These posters are just too good to keep for ourselves. Do share them. I'm sure the Postmodern 'arty' Emerging members love them a lot... (Eh, wait, what you mean by calling us postmodern? We are a couple of missional Christians, whatever that is supposed to mean = ____ ; nevermind if you don't understand what we are saying ...)
This blog is my personal blog. All views and articles expressed and written here are solely my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of my church or denomination or anyone else. Most posts are written for my own personal edification, and are not written in response to any external situation, unless otherwise and explicitly stated. Nobody should be reading into them anything other than what is explicitly stated, unless otherwise confirmed by me in writing.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
Article: Cast your burdens on the Lord
Here is a good article to encourage those of us who are grieved by the things happening in the visible churches today.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
The misnomer called Homophobia
I hate to be sucked into this mess, but I am starting to get fed up with the propoganda of the homosexuals.
The first thing I want to start with is that there is no such word as 'homophobia'. The whole word is a misnomer. Homophobia is *supposed* to mean an irrational fear of homosexuals / homosexuality. The main word here is irrational. However, is the fear of homosexual(ity) really irrational?
When people oppose homosexuality, there would typically be lots of possible arguments they would advance to support this position of theirs. Thus, the fear of homosexuality is not irrational on the surface. Of course, however, people could very well use such arguments as a smokescreen to hide their 'phobia' of the thing itself. (Definitely, homophobia can never be used against those who have thought through the issue rationally) However, is that the case with homosexuality?
Now, it may be granted that there may be some people who have not thought through their opposition to homosexuality, and perhaps they could legitimately be labeled as having 'homophobia', but is that really the case?
In Scripture, it is written:
The wrath of God has been revelaed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who in unrighteousness suppress the truth, for what can be known about God is plain to them, for God has shown it to them. .... ... For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to him, for they became futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they becme fools, ...
For this reason, God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women gave up natural relations with men for those that are contrary to nature, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another; men committing indecent acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Rom. 1:18-27)
I have exposited the verses in a previous post, but suffice it is to say here that homosexuality is feared because God has already shown it to be unnatural. All who fear homosexuality, whether they validly thought through the reasons why they do so, do so out ot the common knowledge of morality given to all Man by God Himself. Thus, there is no such thing as an irrational fear of homosexuality, and the entire misnomer has been shown.
Before going any further, let me say that the reason I use Scripture, even though most homosexuals and their symphatizers detest the Scriptures, is that I am a presuppositionist. I am NOT going to give up my presupposition to pander to the worldview of the homosexuals, as they too have their own presuppositions which they would not give up. Let God be true, and every man a lier (Rom. 3:4). Since God created all, all Man, even the homosexuals themselves, know deep in their hearts that what God says about homosexuality is correct, and they are wrong. Therefore, I based on epistemological foundation on the Word of God itself, and it will be a sure and strong foundation for my position.
Since that is the case, the word 'homophobia' has bee shown to be a misnomer, a word coined by the homosexual movement to blackmail the rest of humanity emotionally.
However, for argument's sake, let us suppose that this phenomenon of 'homophobia' does actually exist. What then?
Well, there are other phobias present in this world, for example, acrophobia (or the fear of heights), claustrophobia (or the fear of enclosed or confied space) etc. Now, what do we do when we see people who have such phobias? Do we punish them by having such phobias? Do we put them in jail? Call them hateful? Oh, but people are not involved? How about sociophobia then? If people are suffering from phobia that affects their relation to society, are they fined, imprisoned or subjected to character assisination? No! Yet, if homophobia is indeed real, why is it that those who are supposed to suffer from it are ridiculed, imprisoned, fined, and otherwise shouted down? If it is indeed real, shouldn't the homosexuals have compassion on these people and try not to aggregate their conditions by openly and publicly parading their 'affections'. Even if the condition is detrimental to others and society in general, shouldn't the person be send for counseling and therapy instead of being punished by the law?
The reason why this is so is because the homosexuals are indeed bigoted and are just using this word as part of their arsenal of 'weapons of mass emotional blackmail' (WMEB). If they truly believe that this word 'homophobia' as being adequately describing those who oppose them, they wouldn't insist on punishing those who label their actions/orientation etc. as evil (legally or otherwise), nor would they deride them, but instead would choose to curtail their own rights so as not to cause emotional torment in the 'homophobes'. That they choose to utilize this word shows their hypocrisy and duplicity!
Friday, July 27, 2007
Article: On singles who desire a spouse
Interesting article here.
Just fyi: Am starting to think about the issue seriously. Bottom line is that I will not get anyone who will cause me to directly or indirectly compromise my walk with God, and no one should know the exact criteria I'll use to judge, in order that nobody will get to 'act' in order to gain my approval.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Armenians and Arminians
Oh my, this is good. Read the headlines for Tuesday's 'news': Armenians protest being called Arminians. An excerpt:
YEREVAN, ARMENIA - "No more slander!" "Stop the confusion!" "We aren't going to take it anymore!" and "Speak and write more precisely!"
These were some of the slogans being shouted at a non-violent protest in the capital city of Armenia last week. This protest is the first in Yerevan since its struggle for independence following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. While that struggle was political, this one is theological. Some people would say this is no big deal, but for the citizens of Armenia, this is a matter of truth and integrity.
Armenia is a small, landlocked country located between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. It is an ancient society that has faced much hardship over the years. Armenia's latest battle is one for its very name.
The leaders of the Armenian Apostolic Church, which was founded in the first century, told TBNN, "Our church was founded by two apostles of the Lord. Armenia was the first country in the world to adopt Christianity as its state religion, in the year 301 AD. We have no historic connection with the Roman Catholic Church or any of the Protestant churches of the west. Why, then, do people constantly refer to us as Arminians?"
Article: The Building of a Clone Army
Seems like today's pastors are being trained to behave like clones... perhaps of Rick Warren? Read this and come to your own conclusions.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Church polity: Councils and church polity
[continued from previous posts here, here, here and here]
The Jerusalem Council
In Acts 15, the one and only council ever to be recorded in the Scriptures, and the only infallible one at that, being presided over by the Apostles and recorded in Scripture, convened in Jerusalem. The issue being decided then was whether Gentiles needed to be circumcised after they became Christians (v. 1). This was due to the Jewish roots of Christianity, and because of the continuity between OT Judaism ad Christianity. As God seemed to be doing a new thing in broadening the church to be global in scope, many Jewish believers, especially those who came from more religious and Pharasiatical backgrounds, were concerned as to how Gentile believers should be incoporated into the Church. Were they supposed to observe the Mosaic Law, just as believers during the OT times did? If the Law was still valid, shouldn't the new Gentile converts be circumcised as well, as a mark of entry into the Covenant?
It is in such a transition period that the Jerusalem Council took place. In this Council, the Apostles and elders present covened, heard the case (v. 5-7a) and then declared the position that Gentiles believers should not be tied down with obeying the Mosaic Law but to obey the Lord according to their conscience being led by the Holy Spirit, with some general observances for them to keep in order not to stumble their Jewish brethren (v. 19-21). Such a ruling was sent out to the churches involved in the controversy (v. 22-29) and became binding on them (although in this case it was gladly received by the churches, since it ruled in their favor).
Now, it has been said, often by Baptists, that the Jerusalem Council is not a Council in the sense of it deciding doctrine, but of Paul deciding whether the Church in Jerusalem was still following the faith. This of course is contradicted by the text of Scripture. Furthermore, if such was indeed the case, then why was it said that the church in Syrian Antioch send and appoint men to 'the apostles and elders about this question' (v. 2), instead of Paul personally going there himself to see whether the circumcision party were 'official representatives of the Jerusalem Church'? Why was Paul sent with regards to the question posed by the circumcision party instead of being sent with regards to whether the party had official sanction from Jerusalem? After those of the circumcision made their point to the Council (v. 5), why was there much discussion and debate over the points they have raised (v. 6-7a) instead of the Apostles and Elders of the Jerusalem Church just immediately mentioning to Paul that such is not their position and these people were not official representatives of the Jerusalem Church?
The fact of the matter is that the Jerusalem Council was indeed a Council which met for the purposes of deciding on doctrines. The position that this was not a council which met for the purposes of determining doctrine is clearly a reading into Scripture of a certain church polity rather than of letting the text speak for itself.
Now, it may be granted that Paul was indeed worried whether the Jerusalem Church was still orthodox. Certainly, Paul, being himself an Apostle called personally by our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:5), preached with the authority that comes with his status and office, and he certainly have no qualms rebuking a fellow Apostle who compromise the faith (Gal. 2:11-14). However, that does not have any bearing about why the council convened in the first place.
Councils where doctrines are decided therefore has a biblical precedent. However, are they still valid for us today?
To answer this question, we must first note that the Jerusalem Council is the only council ever presided over by the Apostles, who were given the gift of apostleship to pronounce the very Word of God. Thus, the Apostles could pronounce doctrines 'ex cathedra', in that sense. Therefore, whereby the Council of Jerusalem decide on doctrines, no other Councils since then could do so, since there are no more Apostles then and now. In other words, the Jerusalem Council is unique in Church history, and will never be repeated again.
Nevertheless, since the elders are the successors to the Apostles, and they were present at the Jerusalem Council too, could Councils still be convened and their rulings made binding on believers? To a limited extent, they can. However, since elders are not infallible, nor could they pronounce on issues infallibly, their rulings are only binding on believers inasmuch as they are biblical. We shall hereby note that even the Apostles pronounced truth in accordance with Scripture, as they quote from the texts of the Old Testament (v. 16-18), and therefore for us who do not have the gift of apostleship among us today, all pronouncements of Councils must be made from the Scriptures; that they conform to the truths of Scripture and not just proof-text from it.
We can look though Church history to see both the use and abuse of Councils. Councils have been good and well used in the church as they have helped to keep out heresy (e.g Council of Nicea, Council of Chalcedon) and preserve the purity of the Church. However, Councils, being guided by fallible Man, can and do err, as groups of clergy have pronounced error which may be in direct opposition to the truths of Scripture. An example of such an errant Council would be the Council of Trent, which formalized the seperation of Roman Catholicism from biblical Christianity.
With that said, what can that be said of operational councils in the form of classis, synods etc.? Are such higher level institutions scriptural? Certainly, there seems to be a biblical precedent in the Jerusalem Council. However, does the Scriptures support such an application of Acts 15?
It is my opinion that such is not the case. Councils, whether biblically or historically, were convened only when necessary, never to be an permanent organization which serves only to glue congregations together. They were only convened when doctrinal controversies erupted in the churches, and such churches then met together in order to discuss the doctrines involved in the controversy. Certainly, synods which convene together for the planning of 'Presbyterian Sports Day' or 'Combined Easter celebration' or 'Synod Sunday' (just to make them feel relevant, I guess) are not scriptural (and these concrete examples did in fact happen, because I was in a Presbyterian church before). Presbyerianism in this particular area has been found to be lacking in Scriptural support., and in fact these higher-level organizations most of the time end up as just 'so much red-tape' (Bureaucracy)
Analysis of the remaining church polities
We have already disqualified Episcopalian and Single elder/pastor-led church polities as being contrary to Scripture. Presbyterianism has been found to be lacking in its emphasis on Councils and Synods and other higher-leve assemblies. Let us now look at the remaining church polities.
Congregationalism places a huge emphasis on the priesthood of believers, by giving each member of the church a 'voting right'. However, is that what the Bible teaches? In certain congregationalist churches, like Brethren churches, the offices of elders and deacons do exist. Of course, it may be granted that some of these office bearers do not function biblically, but that is a seperate issue, as plural elder-led congregationalism does exist. The main issue in contention with congregationalism is whether every member should have a 'voting right'. Is that how the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers should be applied?
Certainly, there is much merit to the idea, as elitism tends to be minimilized in such a situation. However, the problem lies in the fact that leaders in both the Old and New Testament do not seem to be picked by democratic voting. In fact, sometimes they are not someone who would naturally be chosen by the majority. Joshua was personally handpicked by Moses, and only later accepted by the people. David was not even one of the choices given to the prophet Samuel initially to choose from. And who chose the Apostles? Certainly not the church! Paul and Barnabas appoint elders in every church they planted, which certainly does not mention anything about the voice of the congregation.
It can be said that in the case of the seven deacons (Acts 6:1-6), the deacons were chosen by the people and then the apostles accepted them. However, the most we can legitimately infer from this passage is that the deacons are to be selected by the people of God. No mention of elders are made in Scripture with regards to the same procedure, however.
Within congregationalism itself, the democratic congregationalist system works in such a way that even doctrinal issues are decided by the congregation itself. This, however, contradicts the Scriptures, as elders are commanded to teach and to rebuke those who err (Titus 1:10-15), without being told anywhere in Scripture to leave it to the congregation to decide on doctrinal issues or on the implementation of church discipline.
In concluson, various church polities have been looked at and examined according to Scripture. The number of offices, their functions, roles and responsibilites have also been discussed and looked at. With this, it is hoped that all of us would meditate on the Word of God regarding this issue so as to work towards the purity of the churches.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Church polity: Biblical church polity (part 3)
[continued from previous posts here, here and here]
The office of the deacon
The office of the deacon, unlike that of the elder, is less mentioned in the Scriptures. The concept of a deacon was first mentioned in Acts 6:1-6 whereby seven men are chosen to take care of evenly distributing the alms among the brethren. We can thus see from this that the deacons are mainly in charge of the more practical business of the church, while the apstles and the elders are more in charge of the spiritual business of the church.
With such being the case, we can see from the pastoral epistle in 1 Tim. 3:8-13 the qualifications of a deacon. Deacons are to be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain, holding fast the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience, tested and found blameless, having wives who are dignified, not slanderous but sober-minded, faithful in all things, husband of one wife, managing their children and their households well. As we can see, most of the qualifications have to do with the conduct of the deacon, which is also rather similar to that of the elder. Like elders, deacons are to be the husband of one wife and to manage their households well, not having children who are given over to sensuality. A notable difference is the emphasis in the deacon's qualifications on issues of honesty and integrity. Deacons are not to be double-tongued, not greedy for dishonet gain, tested and found blameless, faithful in all things, which are all traits associated with issues of integrity and honesty. Clearly, this does not suggest that deacons are more honest than elders, as elders are to be upright and holy (Titus 1:8), but to emphasize the qualifications which are important for the office of deacons. Since deacons would be dealing with practical issues like the distribution of alms which involve money, such traits are emphasized.
With regards to aptitude, it is noted that deacons are not told to be able to teach, which shows that deacons do not have to able to preach sermons and tend to the flock's spiritual needs, although they could do so, as in the case of Steven in Acts 7:1-53. Rather, their primary focus is on the practical needs of the church. Nevertheless, deacons are told to hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience (1 Tim. 3:9) which shows that deacons must also know enough doctrine that they would be able to defend the faith. Practically speaking, it means that they could serve in the church without having reservations about the church's orthodoxy, and thus do so unreservedly.
One question that may crop up is regarding whether there is an office of a deaconess, or a women deacon. Certainly, since deacons do not preach, they are not subjected to the prohibition stated in 1 Tim. 2:12. Furthermore, Rom. 16:1 seems to indicate that Phoebe was a deaconess in the church at Cenchreae. However, we know from Scripture that deacons are to be the husband of one wife, thus Rom. 16:1 must indicate that Phoebe was ministering in the same way as that of deacons, rather than she was actually holding an office of a deaconess, especially since the Greek word translated deacon, diakonos (διακονος), can also refer to 'a minister' generically in other contexts.
Practically speaking, in what manner do deacons serve in the church then? Deacons, being tasked mainly with the practical needs of the church, are to meet those needs. Thus, deacons would serve in areas such as the collection of tithes, distribution of alms, dealing with the church's finances, church building fund, and other items like the maintance of church property and assets etc.
Interactions between elders and deacons
Having thus established the various roles and functions, and number of the offices as established by Scripture, let us look at the interactions between the two offices with respect to their practical outworking.
As stated, elders are to care for the spiritual well-being of the flock while deacons meet the practical needs of the flock. In areas such as providing for a member who is having trouble financially and spiritually, there would be an overlap of the ministry of the elders and the deacons. However, generally speaking, the two offices are seperate from each other. In Acts 6:2, the apostles remarked that it was not wise for them to give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. This was made not to demean the ministry of the deacons, but to show a clear demarcation between the two offices. Elders, following the apostles, are to focused exclusively on the spiritual well-being of the flock, rather than the practical, material needs in the church, which is the domain of the deacons' ministry. Elders are NOT to do the work of the deacons, nor deacons the work of the elders! However, this is not the case in many churches in Singapore, and perhaps even around the world. From what I have seen, judging by the work they do, elders seem to be just senior deacons. These elders do the finances of the church, they are basically doing the job of deacons, except that they are more respected and are higher in status. In such a system, it is no wonder that people want to be elders, since it has become a symbol of prestige. This occurred in my former church, Covenant Presbyterian Church, so I know what it is like, and I wouldn't be surprised that such is the case in many churches.
Let's be clear about this. The Scriptures do not support the transformation of elders into senior deacons in any shape reformed. Elders are elders; deacons are deacons. If they keep to their specific ministry roles according to Scripture, that would solve a lot of the problems plaguing the church today. Elitism would be much less. Furthermore, since elders do not have access to the church's finances, and more spiritual responsibilities, businessmen would be less inclined to desire to be an elder. Elders would be respected not because of their seniority in years of service, but because of their good work in tending to the flock and in instructing them in sound doctrine. Furthermore, since that is 'all' the elders do, churches would be 'forced' to grow deeper in the Word, since otherwise the elders are not doing anything and there wouldn't be a need for them anymore. Instead of spending time to discuss the practical problems of the church, the elders should spend their time teaching and discussing doctrinal issues. Deacons are after all NOT second-class elders, and they are tasked with an important and vital task in the churches which only they should be in charge of. Elders should not therefore exercise oversight over the diaconate in every meeting they have, as if the deacons are serving under the elders positionally, but the two boards (Session and Diaconate) should be seperate and independent and elders only exercise oversight over the deaons in the area of doctrine, as they do over the entire congregation. Other than that, the finances, church building fund etc should be revealed only at the AGM (Annual General meeting) of each church, whereby all the congregation would then know of the exact details.
With the number, roles, functions, responsibilities and the interactions between the offices of the Church settled according to Scripture, let us look more closely into the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, and then evaluate the various church polities that we still have not analyzed according to the Scriptures.
[to be continued]
Church polity: Biblical church polity (part 2)
[continued from previous posts here and here]
Since Scripture seems to indicate only two offices, let us look at each of the offices in detail.
The office of the elder
The office of the elder is first stated in Scripture in Acts 14:23, whereby we read that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in every church. From this passage, we can see that every church has elders (plural) in them, which thus show that nowhere in Scripture is the single elder/pastor-led church polity ever mentioned. This concept of the plurality of elders is thus the biblical norm, and practically it benefits the church as there should be less of a tendency to elevate any single person to a higher status than allowed by Scripture. This is opposed to the idea of a single elder/pastor-led church, where whatever the only elder or the pastor says is near infallible, as unless the elder or pastor is himself humble enough to receive criticism and evaluate his teachings according to Scripture, nobody has the formal authority to rebuke him.
We shall next look into the functions and roles of the elders. The elders or overseers/bishops were seen to preside over the first and only infallible Council of the Church, together with the apostles, in Jerusalem (Acts 15: 1-32) in deciding over a doctrinal dispute. From this, we can see that it is the job of the elders in discussing and presiding over a doctrinal dispute, and handling down a decision over the matter. More on this issue later.
In the pastoral epistles, we are told that elders are to above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money, must manage his household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, not a recent convert, well thought of by outsiders (1 Tim. 3:3-7), not quick-tempered, upright, holy, disciplined, holding firm to the trustworthy word as taught, able to give instruction in sound doctrine and to rebuke those who contradict it (Titus 1:6-9).
The list of qualifications for elders can be hereby seperated into two categories; their personal conduct and their aptitude for the office, as follows:
|Above reproach||Able to teach|
|Husband of one wife||Not a recent convert|
|Sober-minded||Holding firm to the trustworthy word as taught|
|Self-controlled||Able to give sound instruction in sound doctrine|
|Respectable||Able to rebuke those who contradict it|
|Not a drunkard|
|Not violent but gentle|
|Not a lover of money|
|Must manage his household well|
|Well thought of by outsiders|
As it can be seen, the qualifications which fall under the conduct category can be summed up in the observation that these people are constantly living a life in submission to Christ, being filled with the Spirit. A person who loves Christ and desires to obey Him in every way he can would naturally possess these quatities in ever-increasing manner, proving his Christian faith by bearing fruits in accordance with it (Mt. 7:16-20); the fruit of the Spirit would become evident in his life (Gal. 5:22-24). In other words, this list of qualifications is not meant to function as a proponent of moralism, as a judge of whether the person is moral or not. It is definitely not meant to function just as a list of criteria that you tick off in evalutaing whether someone is 'fit for the job'; as a 'minumum requirement list' for elders, but rather to know that such a person is mature enough spiritually for the job and would not dishonor Christ on the job by his behavior and conduct.
I would like to just mention a bit more on two of these qualifications: the qualification that he must manage his household well, and that of being well-thought of by outsiders. The qualification that an elder must manage his household well is evident in the fact that his children are submissive (1 Tim. 3:4), believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination (Titus 1:6), and the rationale behind that given by Scripture is that if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church (1 Tim. 3:5). Practically speaking, what that means is that an elder must be passionate enough about God that he will teach his children about God and discipline his children, such that his children will grow up to embrace the faith and be obedient to Christ in their personal walk with Him too. However, someone may well ask, what about the free will of the children? What if the children decide of their own free will to reject Christ? This shows a lack of understanding of the Covenant of Grace towards the children of believers. Also, if the father really loves Christ, that would be seen by the children in his life and his conduct. Even if they rebel, the father should be constantly praying for them to turn to Christ, and God may well reward his perseverance in prayer, for ultimately salvation belongs to God (Rev. 7:10), and if God wants the person to be an elder, would he not be able to convert his children also? Is the arm of God too small to accomplish this?
The children of elders must not be open to the charge of debauchery and insubordination. What that means is that the children must be living lives holy and pleasing to God. No one should be able to say that they saw or heard the child of an elder committing various sensual and sexual sins, and that charge be found to be indeed true. It reflects badly on the Church and on her leaders when the children of leaders behave like the world and adopt its practices and sensual pleasures. As we shall see later, this criteria also applies to deacons, and obviously deacons who do not fulfil this criteria do not glorify God in their conduct.
The next qualification of elders of being well-thought of by outsiders basically means that no charge of immorality or wickedness can be validly leveled at them by anyone; similar to the qualification of being above reproach, except that this qualifcation emphasizes that even hostile witnesses cannot find fault with them. This obviously does not mean that outsiders necessarily love them; as we know that the world would hate us because we follow Christ (Jn. 15:18-20). In fact, sometimes if we are well-thought of by outsiders in the area of being loved by them, it may not be a good thing. For example, if we are loved by the world because we refuse to preach the Gospel to them; because we are so 'loving' that we refuse to put forth the exclusivity of the Christian faith, then obviously we are not obeying Christ. For elders, they would have violated the qualification of being holy. Although they seem to be well and truly 'well thought of by outsiders', they are acutally well and truly disqualified from holding the office of an elder.
Next, we would look to the aptitude of an elder. An elder must not be a recent convert, the reason being that he might be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil (1 Tim. 3:6). What this means is that a recent convert is not spiritually mature enough to handle the power and authority that comes as part of the job scope and would thus abuse it. As Christians, we slowly learn of the biblical concept of servant leadership (Mk. 9:35), of our inability to do right (Rom. 7:14-25) and thus of our total dependence upon God (Rom. 7:24-25). Only upon one who submits to Christ would God be able to use him mightily for his glory.
The other aptitudes has to do with doctrines. As the elders are tasked to lead the church, and in fact are the successors to the Apostles (without infallibility though) in their roles within the Church, this is not surprising. We have seen earlier on that the elders of Jerusalem took part in the Jerusalem council, and that Paul appoint elders in every church they planted. The elders are also called overseers or bishops because they have been tasked with tending to the flock of God; to care for them. In Acts 20:28-31, we can see the Apostle Paul instructing the Ephesian elders to take care of the flock which God has given to them, and protect them from the wolves. All of this has to do with doctrines, since doctrines delineate who God is and how we can come to be saved and how we can know Him, and consequently false doctrines promoted by false techers are analogous to poison by wolves who seek to devour the spiritual lives of the sheep. The Bible is abundently clear that false doctrine = false Christ or Gospel, which will lead to damnation (Acts 20:30; 2 Cor. 11:3-4; Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 6: 3-10; 2 Tim. 3:1-8, Jude). Thus, an elder has been taked to hold firm to the sound doctrine as taught by the apostles, to be able to teach, to give instruction in sound doctrine, and to rebuke those who contraduct sound doctrine, in order that he might fulfil his role as an overseer.
An elder must hold firm to sound doctrine. An elder must be someone who knows his doctrines well and is able to defend it, not looking lost whenever a doctrinal controversy errupts, or worse still, being unable to differentiate orthodoxy from heresy. The contemporary craze over preferring and appointing successful and especially business people to be elders is notably absent in Paul's description of what an elder's aptitude must consist of. Instead of knowing how to sucessfully manage a company, which will be translated into proper 'efficient mangement' of the church, the apostle Paul is more concerned that an elder must be able to contribute to the doctrinal health of a church. Any elder who cannot do so is not fit to be an elder, scripturally speaking, which certainly disqualifies quite a lot of people in contemporary, anti-intellectual Evangelicalism from that role.
An elder must be able to teach. Closely related to that is that he must be able to give sound instruction in sound doctrine. Elders who cannot preach and teach obviously was not something that the apostle Paul had in mind when he penned the pastoral epistles. Furthermore, if elders are to tend to the flock, how can they not be able to feed the flock with the spiritual food of Scripture? A shepherd who doesn't feed his flock would be negligent, what more spiritual shepherds who don't feed the flock of Christ?
The last aptitude mentioned is not something which modern effeminate Evangelicalism has the stomach to accept. An elder must be able to rebuke those who contradict sound doctrine. He DOES NOT have the liberty to adopt a live-and-let-live attitude to the issue. As false doctrine has the potential to destroy the spiritual lives of the flock, he of necessity must rebuke false teaching, unpopular though it may be. A shepherd would be very cruel towards his flock if he allows the wolves to go in and devour them, but yet why it is that our spiritual shepherds do not seem to see anything wrong with allowing false teaching into the church? Why is it that they do not rebuke false teaching and false teachers? Do these leaders love the wolves more than the sheep? Modern Evangelicalism current pre-occupation with 'unity' has allowed the wolves into the flock, and the leaders of the church are in fact showing their hatred of the fock when they do so.
Leaving these passages, let us look at another passage, 1 Tim. 5:17. The passage says that elders are to rule well, and double honor is to be given to those who labor in preaching and teaching. I have already commented on this passage before, and I would be applying some of the points I have made later, but suffice it is to say that a surface look at the passage shows that elders are to rule the church. What the concept of ruling refers to is that elder are to be in charge of the church's spiritual direction and overall thrust, and that not by lording it over the flock like Diotrephes (3 Jn. 9). They are to provide pastoral care, not leaving that to the pastor only. Such pastoral care is in the form of visitation, praying for the flock, counselling the flock, admonishing the flock, encouraging the flock etc. In fact, what are pastors but full-time elders, in the biblical sense of the word? The office of pastor is never mentioned at all in the Scriptures. Yes, it is mentioned in Eph. 4:11, but that is meant to describe the various functions the ministers of God function within the Church, not on the offices of the church. After all, do we have an office of the Evangelist, the Prophet, or do we call teachers an office within the church? Or do we want to follow the Charismatics in promoting the 'five office view', which is unbiblical? (Briefly, the reason why they are not offices is because they are not spoken as such by the Scriptures. We are not told to select apostles, prophets or evangelists and install them as such but rather that people function in such a manner.)
As I have mentioned before in my exposition of 1 Tim. 5:17, elders rule and teach within the church, and thus there is no clear distinction between 'ruling elders' and 'teaching elders', contra classic Presbyterianism. The 3-office view is definitely erroneous, as there is no office of Pastor stated in Scripture, nor are the 'ruling elders' and the 'teaching elders' totally seperate offices. In fact, they are almost identical, but for the fact that the word 'especially' shows that some elders may not be as proficient at teaching as others, therefore this view is not a 2-office view, but rather a π-1 (2.14159...) office view. As an aside, a glance at Phil 1:1 would show that Paul only regarded two offices in the church, that of overseers or elders and that of deacons.
We would next look at the office of the deacon, before looking at the interactions between the two offices.
[to be continued]
Monday, July 16, 2007
The infiltration of sodomy into Christianity (Updated)
I do not normally comment on social issues, especially one whereby enough people are commenting on already. However, I have received an email from the yahoogroups of my former church (probably a glitch in the system as I have quitted the group) which was highly disturbing, for various reasons. Of course, the growing tolerance of homosexuals based upon 'their personal experience' is bad enough (e.g. I have homosexual friends; you don't know what they are going through ad infinitum ad nauseum), mainly found in those nominal 'Christians' who have been exposed to homosexuals in more liberal-minded Western cities without personally having a biblical foundation. What makes it extra disturbing is that at least some of them are consistently applying their nonsensical & unbiblical 'don't judge' attitude to the entire homosexual issue. Compromise begets more compromise; apostasy begets moral indifference and liberalism. When doctrinal controversy flared up the last time when I was there, I was the one who was demonized and ostracized because I insist on judging others biblically. So now, the tables are turned. Let's see whether they will behave consistently in this regard. Reminds me of this passage:
For the wrath of God has been revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. ... For although they know God, they did not honor Him as God nor give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchange the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal men and birds and animals and creeping things
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator who is blessed forever. Amen!
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passssion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. (Rom. 1:18-28)
The seeds of apostasy will slowly destroy a church. The first step in this downward spiral is that truth must first be suppressed. For unbelievers, that is self-evident. However, for those who are (externally) called to be God's people in the churches, such suppression occurs when the people refuse to listen and to discover the truth. Instead of striving to know God and His Word, and to stand strong in the Lord by putting on the full Gospel armor (Eph. 6: 10-18), these people would rather create a 'god' of their making, and emphasize unity over doctrine, what the late Anglican Bishop J.C. Ryle would appropriately call 'the unity of hell'. Once that is believed, because they refuse to love the truth, God will give them over to strong delusions against the truth (2 Thess. 2:10-11). In this passage of Romans, those who scorn God's truth will be given over to worser and worser errors. First, they will worship a 'god' of their own making (Rom. 1:22-23), which is a given since God is only known through Scripture, and if you scorn Scripture, then what do you have?
The second stage of delusion that God will send on those people who continue on and do not repent of their sins is that of sensuality (Rom. 1:24-25). They acquire a certain lust in their hearts to impurity, meaning that they acquire a burning passion for the things which are not pure. Such actions may not be specifically that of sexual immorality, though that is obviously included. What the verse is referring to is any impure stuff, sexual or otherwise. A perverse, twisted, non-biblical 'non-judging' attitude would certainly qualify, as it distorts God's truth. With regards to my former church, sensuality does play a part, as I have seen girls who dress immodestly and any attempt to rebuke them is thwarted by both the leaders of the church and the parents (i.e. We shouldn't judge them, you know. Who are you to judge?).
The thrid stage is where the Singapore society is currently at a crossroads with respects to the issue. After improper and impure lusts, God gave them over to even worse behavior; that of homsexual pervasion. Not sated with perverting the truth and embracing sensuality, Man desires to act out in total rebellion in perverting the very core of his being; that of sexuality. Instead of being a man, a man desires to behave like or change into a woman, and vice versa. We can see this madness currently sweeping the world today, as good is called evil and evil good (Is. 5:20). With regards to the situation in my former church, as I see it, the false siren of 'love' is busy singing in the email exchanges they are currently having. Looks like at least some of the church in Singapore are ripe for the homosexual harvest; after all, pleads for 'love' and 'tolerance' is the homosexuals' most powerful weapon.
The fourth stage is the stage of complete moral anarchy. We can read of the actions stated in Rom. 1:30-32. Granted, all of these sins are found in any society to a certain extent, but when all of these sins have progressed to the stage whereby they are not only not condemned by society, but being approved of (v. 32), that society has gone to the stage of no return, whereby God will punish the society terribly and even destroy it, unless by His sovereign grace and mercy He sends revival.
So that brings us back to the mess that is Singapore Christianity. Years of unbiblical emphasis on 'love' and 'unity' has left the churches without a defense against the homosexual agenda, and that's not factoring in all the other doctrinal compromise, error and heresy yet. Singapore Christianity is fertile soil for the militant homosexuals to plant their seeds of corruption, if and when they so desire to do so. God help us!
Oh, and talking about homosexuality and Christianity, see the fruits of the infiltration in America here.
[For a bit of background information for non-Singaporeans, click here.]
[HT: Christian Research Net]
Update: Oh, just fyi, I was demonized and ostracized for questioning the doctrinal consistency and practices of my former church, not the homosexual position. Now the people in there are attacked by the pro-homosexuals on the same grounds of 'love' and 'tolerance', the same weapon they had used to attack me previously.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Church polity: Biblical church polity (part 1)
[continued from previous post here]
Church polities that are practiced throughout Christendom today can be roughly split into four camps: Episcopal, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Single elder/Pastor-led. Of course, there are other models, which are mainly a combination of either of the four. For example, the church polity model embraced by Dr. James R. White, Plural elder-led congregationalism, is a fusion of both Presbyterian and Congregationalist concepts.
The Episcopal church polity is embraced by demoninations such as the Methodists, Anglicans, some Lutherans, and heretical groups such as Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. The basic teaching of Episcopal church polity, or Prelacy, is the idea of having a hierarchy of clergyman. Thus, such churches have several ranks of offices such as deacons, archdeacons, bishops, archbishops, etc., all of which are structured in an hierarchy. For example, the archbishop would have a higher rank than a bishop, and thus more authority than and over him. Each office would thus have its own 'job specification and scope' and its own sphere of authority, which is different from the others.
The Presbyterian church polity is typically embraced by denominations such as the Presbyterian and Reformed denominations. Basically, the Presbyterian church polity posits only two to three offices in the church; that of Deacons, Elders, and for some, Pastors. Within the offices of Elders, some have created a distinction between teaching Elders and ruling Elders, of which the former teaches, while the latter rules the church, and some overlap may be possible, depending on which variation of Presbyterian church polity is adopted by each particular church or denomination.
As for the Congregational church polity, it is embraced mainly by the Brethren, Congregationalists, and some Baptists. As its name suggest, such a polity have most of the authority in the church and the decision-making power in the congregation of that church. Decisions are typically made through democratic voting, and the only offices present in such a church is mainly to facilitate the process. Elders and deacons and pastors in such churches may be present, mainly for functional purposes, but they have no power and authority at all to make any decisions; all must be referred back to the congregation.
The last church polity to be introduced is the single-elder/pastor-led polity, or the one-man-show church polity. This is the church polity adopted by most independent churches, especially modern mega-churches, most charismatic and most baptist churches. Authority resides with the resident/founding/senior pastor or apostle, who governs his own church almost infallibly. Such churches may have an elder board and other offices present, but these people only have authority inasmuch as their choices and decisions agree with what the senior pastor wants or have no objections to.
Now, with all the major church polities being introduced, let us see what the Bible has to say about the polity of a church.
The first point to note is that the biblical polity of a church must be found within Scripture. Some people may desire to look at church history as a validation of their particular church polity, but that is the wrong direction to look at. Granted, if a particular church polity is prevelant within church history, that would lend some weight to the claims of that polity being biblical. However, since part of church history, and the earliest and most authoritative part of it, can be found in the Scriptures in the book of Acts, Scripture still trumps church history as beig authoritative. Furthermore, if one wants to talk about church history, although the Episcopal polity seems to be prevelant, it is not present within the first few centuries of the church. Even when it became more prevelant, the Bishops within the churches are all equal, as they did not submit to any higher ecclesiastical authority like Archbishops or Popes until later on. Moreover, there are other groups present at that time like the Donatists, which followed a more congregational church polity, who were thriving until the hoardes of Islam wiped them out.
With this settled therefore, let us look to the biblical data.
In the book of Acts, we can see the first mention of any type of church polity, which can be found in Acts 6:1-6, whereby the Apostles delegated authority to seven qualified men to serve the brethren while they themselves concentrated on ministering the Word of God. In Acts 14:23, we read of Paul and Barnabas appointing elders in every church. In Acts 15:2,4 & 6, we read that the Jerusalem churches have elders in them, who are altogether a seperate group of people from the Apostles. Turning to the pastoral epistles, we read of the offices of elders and deacons (1 Tim. 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9). The office of bishop or overseer, as mentioned in 1 Tim. 3:1-7, upon further examination from Scripture has been shown to be the same office as that of an elder (Tits 1:5-7; Acts 20:17,28), with the name difference being mainly to emphasize the duties of the elders in the churches.
As we look at these data, one thing that should strike us is the near absence of many of the offices found within churches and groups that have adopted the Episcopalian church polity. Nowhere are the terms archbishop, archdeacon, pope, patriarch etc mentioned in the Bible, and the idea of the office of bishop being seperate from that of an elder is foreign to Scripture. Prelacy has thus been found to be deficient scripturally. Furthermore, by having so many layers of hierarchy, Prelacy tends to accentuate the clergy/laity divide, instead of removing it altogether, as Scripture dictates (1 Peter 2:9).
Scripture therefore seems to indicate two offices that are to be found within the Church. In order to discern more regarding the nature of these offices and exact number of them, let us look more closely into these and other passages of Scripture.
[to be continued]
 Brand & Norman, ed., 2004, Perspectives on Church Government: Five views of Church Polity, B & H Publishing Group
Rich and beautiful Chinese worship song.
And here is the Youtube video:
Monday, July 09, 2007
Singaporean youths not interested in deep stuff. So?
I was posing a question regarding the issue of Singapore youth not interested in deep stuff, but it seems that there are no takers. Oh well.
The response to such a position is to maintain that without doctrine and instruction, Christ will not be known. After all, what is the diffference between Christianity and Arianim but on important doctrinal grounds? Which Christ are we following? The Christ of the Mormons? The Christ of the New Age? The Christ of the Jehovah's Witnesses? By not 'talking about such issues', we are setting up our youths for possible destruction and shipwreck of their faith, tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine (Eph. 4:14). Furthermore, we are perpetuating disobedience to God, by not loving and worshipping Him with our minds (Mt. 22:37; Mk. 12:30; Lk. 10:27).
More important to this matter is the fact that we give in to the carnal desires of the youth. Which person, especially the youths, naturally likes to learn about God? But since when did what we are to do, and what pastors especially needs to do, become dictated by Man, especially those who are unregenerate? By not obeying God in this matter, the minister who does so disobeys God.
And finally, with regards to the claim that doctrines such as Calvinism/ Arminianism is irrelevant, since when did salvation become irrelevant? Does anyone dare to say that we can both be saved by faith alone or by faith with works, and that it doesn't matter either way? God forbid (Gal. 1:8-9)! Such an attitude betrays a heart hardened towards God's truth and especially His holiness. If God is so holy, then the doctrine of salvation is precious for you, because without it, there would be no hope for anyone but that all would be condemned to hellfire. God has no obligation whatsoever to save anyone, and unless we realize that we are sinners in the hands of an angry God, we will not treasure God and the doctrines of the Christian faith.
Honoring elderly heretics?
The word of the LORD came to me: "Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prephesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds. Thus says the Lord GOD: Ah, shepherds of Israel, who hae been feeding themselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? ...
Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: As I live, declares the Lord GOD, surely because my sheep have become a prey, and my sheep have become food for all the wild beasts, since there was no shepherd, and because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves, and have not fed my sheep, therefore, you sheherds, hear the word of the LORD: Thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand and put a stop to their feeding the sheep. No longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I willl rescue my sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them. (Ez. 34:1-10)
Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers have killed. So you are witnesses and you consent to the deeds of your fathers, for they killed them, and you build their tombs. Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, 'I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,' so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this geneation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the alter and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation. Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering. (Lk. 11:47-52)
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. " (Lk. 14:26)
I have more understanding than all my teachers, for your testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the aged, for I keep your precepts. (Ps. 119:99-100)
I have just recently received an interesting comment with regards to a post in which I exposed some of the heretics present in Singapore, and I am of the opinion that the reply merits a post of its own, since it touches on a certain issue very prevelant especially in Singapore: conditioning by culture. I would like to first present the comment as it was made, followed by my reply to it.
I am very glad that you have such an informative blog which allows me to discover and reflect on many issues regarding church and christianity. However, these are a few things i just want to share with you.
I truly admire and envy your knowledge in the word of God. However, do take note that sometimes, we do not let knowledge rule our heads. You always like to call people heretics, and these people are senior pastors who have probably read the bible more than the amount of rice you eat, what gives you the right to call them names? Even if the docrine is wrong, even if it is blasphemy, out of respect for elders, we should honor them. Remember the 5th commandment? Would the children of pastors who practice wrong doctrine be righteous if they call their moms and dads heretics or apostates? I believe not just to parents, but also to elders we should give honour to also. What's more, at the very bottom line, these people are doing God's word more than you do, they preach more than you, they lead people to Christ more than you, and you are not even a pastor, why be so critical?
This comment reflects a fundamental mindset very prevelant particular among Asians, who have been brought up to honor their parents and their elders NO matter what. Anyway, I would tackle this topic first, before answering each of the points he posed one by one.
The idea of honoring your elders is very prevelant in Asian cultures, and definitely to a certain extent, the Scriptures do emphasize this. The 5th commandment, for example, does tell us to honor our fathers and mothers. However, the problem is that in such cultures like my own, the 5th commandment is ripped out of its context, distorted, and moulded to fit the societal norm. As a corrective to such a distortion, we could look to passages such as Lk. 14:26 where Jesus says that if we cannot hate our fathers and mothers to follow Him, we cannot be His disciple. Obviously, this is talking about comparative hatred; that is, compared to our love for Christ, our love for our parents should be like that of hate. In other words, what the Bible actually teaches is that we are to esteem God more than our parents. Between honoring our parents or elders and honoring God, all Christians are to do the latter rather than the former.
With this established, let us look as to what God would ask us to do first before we actually talk about honoring our elders.
As I have demonstrated earlier in articles on whether we should judge people and of the judging of heretics, heretics are to be judged, and this is the responsibility of all Christians, not just special "elite Christians". Such heretics are also to be named. Scripture teaches all this, and thus an obedient Christian must obey His Word and agree to and do all the above.
The problem supposedly lies when the heretics are elderly, or at least older and higher up in position than us. First of all, I explicitly reject and deny any qualitative difference between the so-called clergy and the laity. Whoever wants to make such a difference is in effect creating a "Christian" caste system. Scripture, however, mentions that we are all priests before God (1 Peter 2:9) and thus there is no caste system within true orthodox Christianity. Yes, in Old Testament times, the Levites, and especially the Aaronic priesthood, were a special breed of people who ministered before God and were the only one allowed to do so. However, with the coming of the New Covenant, the curtain in the temple was torn in two (Mk. 15:38; Lk. 23:45), symbolizing the fact that now all of us are allowed to minister before God as priests without the need of intermediaries (because Christ acts as our eternal intermediary; the one mediator between God and Man). Therefore within the community of Christians, no one, even if he is older, a Pastor or an Elder, is more 'infallible', more 'above reproach', or have a higher status than any other Christian. Just because a person is a pastor does not make the person less prone to temptations and to heresies either, and it certainly does not make him a pope! Also, the pastor does not become more and more 'infallible' with increasing number of people joining his church, unless your idol is 'church growth', of course.
The problem is actually easy to solve when we look at Scripture. Since where in Scripture is it stated that elders have a license to promote error? Is age somehow a mitigating factor? I don't see that in Scripture. Jesus was a relatively young person humanly speaking (30-33) when he pronounced woes on the Pharisees (Lk. 11:47-52), who were the religious leaders of his day and definitely some if not most were older than him. Yes, on hindset, we say that He is the Son of God and God Himself in the flesh, thus He is somehow given divine sanction to do this. However, we must look at the cultural context to see that His being the Son of God mattered little in the pronouncing of woes, except that He could do so infallibly. In the eyes of the Pharisees and the Scribes, here is an unschooled, young itinerant preacher, not trained in any of the rabbinical schools, yet challenging and pronouncing woes on them. Does it sound as if Jesus was honoring them because they are elders?
Let us move on to others, to show that Jesus as the Son of God was not the exception. How about the prophet Ezekiel? In Ez. 34:1-10, Ezekiel pronounced judgment upon the entire priesthood in Jerusalem because of their apostasy, and definitely there would be some that are older than him. Ezekiel wasn't a priest anyway. Or how about the prophet Amos, who was a simple herdsman and 'a dresser of syncamore figs' (Amos 8:14) before he was called to be a prophet. He was rebuked by the learned and elderly Amaziah the priest of Bethel (Amos 8:11-13), certainly a member of the clergy in Old Testament times when the clergy/ laity divide still held. Amaziah was in turn severely judged by the Lord as he was wrong (Amos 8:17). From the Scriptures, isn't it plain that God is no respector of age, nor of 'status'? Those who err, regardless of 'how many times they have read the Scriptures' (as if that equates to how spiritual they are), are to be judged, seniority playing no valid mitigating factor in the equation.
Having established this, should we then honor our leaders, elders etc.? Yes, the Scriptures did tell us to do that. However, how are we to honor them? Certainly, from what we have seen so far, excusing heresy or failing to judge heretics is NOT scriptural, and would constitute rebellion against God. How we honor them can be through expressing love and concern for them, and that we should listen to what they say UNLESS what they say is heresy. Also, we should always give them the benefit of the doubt (1 Tim. 5:19). However, if they have been proven to sin or are embracing heresy, they MUST be rebuked. For those who are ministering publicy like Elders, Pastors etc., they are to be rebuked and punished severely and publicy (1 Tim. 5: 20). Honor given to Man must always be subservant to obedience towards our Lord Jesus Christ and His commands expressed through His Word.
With all this stated, I would like to cover the points made by the commenter one by one.
You always like to call people heretics, and these people are senior pastors who have probably read the bible more than the amount of rice you eat, what gives you the right to call them names?
A heretics must be called a heretic; we call a spade a spade here. As I have said, seniority matter little in the Kingdom of God. The number of times a person has read the Bible does not neceessarily translate into the level of spiritual maturity and knowledge of God's truth. Witness the case of theological professors in liberal seminaries, especially in the US with groups such as the 'Jesus Seminar', where the professors do not even believe in Jesus Christ as being God. Yet are you going to dispute with these professors the number of times they have read the Bible?
A very pertinent passage to correct this madness and obsession with senority in service and years of being a Christian is to look at the Word of God itself. In Ps. 119:99-100, we have a very interesting look at what the Scripture says about spirituality and the Word of God. As we can see, those who meditate and keep God's Word are more knowledgeable than those who just merely read it (or don't read it but just progress in years of being called a Christian and serving God in some capacity). By meditating on God's Word, we can be more learned than those who are supposed to our teachers also; time is of little value here. Therefore, if I abide by the Word of God, I have all the right and authority to proclaim God's Word and apply it to all these senior pastors who have embraced various heresies.
Even if the docrine is wrong, even if it is blasphemy, out of respect for elders, we should honor them.
I have answered this previously. And the answer is no, we shouldn't.
Would the children of pastors who practice wrong doctrine be righteous if they call their moms and dads heretics or apostates?
Judging by the Scriptures, especially Lk. 14:26 for this matter, the answer is that they will be unrighteous if they do not do so. Note that I am not saying that you should condemn and hate your parents if they are heretics or apostates. You should say the truth in love, which involved doing BOTH, not loving them without telling them the truth (which is not true love anyway).
I believe not just to parents, but also to elders we should give honour to also.
Same answer as above.
What's more, at the very bottom line, these people are doing God's work [sic word] more than you do, they preach more than you, they lead people to Christ more than you, and you are not even a pastor, why be so critical?
Well, preaching and promoting heresy is not doing God's work. And if what they preach is wrong, or just plain shallow, it matters little how many sermons or how long they have preached. Better one sermon that has truly changed lives to live for God rather than many sermons that only serve to 'help' people improve their lives (self-help sermons) or worse still, sermons that promote heresy.
Regarding leading people to Christ, please kindly inform me how many of them (not their members) actually do lead people to Christ after they have embrace heresy. I have no desire to know of how many people they have led to Christ before they embrace heresy; that's irrelevant. And by leading people to Christ, I do not mean that these converts pay lip service to Him and be a regular worshipper. I am talking about true believers in Christ who are thus also disciples of Christ and obey His word, whatever the cost.
With regards to the fact that I am not a pastor, kindly do enlighten me what is it about a pastor that gives them a elevated 'immunity' status with regards to accountability. I'm sure you are well aware that many of Singapore's well known megachurch pastors do not have formal theological education, nevermind the issue of ordination. If being able to start a church by drawing members count as being a pastor, then almost anyone with the business acumen could potentially be a pastor also.
In conclusion, I hope that this missive of mine would help in answering the issue of honoring elders with respect to the whole issue of judging, and of judging heretics. As for me personally, I know enough church leaders who have way too much pride in them, and have bought into the entire Asian culture at this point, that I for one can honestly say that I have a very dim view of the leaders in the churches in Singapore. The arrogance coming out of their nostrils totally stinks!
Friday, July 06, 2007
The 'gospel' of Inclusion
Here is a video of a former black pentecostal pastor changing his mind regarding certain issues, including his idea of sin and specifically, homosexual sin. His explanation reveals quite a lot, like his basic trivialization of sin. It is my opinion that such a low view of sin is pandemic among modern-day evangelicals, and the reason why they can find it easy to criticize things like homosexuality is less because it is sinful and an abomination to God (as it should be the case) and more because it is a safe sin to demonize. Once they know of people whom they love being homosexual, that's when their conviction will put to the test. Carlton Pearson obviously fails the test. Instead of realizing the sinfulness and depravity of all mankind, and the fact that most people who call themselves Christians in America are that in name only and are probably unregenerate, which is partly his fault for not preaching the full counsel of God, he turned the other way into heresy and call evil good and good evil (Is. 5:20). Let's pray for our leaders that they will convicted of the holiness of God against sin, and thus not fall as this leader had.
[HT: Christian Research Net]
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Church polity: Introduction
I was meditating on the Scriptures last night and all of a sudden the Holy Spirit just starts to illiminate my mind with regards to the topic of church polity, so I would be posting a short series on this particular topic.
The topic of church polity is definitely a practical one, albeit somewhat boring to the average modern Evangelical. Certainly, in terms of doctrinal importance, such a topic is typically not considered very important, as believing and practicing different church polities is not a salvation issue, nor is it on the surface a theological consistency issue. It is definitely less important than issues such as Monergism/Synergism, Calvinism/ Arminianism, or even the controversy over the so-called Common Grace view held by neo-Amyraldians which I have covered some time back. Furthermore, modern day Evangelicals, especially in Singapore, typically do not even think about the topic, just accepting whatever church polity which is practised by the churches in which they are saved in (or which they happen to 'be' in 'somehow'), and in fact even shifting to churches or denominations with different modes of church polities when the need arises. Modern evangelicals are more interested in finding places where they can serve God in, which by the way is DEFINITELY important. For those who read more of the Scriptures and earnestly desire to obey God, holding on to correct doctrine would definitely feature as one of the criteria upon which they would judge whether to join (or remain) in a particular church.
Now, someone may therefore ask me why I would address this particular topic. Doesn't the church have enough problems already? One does not have to be the Apostle Paul, or other of the apostles or early church fathers, to know that the Christian churches are in a total mess. Within Evangelicalism itself, we have all kinds of heretics undermining the faith, and numerous compromisers to aid them in their task. The Word-faith heresy, the Thrid Wave Neo-Apostolic movement, the Purpose Driven and Seeker Sensitive compromise and deception, the Emerging apostasy; all these are enough to give anyone a headache. And these threats are not somewhere far off, to be clinically dissected, cooly analyzed and discussed. No, these threats are close by and present among us. For example, numerous churches in Singapore have embraced the Purpose Driven paradigm and the Seeker Sensitivite agenda. The charismatic
fringe mainstream is moving in the Word-faith and the Neo-apostolic direction. If anyone begs to differ, they can always try to explain why Lawrance Kong of FCBC calls himself an Apostle (capital A), or 'Apostle' Naomi Dowdy of Trinity Christian Center also. As with regards to Word-faith, let us see from their 2007 events calendar what kind of speakers City Harvest Church invites to speak to them: the Word-faith heretics Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, Kenneth Hagin Jr., not to mention the false apostle C. Peter Wagner. The others may not be any better, but at least I do not (yet) know them. As for Emergent, the apostate sodomite-friendly Free Community Church would suffice as an example. And if you want to talk about conservative churches, suffice it is to say that there are many rank liberals within so-called conservative circles, like the former Methodist Bishop turned apostate Yap Kim Hao. With the churches in a mess, and few, if any, good churches in sight, one wonders whether we should even touch upon this topic. After all, if it is hard if not impossible to find a church that satisfies the criteria of pure orthodoxy, should we even bother about the polity that the church practices?
I would submit that the topic is important, although not manifestly so, and here are some of the reasons why:
First of all, even if due to various reasons, the only sound church one can find to attend is one which practices a church polity which is not biblical, it is not an exercise in futility to find out which church polity is the biblical one. If such were indeed the case for any individual, that person could slowly work towards reformation within the church that he is currently in. Of course, I am here assuming that the leadership are true shepherds and not hirelings who would chase away the 'troublers of Israel' and are just orthodox in order to keep the status quo. Such a church would, of necessity anyway, slowly drift away from the truth of God's Word, since a failure to abide in Christ would result in fruitlessness (Jn. 15:5-6) and then compromise and more compromise as church leaders panic due to their fruitlessness, resulting in the entrance of all the Seeker Sensitive and Purpose Driven methods to help their churches 'grow'. Anyway, if not impeded by the leadership, one could continue to stay in that sound church to work towards reformation of the church in its other aspects.
Secondly, the reason why this topic is important is its practicality. A church cannot say that it does not care about the topic, because by default of its need to be functional as a church body, it MUST have a certain way of leadership which is dictated by the church polity adopted by the church. Definitely, churches, especially new churches set up by young denomination-independent leaders, will face this problem. Of course, churches can always just blunder their way through this and adopt whatever polity they can first think of, of which some churches do so. However, is this the correct method of deciding how to govern a church? By just adopting whatever method you know, and then having the possibility of having mid-course correction because the previously adopted polity doesn't work? Of course not! It is definitely unbiblical, and no one wants to make such a blunder in business anyway.
Thirdly, church polities, like political systems of countries, have their own strengths and weaknesses which affects the living of Christians within the various systems, their ministry opportunities, effectiveness, and definitely their role and status within the church. Certain church polities would be easier to be exploited by wolves in sheep's skin, and others may be harder for that to happen but then could be rendered ineffective by the younger lambs who may be easily led astray. Since such is the case, which church polity we embrace is important.
Lastly, and most importantly of all, the reason why this topic is important is because God is important; because His Word is important, and that He desires that we glorify Him in whatever we do (1 Cor. 10:31). As the Church is the Bride of Christ, we are to strive to reform her continually into what her bridegroom desires her to be, and that definitely includes Church Polity. God is definitely interested in how the Church is ruled, a fact upon which a cursory look at the pastoral Epistles of 1 Tim., 2 Tim. and Titus would clearly reveal.
So how is the Church to be governed? Does God prefer prelacy, presbyterianism, congregationalism, or something else? To that, let us look at the various polities and examine them in the light of Scripture.
[to be continued]
Singaporean youth not interested in deep stuff?
I would see how fast my Gen12ii team can prepare the report, if they are going to do it at all. Anyway, here is something which I have 'learned' from a pastor working in a somewhat conservative baptist church in Singapore during the trip. In our conversation (held mainly in Chinese), I had asked him whether it makes a difference in his church whether someone who is serving in the church believes in Calvinism or Arminianism. This is how he answered my question (translated and paraphrased):
"We don't think about such issues nowadays; it doesn't matter. We all just follow Christ, and the only creed we talk about is the Apostle's Creed. Anyway, people and youth nowadays want to know how to live the Christian life. All of these issues came from the past; irrelevant."
I would like to open up this post to my readers to think and maybe try to respond to such a position, not only doctrinally but pastorally, if possible.
Persecution of Christians in Iran increasing
The fascist regime of Iran recently increased its persecution of Christians in the country. Please do pray for our persecuted brethren, that God will strengthen them in their time of distress and need, and that they will continue to stand strong as a witness for Christ, conquering the devil by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony, and love not their lives even unto death for the sake of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (Rev. 12:11).
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Article: False apostles of the NAR
Here is a brief article exposing the false apostles of the NAR (New Apostolic Reformation). All who call themselves 'Apostles' are in serious error and if they continue, they would face the scenario of Heb. 6:4-6 & 10:26-27.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Song: Who am I
This is a nice song by Casting Crowns that I have heard a couple of times. The lyrics are not exactly solid though they have a biblical foundation, thus the song IMO is not suitable for worship. However, as a Christian-themed song, it is good. I especially like the sentiments in the pre-chorus.
Who am I
© 2003 by Casting Crowns
Who am I? That the Lord of all the earth, would care to know my name
Would care to feel my hurt. Who am I, that the Bright and Morning Star,
Would choose to light the way, for my ever-wandering heart
Not because of who I am, but because of what You’ve done
Not because of what I’ve done, but because of who You are
I am a flower quickly fading, here today and gone tomorrow
A wave tossed in the oceans, a vapor in the wind
Still You hear me when I’m calling, Lord You catch me when I’m falling
And You’ve told me who I am
I am Yours (I am Yours)
Who am I? That the eyes that see my sin, would look on me with love
And watch me rise again. Who am I, that the voice that calmed the sea
Would call our through the rain and calm the storm in me
Anyway, here is one of the videos on Youtube for those who are interested:
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Compiled: The Gospel and its proclamation
I have just compiled a series of posts previously posted on the topic of the Gospel and its proclamation, which include a brief refutation of neo-Amyraldism and so-called 'common grace'. The compiled article can be found here.