This past week, I've been reading a fantastic book by Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert. The title of the book is "What is the Mission of the Church?" Isn't that an interesting question? I think, as Christians, we all too often just go to church every Sunday and view church as an organization that is just there to serve our spiritual needs. That is one of the reasons some are in favor of taxing it because many view it as little more than a business that provides spirituality for a small fee.
However, Christ gave the church a mission! We have a task we need to be accomplishing! Right before Christ ascended into heaven, he told his disciples to go forth and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Ultimately, that's what the church is here to do. To gather in and disciple Christ's people. This is entirely consistent with the story of the Bible.
You know, the Bible has many amazing facets and one of them is the epic story that it tells. It reads like a novel! There we were, in the middle of Paradise and we threw it all away! Everything seemed so dark, but God showed us a little glimmer of hope with the nation of Israel. God protected His special people and promised a Messiah to come and rescue them from their sins. Then God stepped down into this dark world and took on flesh. He became a human being with all the same emotions and pains that we feel. As if that wasn't enough, he sacrificed everything to suffer a horrific and shameful death. What for? To pay the price for his people's sins and redeem them from the bondage of sin! It's so easy to lose sight of that.
DeYoung and Gilbert wrote their book to refocus the Church on this mission because they believe that she is straying from it. I have noticed this too. The American Church has begun to preach something new called the Social Gospel. It's all about equality, the poor, and changing the culture. I want to preface my comments with this; the Social Gospel has a basis in Scripture. That is why it has been so widely embraced. The problem is, it is an overemphasis of a less prominent theme. The actual Gospel has been pushed to the backseat while changing the culture has been brought to the forefront. The Bible absolutely supports justice, equality, loving others, serving the poor, widows, orphans, and being "a City on a Hill." However, those are not the church's primary objectives. I would argue that all those things are logical out-workings of a faithful pursuit of the Gospel and obedience to God's Word.
My goal in this post is not to discourage those who are fighting for the downtrodden and brokenhearted. However, it is a call to refocus our perspective. We have focused too much on one aspect of Christianity and because of that, Christ's mission to the church has suffered. Now, Christ's mighty word will always go forward, but are we doing what we can to aid it? To plant it? I know I don't do enough! This book has really opened my eyes to how I am not fulfilling my obligations to my Lord. My desire is to serve Him in many different capacities. I pray that He empowers you to serve Him and seek His will. He promises that if we call on Him, He will answer and strengthen us. He is the giver of every good gift.
God Bless,
Stanley
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Am I Missing Something?
I was going to use this blog post to spew my typical libertarian ideas such as being in favor of civil unions. I'll explain my position briefly so you don't damn me as a heretic.
I posted this comment on White Horse Inn's blog. I think this explains my position well.
"I feel that there is a concept here that hasn’t been touched on here. There are two aspects to marriage in this world. There is the spiritual aspect (covenantal) and then there is a legal aspect (government.) Where did this legal aspect come from? The government made it up! The government has got its hand into something that it really doesn’t have authority in. Yes, they may be able to give out marriage license and legal benefits, but what does that do? Just as two individuals may legally divorce, so too, I think, we should let homosexuals get “married.” The key here is that even though those divorcees may be legally divorced, God has not absolved them of their covenant. The same goes for the homosexuals. They may live together and have done a ceremony, but they can never partake in the spiritual benefits of marriage. Isn’t the spiritual dimension really the fullness of marriage? Marriage is a relationship sanctioned, preserved, and loved by God. Homosexuals can never partake in those benefits. So really, what they think they want is simply counterfeit marriage. I say we let them have it. If they want to live together and have joint tax accounts, they can do that. They will answer to God someday for it. It’s our job as Christians to minister to them and love them. Not use the government to force them into conformity with God’s law. Change does not come from the outside in. It comes from the inside out. They are unregenerate, so how can we expect them to live any other way?"
Originally, that was going to be the point of this article. But I've been reading about Theonomy lately. I also have a good friend of mine who provided a solid defense of it to me. Admittedly, theonomy simply means God's Law, but the "radical" ideas attached to the term are widely varied. The names that come to mind when I think of this school of thought are Rushdoony and Gary North.
Now, I have never been one to shy away from a radical idea. In fact, I prefer "radical" ideas because that generally means that the idea is taking a stand on something. "Moderate" philosophies are often an amalgam of different ideas and are generally full of inconsistencies. I've come to realize that radical means black or white and moderate means something like grey because I don't want black and white to fight.
My point is this, I've been noticing inconsistencies with the foundation for my libertarian views. Obviously it's founded on total depravity which leads us to have a natural distrust of giving men power. This is healthy. However, what I've been having a problem with is my treatment of the Old Testament civil laws. No matter how hard I try, I can never satisfactorily explain them away. God is the king of the Universe, so shouldn't His good laws apply? Shouldn't the government being enforcing His righteousness? However, I shudder at what this would look like. The repercussions seem horrible. Where would the government end and church begin? Who makes the decisions? Who can question the decisions? In the name of God's Law, sinful men would seize power and bind their opponents. How can you object to God's law? The government simply cannot have that kind of authority. Those who support this view would say that I have taken their view too far in one direction. I would disagree. They are being too optimistic about the nature of man and how truly "Christian" a population would ever realistically became (barring an intervention by God Himself.) History has shown us this time and time again in things like The Catholic Church and the oppressive regimes of Islamic countries.
In short, I cannot fully rid my mind of the sneaking suspicion that I am missing something. Yet, the conclusions I have reached seem correct. The opposite seems horrific. What is it?
Our church has been studying a fantastic book called "Living in God's Two Kingdoms" by Dr. David Van Drunen. Van Drunen is an adherent of the Two Kingdom's doctrine. The book is exceedingly interesting and actually provides, what I believe, a solid basis for a Christian libertarian. I want to study it further because I'm not quite ready to jump on the bandwagon, but I'm probably about 98% of the way there. Consider reading it. I urge you.
God Bless,
Stanley
I posted this comment on White Horse Inn's blog. I think this explains my position well.
"I feel that there is a concept here that hasn’t been touched on here. There are two aspects to marriage in this world. There is the spiritual aspect (covenantal) and then there is a legal aspect (government.) Where did this legal aspect come from? The government made it up! The government has got its hand into something that it really doesn’t have authority in. Yes, they may be able to give out marriage license and legal benefits, but what does that do? Just as two individuals may legally divorce, so too, I think, we should let homosexuals get “married.” The key here is that even though those divorcees may be legally divorced, God has not absolved them of their covenant. The same goes for the homosexuals. They may live together and have done a ceremony, but they can never partake in the spiritual benefits of marriage. Isn’t the spiritual dimension really the fullness of marriage? Marriage is a relationship sanctioned, preserved, and loved by God. Homosexuals can never partake in those benefits. So really, what they think they want is simply counterfeit marriage. I say we let them have it. If they want to live together and have joint tax accounts, they can do that. They will answer to God someday for it. It’s our job as Christians to minister to them and love them. Not use the government to force them into conformity with God’s law. Change does not come from the outside in. It comes from the inside out. They are unregenerate, so how can we expect them to live any other way?"
Originally, that was going to be the point of this article. But I've been reading about Theonomy lately. I also have a good friend of mine who provided a solid defense of it to me. Admittedly, theonomy simply means God's Law, but the "radical" ideas attached to the term are widely varied. The names that come to mind when I think of this school of thought are Rushdoony and Gary North.
Now, I have never been one to shy away from a radical idea. In fact, I prefer "radical" ideas because that generally means that the idea is taking a stand on something. "Moderate" philosophies are often an amalgam of different ideas and are generally full of inconsistencies. I've come to realize that radical means black or white and moderate means something like grey because I don't want black and white to fight.
My point is this, I've been noticing inconsistencies with the foundation for my libertarian views. Obviously it's founded on total depravity which leads us to have a natural distrust of giving men power. This is healthy. However, what I've been having a problem with is my treatment of the Old Testament civil laws. No matter how hard I try, I can never satisfactorily explain them away. God is the king of the Universe, so shouldn't His good laws apply? Shouldn't the government being enforcing His righteousness? However, I shudder at what this would look like. The repercussions seem horrible. Where would the government end and church begin? Who makes the decisions? Who can question the decisions? In the name of God's Law, sinful men would seize power and bind their opponents. How can you object to God's law? The government simply cannot have that kind of authority. Those who support this view would say that I have taken their view too far in one direction. I would disagree. They are being too optimistic about the nature of man and how truly "Christian" a population would ever realistically became (barring an intervention by God Himself.) History has shown us this time and time again in things like The Catholic Church and the oppressive regimes of Islamic countries.
In short, I cannot fully rid my mind of the sneaking suspicion that I am missing something. Yet, the conclusions I have reached seem correct. The opposite seems horrific. What is it?
Our church has been studying a fantastic book called "Living in God's Two Kingdoms" by Dr. David Van Drunen. Van Drunen is an adherent of the Two Kingdom's doctrine. The book is exceedingly interesting and actually provides, what I believe, a solid basis for a Christian libertarian. I want to study it further because I'm not quite ready to jump on the bandwagon, but I'm probably about 98% of the way there. Consider reading it. I urge you.
God Bless,
Stanley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)