focus, let’s seek Christ more than the anti-christ.   Let’s pray for the peace of Jerusalem.  Let us preach the salvation gospel to the Jews, muslims, and gentiles living in the Middle East and the world at large.

Blessings

JC

My goal in today’s post is twofold. First, I want to explain some of the issues that I wrestle with in handling such discussions. Second, I would like to get your feedback on how things are handled so I can deal with these sorts of situations more effectively in the future.

The goal of this post is not to chastise anyone, to bring up personal criticisms, or necessarily to discuss the particular conversations we had last week.

I’ll bring up these issues under three major headings. Each section will end with a question.

THE ECONOMICS OF TRUTH

This might seem a strange expression, but it is fundamental to why InFocus exists. It comes from something my brother-in-law, Lawrence Lantz, said to me many years ago. Roughly put, he said “Truth can stand on its own in the marketplace.”

That single statement worked its way into my soul and completely changed my life.

Now that I’m an academic in the field of business, the language of market economics is familiar to me. Free market economics holds that markets are self-regulating. That is, that a free market, with only very limited outside regulation, will accurately determine the appropriate value of items in that market at any given level of supply and demand. Adam Smith referred to this idea as “the invisible hand” which works for the good of society.

The alternative to a free market is a controlled market where an outside influence sets prices and regulates who may buy and sell, to/from whom they may buy and sell, and how and what they may buy and sell. Many are familiar with the Communist expressions of controlled markets in the previous century and continuing to today in some places.

The point here is that in much of Fundamentalism, there is a controlled market for truth. Truth is highly valued, but it is also highly regulated. And as in any market, such an approach leads inevitably to shortages and distortions in the market.

As a younger man, I believed that such an approach to truth was neither healthy nor biblical, and it was out of that conviction, primarily, that InFocus came to be.

I believe that truth can stand on its own in the marketplace. I believe that a free market for truth, with only very limited outside regulation, will accurately determine the appropriate value of items in that market.

This is the rationale for allowing a variety of views to be argued in the comments section. Views which are poorly supported will  eventually be recognised for their bankruptcy in the open market of ideas.

But even the freest of free market economists recognise that some level of regulation must occur (e.g. taxation, anti-monopoly laws, laws against extortion, etc.). And this raises the question, in the free market of ideas, how much regulation is necessary? Where do we draw the lines?

GRACE

It goes without saying that the discussion of Christian truth should be done in a Christ-like way. At least it should go without saying.

The basis of Christian grace towards others is rooted in our experience of God’s grace towards us (1 John 4:7-11). Scripture teaches that those who show no grace towards others, have no basis on which to argue that they have experienced God’s grace themselves (v. 20). Yet we all live at times as if we needed no grace.

So here’s the question. Can we “regulate” grace? Should we try?

I have typically drawn the line at personal attacks. Is this too early to draw the line? Too late?

REASON

I’ve suggested that open discussion, and that done graciously, should be the normal modus operandi for the Christian comment thread. But if that is true, it is no less worth suggesting that sound reason should be the norm. To draw on the economics parallel, to argue through fallacies is to create counterfeit money, or to hold a monopoly, or to price gouge, or any number of other economically dysfunctional activities. This holds even if the arguer is unable to see that his argument is a non sequitur.

This is one of the key values of discussion. It is through the free market of ideas that logical weaknesses or fallacies are exposed in order to reveal the true value of an idea. Still, in the short term, people are likely to differ on the value of various ideas and permission to do this is inherent in the idea of free market.

So the problem is not logical fallacies per se. The problem is stubborn persistence in logical fallacies after they have been pointed out. But for those who have not made it a practice to study logic and who have not grasped it well yet, how much allowance should be made? If someone’s arguments are riddled with logical fallacies, is there a point at which their contribution should be excluded? If so, when?

I would value your input on these issues and others and your ideas on how best to answer the questions raised.

Grace to you.

It would seem that our most fervent discussion grows out of our differences.  Posts on Bible versions, Calvinism, or Standards (BCS for short?) attract the widest readership and the most comments.  The fact that we have both differences and vigorous discussion highlights the robustness of the Christian faith.  I’m choosing the high road here because at times I think that Michael Caton’s quote from The Castle is more appropriate – “Tell ‘em they’re dreamin’.”

Whether you are denominational or non-denominational (independent), the overwhelming majority of the readership would be able to trace their faith and culture back to the Protestant Reformation.  Consider the role of Scholasticism as a contributing factor leading up to the Reformation. Take a moment to read through this translated quote by the famous Scholastic Thomas Aquinas in his capstone work, Summa Theologica:

“Sin, in so far as it is inordinate, has the character of evil; but, in so far as it is an act, it has some good, at least apparent, for its end: so that, as an act, but not as being inordinate, it can be the cause, both final and efficient, of another sin. A sin has matter, not “of which” but “about which” it is: and it has its form from its end. Consequently one sin can be the cause of another, in respect of the four kinds of cause, as stated above.”

How did you go with that one?  The Scholastics were famous for their nuanced semantics and logical arguments.  At times I feel like our friend Thomas Aquinas would be very comfortable in our debates.  Ironically, during this protracted period of navel-gazing the preservation of the Scriptures flourished in the Augustine and Dominican monastic orders.  Here’s a big generalization for the purpose this post – God preserved his Word while people were talking at it – not applying it.

So to adapt a phrase from Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night – “if disagreement be the food of sanctification, play on.”   But I wonder… how many of you are comfortable with reading the Bible in Greek or Hebrew (the language of God’s Word)?    How many of you have actually read something that John Calvin wrote (or Jacobus for that matter)?  Food for thought eh?

~ JK