Author Archive
Celebrity is Fraud
Posted by: | CommentsI think this is a good thing to remember: excessive celebrity is a type of fraud. This is the conclusion reached by James Davidson Hunter in his book, To Change the World. How I’ve come to worry about the undue influence that celebrities are coming to have on the hearts and minds of evangelicals, being so easily accessible from the internet. Just because somebody has an article or sermon posted on the internet doesn’t mean that they are an authority or even remotely correct in what they are saying. We would all do well to remember that Christ is Lord, and there is One who deserves our ultimate attention. Common men will err. It is inevitable. We should all be leary of making too much of any one person, organization, church, or ministry. May Christ be our King! The following is an excerpt from Hunter’s book:
Celebrity is, in effect, based on an inflated brilliance, accomplishment, or spirituality generated and perpetuated by publicity. It is an artifice and, therefore, a type of fraud. Where it once served power and patrons, in our own day it mainly serves itself and its pecuniary interests. Celebrity must, of necessity, draw attention to itself. In American Christianity, the relentless pressure to raise funds within churches and para-church organization reinforces the pressure toward celebrity, with an endless flow of direct mail, advertising, and ghostwritten sermons, speeches, articles, editorials, and so on. These pressures are difficult to resist even for those who, by instinct, might find celebrity either tasteless or problematic. The reason is that celebrity is not just a certain kind of status one achieves but it is also a powerful institution the entire structure of which is oriented toward burnishing a leader’s image and projecting his or her visibility (pg. 260).
Challies, Piper, and Warren
Posted by: | CommentsI don’t usually link to, or re-post other’s blog articles. However, upon first hearing about Piper’s invitation to Rick Warren for this year’s Desiring God Conference, I have had a deep uneasiness. However, I’ve been reluctant to express my easiness because I do see a very hardcore element emerging in the Young Reformed movement that seems to me to be rather isolationist, exclusive, and arrogant. I think that the movement is good, and the vast majority of those in it are solid and Godly people, but when John Piper indicated that his reason for inviting Warren to this year’s conference was because of his fear regarding this trend within the Young Reformed and Restless movement- I just couldn’t bring myself to agree that this was a suitable reason for inviting a man like Warren to a conference like Desiring God. I found myself sharply disagreeing with John Piper. However, it is his conference, and he can do whatever he wants.
My tiny hometown of Dripping Springs, Texas experienced the tragedy of watching First Baptist Church burn to the ground, and at the end of the day it was determined that one of the members of the church had deliberately set fire to the church, and burned it to the ground. The building was set on fire on September 5, 2007 -but the congregation had been heating up for several years before the flames broke out. What had happened was that a group of men sought to take what was a Godly church and shove it in the direction of the Purpose Driven/Seeker Sensitive model. The end of this situation was a congregation destroyed and a building left in ashes.
I have had a lot of time to reflect deeply on what I’ve seen from Rick Warren’s ministry, and I think most of the Purpose Driven model is hateful both to God and man. With this personal conviction, I agree with Tim Challies assessment of the situation and gladly link to his thoughts here.
Milton
Posted by: | Comments“In religion nothing is indifferent. Cruel then must that indifferency needs be that shall violate the strict necessity of conscience.” Milton
In Milton’s Day Anglicans, Calvinists, and Arminians had determined that some matters were not important and thus a matter of indifference. In the wake of such a startling opinion they then legislated that everyone should follow their notions of religion since those who held certain objections were holding to items that were of “indifference.” The most startling of these indifferent matters was the baptism of infants, an innovation that the governing authorities approved.
Milton’s objection to the human idea of “indifference” is that a man’s religion is always an affair between him and his God, and therefore nothing that any man may consider important can be quietly and easily dismissed as an “indifference” by any other man. We are all bound to the Word of God even when others consider that Word secondary, tertiary, indifferent, nonessential, or unimportant.
Evangelical Free Church
Posted by: | CommentsDisclaimer:I’ve been studying up on the Evangelical Free Church for a couple of days now purely out of curiosity. Since it’s not a driving force of conviction for me, but purely an idle curiosity of late, I haven’t been too picky in my sources and research. I’ll admit that some of what I say in the following paragraphs comes from dubious sources, i.e. Wikipedia. Some of the info is good, though. But please read with a grain of salt. If by chance you happen to know the history better and you are relying on better sources than the internet, feel free to comment on the post with your thoughts and possible corrections.
The Evangelical Free Church began with a group of independent congregations and several churches of the old Swedish Ansgarii Synod and Mission Synod. These groups met together at Boone, Iowa, in 1884 to form a fellowship of “free” congregations. These differing groups became known as the Swedish Evangelical Free Mission which would later be changed to Swedish Evangelical Free Church, and still later they would drop the “Swedish.” This group merged again in 1950 with the Evangelical Free Church Association which was formerly known as the Norwegian and Danish Evangelical Free Church Association. What we find is diverse ethnicities from various countries moving to America in the late nineteenth and early twenthieth century and clustering into churches that have their same ethnic and cultural familiarities. Over time as the immigrants’ second generation blended and merged into the fabric of American culture, the ethnic peculiarities became less important and were dropped. As the distinctive peculiarities of the different ethnic cultures faded, so did the need for independence from other theologically like-minded congregations. Hence these congregations “merged.” But what did they rally around? What common factor united them?
By agreement in the original organization of the fellowship in 1884, this was to be a body of self-governing congregations, each free to establish its own doctrine. Did you hear that last part? Each “free” to establish its own doctrine. Wow! The several free churches elected delegates to an annual conference that was purely advisory in character. However, a society of ministers and missionaries was organized in 1894 to guide the denomination in doctrine and practice. This is still the guiding principle of the church; the only qualification for membership lies in evidence of conversion and the living of a Christian life. Polity is obviously congregational, but the churches are usually guided by a board of multiple elders which may be more or less biblically qualified.
Do you suppose that the “free” churches could really stay free in terms of doctrine and practice and maintain unity and fellowship around nothing more than their insistence upon “Freedom” to do whatever each congregation thought best for itself? Short answer: no. As already mentioned, a board of ministers and missionaries was organized in 1894 to guide the group in doctrine and practice, and an official twelve-point doctrinal statement was drafted and adopted by the Evangelical Free Church in 1950 when the Norwegians and Danish decided to join. I should also mention that this group of “free” churches has founded one of the finest seminaries in the world: Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Illinois, home of the legendary evangelical scholar D.A. Carson.
Critical Analysis: while I like a certain degree of freedom, independence and autonomy, it is clear that the Evangelical Free Church has fallen a little too far on the independence/autonomy side of the equation. While I like that this group has founded one of the finest seminaries in the world, there can be no certianty of consistent doctrine and practice between the different churches. Paul makes a compelling case for autonomy in Galatians 1:11-12 asserting the independence of the Gospel from any man, but immediately joins this with the injunction of accountability in Galatians 2:2 by voluntarily seeking approval and affirmation from his fellow apostles. Paul himself serves as an instrument of accountability for Peter in Galatians 2:11-14. Autonomy must be carefully balanced with accountability, and I think that the same dangers that face the Baptist Congregations are plaguing the Evangelical Free Congregations. Every church must wrestle to strike the right balance between independence and accountability.
“Placement”
Posted by: | CommentsToday was “Placement” day. I was a spectator today for an event that is commonly referred to in the Social Worker’s World as “Placement.” Two happy and loving parents signed paperwork in the presence of foster parents and foster siblings with smiling social workers looking on as cameras flashed and snapped away. It was unusual.
The event was somewhat tragic yet beautiful and endearing to behold. Placement is one of those rare historical events that defies easy classification. There is grief and joy on both sides of the equation. You might be puzzled at this description. Why should there be “grief” you may ask.
There is sorrow and grief for a variety of reasons. First, the entire event is transpiring in the wake of a sad situation. The only reason the child is living with a foster family is because the biological parents have either abandoned him, abused him, traumatized him, been killed, or in some other way been declared as unfit parents to raise this child. That’s sad. The abused child is often removed against his wishes even though he knows he is abused. Despite the abuse, the child still has a deep love for mom and dad and doesn’t want to be separated. The fact that the child has to be placed into foster care at all is a sad event.
Second, the child is now being removed from his foster home. After having spent months, possibly even years, with the foster family and having developed lasting friendships and bonds with foster parents and foster siblings the child is now being removed from this temporary family and placed into the home of yet a new family that he does not know. There is a second round of suffering comparable to what you might find at a funeral. Except one person has not died. It feels like an entire family has died.
Then there is the grief of the adoptive family who is ready and eager to love the boy and take the child home to be their own special little person. They have spent several weeks, possibly a month or more, developing a personal relationship with the foster family and learning all about the boy and preparing to adopt the child. Now as child and foster family hug each other in tears and crying saying their ‘goodbyes’… the adoptive family experiences a sensation of guilt and sorrow for breaking the union. They often feel as if they have intruded into a families home and are now seperating loved ones from each other. They begin to second guess their decision and wonder if it is right to take the child home with them. Guilt and sorrow cloud over what should be a happy occasion. Yet there is still happiness. Everyone is relieved that the boy has finally found a stable home and loving parents. Emotions are chaotic and wild, ranging from joy to guilt to sadness, but there is still a sense of relief and an unmistakable hope for the future. Adoption is brimming with optimism.
I observed all of this transpire today. I realized afresh today that when parents act selfishly, sinfully, and with disregard for the safety and well-being of their children -the ramifications of their sin ripple forward into the lives of dozens of others and hurt many. The consequences of their behavior are life-altering for their children and for many others who step in to make a bad situation tolerable.
In all of this I also see Grace. God’s love is so wide and so deep that He works to cover over many of the ramifications of sin in these situations. He is truly a Father to the fatherless… As I watched the sad and joyful scene of “Placement” unfold today I had to ask myself: what motivated the social workers to investigate and make the hard decision to remove the child from the unsafe home and to take custody away from the unfit parents? Love. Not money. Social workers don’t make any money to do the hard work that they do. So what motivated it? Love. Who gave them this love? God did. What motivated the foster family to foster? Love. Who put this love into their hearts? God did. Who touched the hearts of the adoptive parents to adopt with love? God did.
From the social workers to the foster family to the adoptive parents, everyone made a choice to step into a nasty situation filled with unpleasantness and to take action to love the orphan among us. They all took steps of love. They all embraced a nasty situation. They all knew that great sadness and hurt and heartache would accompany them on this journey, but they did it anyway knowing full well what was in store. What motivates this kind of love? Only God moves like this. Only God can grant this love, and it is a love that works through faith.
As I observed “Placement” today, I beheld the wonder and glory of a gracious, merciful, and loving God. I praise the Father for what I was allowed to witness today. Today was a day of Grace. Today was “Placement” day.