On ministry in an anti-Christian place

While reflecting on ministry, I recalled a piece I had read some time back. Titled "Arise Jonah, Go to California that Wretched State and Preach Jesus!," the blog article by Pastor Christopher Gordon sets forth reasons for Christians continuing to be in California and specifically for preaching Christ in California. Now if this article is arguing for Gospel ministry to be done in the most godless of places, certainly that would be correct. But what should ministry in an anti-Christian setting look like?

There has been discussions over ideas of a "positive," "neutral" and "negative worlds" as it pertains to ministry. While the labels might be helpful, the Scriptures are clear about how Christians are to behave and ministers have to minister on objective issues of morality. Biblical morality is "inflexible," inasmuch as it does not care what the cultures thinks but proclaims God's standard for all time, always. In other words, it does not matter whether the culture celebrates, tolerates or detests Christian morals; the pastor has to be prepared to preach the truths of Scripture regardless.

In a hostile, anti-Christian setting, the pastor has the uneviable job of being en emissary from a hated land of a hated King. It does not matter whether that place is California, or the many places around the world where Christians are persecuted. The pastor has to proclaim the whole counsel of God. Knowing the message is detested, he would know Christians would be persecuted for holding to biblical truths. The role of the pastor is to preach and prepare his people for persecution. In other words, unlike a "typical Western church," the pastor is not looking for businesss as usual. He should not expect the church to be well-liked, to be well settled in a commmunity, and for the secular rulers to be godly. Besides proclaiming the Gospel, part of catechesis is to teach the congregants the wickedness of the culture, and to not partake of its wickedness. The pastors while proclaiming the Gospel to wicked and dying men is to be a witness of something different, a "counter-culture" if you will, and be unflinching against the tide of wickedness of that culture.

What that means is that ministry in Babylon is decidedly counter-cultural, but not as a withdrawal from culture, rather a condemnation of the wicked culture. In other words, a Gospel minsitry that does not condemn wickedness in culture is merely creating a small protected "space" for Christians to retreat to in their churchly culture. While Christians do need oases to refresh themselves, the church should not be about creating protected spaces but about reaching the world. This is a hard calling but those who are called to such must do so, and not "agree to disagree" on whether sin is indeed, sin. Or worse of all, hide behind a mutilated version of "2 Kingdoms" theory, as if the Reformers did not condemn the wicked rulers of their times!

The "Doctrinal Triage"

For his Masters of Divinity degree, Eric Powers has written a thesis entitled "Is there any Biblical Warranty for the Doctrinal Triage," which can be accessed here. In this 2016 thesis, Powers argues that there is no biblical warrant for the doctrinal triage: the view that doctrines can be split into first-order, second-order, and third-order doctrines. Citing Al Mohler, among others, the triage is described as follows: first-order doctrines are those that are non-negotiable; second-order doctrines are those that are "denominational distinctives" and are doctrines that, while serious, Christians can disagree with without calling salvation into question; third-order doctrines are less serious doctrines that Christians can disagree on within a church (pp. 13-14). Powers engages some of the texts used to support this notion of doctrinal triage and shows that they do not in fact promote this teaching. Rather, any claim of order of doctrine is one of the relation of foundation to the building. In this view, the foundational doctrines are required for the other doctrines, yet there is no sense in which we can say that the doctrines built upon that foundation is any 'less important' or 'less essential' than the foundational doctrines required for them. Interestingly enough, Powers appealed to the unity (and simplicity) of God to ground his view that all doctrines are "relevant to the believer and are equally true" (p. 68; pp. 68-73).

Coming from a confessional perspective means that I do not start with a view of doctrinal importance based on some notion of triage. At the same time, the doctrinal triage is practiced in broad Evangelicalism, under various names, and it is clear that it has been used (or abused) to allow for toleration of doctrinal errors within the church. This thesis is indeed a helpful piece of work as it addresses the tendency within Evangelicalism to water down and downplay doctrinal differences among professing Christians and churches.

Factionalism and Argumentum Ad Hitlerum

My response to Todd Pruitt seemed to have hit a sore spot with my former adviser R. Scott Clark, who has decided to block me on Twitter. His actions I dare say has only proven my point. It must be noted that my argument is NOT that Wilson can be trusted. It is NOT arguing that Wilson is not a heretic. It is NOT arguing that Wilson should be listened to on any topic. My argument is simply that one must accurately represent even one's opponents. Unfortunately, from the ESS fiasco to this, factionalism has reigned supreme in the Reformed blogosphere. Despite my rejection of Federal Vision as heresy, evidently I must follow the group in wholesale denunciation of Wilson or I will be given the left boot of disfellowship.

The argument that Pruitt and Clark and others are engaging in is the ad Hittlerum fallacy. Basically, the ad Hitlerum argument states that something is wrong because the source is evil. So, X is wrong because Hitler said it. Likewise, whatever Wilson (the "devil incarnate") says is wrong, by definition. But what if Wilson says 2 + 2 = 4? Is that wrong, or can we say that Wilson has that one correct? From the past actions of Dr. Clark, I suspect he can manage to give reasons why Wilson is wrong in saying 2 + 2 = 4 as well!

The sad thing about factionalism is its disregard of the truth. Dr. Clark has continued to harp on the dangers of the Federal Vision heresy. But while agreeing with him that the FV is indeed heresy and attacks the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, his call is undermined by his actions. I only agree with Dr. Clark because I have read some FV stuff. But, for anyone peering in, why would they trust anything Dr. Clark has said when they have seen fellow Reformed pastor Todd Pruitt attack Wilson on a paragraph that is not necessarily in error? If I see misrepresentation, can I trust that the next alarm rang by that same person is truly indicative of danger?

"The Boy who cried Wolf" is a children's story of how the boy in charge of the sheep cried wolf so many times that the town-people decided that he was just playing at crying wolf. When the wolf finally did come, his cries warning of the wolf are ignored precisely because he had misled others and cried wolf when there was no wolf one too many times. This tale is very pertinent to radical Reformed confessionalists, the hardcore TR ("Truly Reformed"). Cry wolf one too many times, and soon nobody except for your small cadre of hardcore followers will listen to you. If you want to point out Wilson's error, then actually cite a sentence or paragraph that clearly shows his error! Right now, while Dr. James White is indeed ignorant of the nature of the FV, none of you "confessionalists" have given him any reason to think that you are nothing but "fundies" in Reformed clothes. What is seen even by people like me is personal animus against the person of Douglas Wilson, not just the rejection of his theology and ministry. Is that what you want others to perceive? If not, perhaps it might be helpful not to engage in spurious arguments and actually point out the exact errors in Wilson's theology! And not just concerning Wilson, but anyone and everyone. Start actually representing what others did say, not what you want them to say!

The "TR contingent" in the Reformed blogosphere should seriously do some soul-searching, and stop their heresy-hunting. If you cannot represent others clearly, you are violating the ninth commandment in unrepentance and dragging the lofty truths of God that you hold through the mud of your lies. You need to repent and stop lying, period! There is no "cause" that warrants it, and you dishonor the God of truth while taking His name in vain!

The issue of gender roles as it pertains to ministry within the church

With John MacArthur's two word answer to the question "Beth Moore" being "Go home," the issue of women in the church has risen again to the forefront. The assault against complementarianism it seems continues unabated. One of the defenses excuses concerning Beth Moore in ministry is that she is not preaching to men but merely "sharing," especially on special occasions such as Mothers' Day. But is that defense even valid at all?

Complementarianism, or the biblical teaching concerning the roles of men and women extending to the rejection of the validity of woman pastors and elders (and perhaps deacons), is based upon the whole of Scripture concerning what God has commanded concerning how men and women ought to function in the world and in the church. Since gender is a creation construct, therefore distinction in gender roles are not caused by sin and are to be celebrated. Although the teaching on gender roles permeate all of Scripture, there are particular texts in the Bible that specifically deal with the topic. One major text is that of 1 Timothy 2:11-15, and it was for that reason that I had read up and written an exegetical paper on that passage, which is entitled Gender Roles: Ordained order of mankind towards the Creator. This was written when I was in seminary nearly seven years ago, but I continue to stand by what I have written, and I reject the notion of gender egalitarianism in any form it manifests itself.

The question of the place of women in the church of course runs deeper into just whether women can be office bearers. In total's sharply (social) egalitarian society, there is pressure towards bringing that egalitarian mindset into the church. One way of doing that is to simply have women doing the functions of the special office, without the office that comes with those functions. Thus, Beth Moore merely "shares": she doesn't "preaches," even though for all intents and purposes she is preaching. Another way is to blur the line and be involved in radio programs where ordained men discuss theological issues affecting the church (e.g. Mortification of Spin), and say that you are not preaching by being on the program, which is technically correct. That is, unless you are a regular, where you are in effect given a platform with equal status alongside other ordained men. The sheer number of ways the sinful human mind can think of to attempt to circumvent God's prohibition on women preaching is truly astonishing.

Along this same line however is the focus on the issue of the special office itself, which is also under attack as being unfair at best and a "laity control" system or worse when egalitarianism comes knocking. Both gender roles and the special office are similar in the fact that God has ordained them both and limit people under both. But they are not the same thing. Gender roles is a creation ordinance, while the special office of the church is a redemptive ordinance. Yet, there is sufficient similarity that, in the context of the church, it can be said that unordained men are like women, in that just as women cannot partake of the ordained ministry of the church, so likewise unordained men cannot partake of that ministry of the church. The key point in positing this similarity is to show that gender restrictions in the church are not purely arbitrary since the restriction against ministry applies likewise to unordained men.

This analogy is sometimes framed as saying that women can do whatever unordained men can do in the church. But if that is the case, then conversely it can be logically inferred that unordained men cannot do what women cannot do [If p, then q = If ~q, then ~p]. But how does that affect ministry within the church? Well, if unordained men cannot do what women cannot do, then, when you wonder if an unordained man should be doing this ministry in the church, ask yourself, "Would I be comfortable with a woman doing it in the church?" If yes, then go ahead. But if no, then clearly, no unordained man should be doing that ministry in the church.

This applies particularly to preaching in the church, where many church plants have a practice of allowing anyone that the church planter feels is able to preach to bring the Word. But if the church plant rejects egalitarianism, then they should not have any unordained man preaching. They can have licentiates (who have been licensed to preach) or even those under care of the church to preach, but the pulpit should not be open to anyone else! Church plants are not free to violate the commands of God just because they are church plants! Did God give a special dispensation to church planters so that they can violate the commands of God because they have the "good intention" of starting a new church? Where is that taught in Scripture?

This goes for all aspects of the church's ministry, especially including the liturgical elements of the reading of the Law and the declaration of pardon. It should be abundantly clear that unordained men do not have the authority of the church to declare God's forgiveness of sins (Te Absolvo) upon the people, so upon what basis should they be asked to conduct that section of the liturgy? Neither do they possess Christ's authority to call the people of God to worship Him (Call to Worship), or take the authority of Christ to represent the church in public prayer to God in the service (Remember that this is public prayer not private prayer). If unordained men cannot do what women cannot do, then there is no difference between asking unordained men to do the Call to Worship, do the Reading of the Law and the Gospel and the Declaration of Pardon, doing the public corporate Prayers of the church, and asking any woman to do the same. Any church or church plant that does this is no different from a church having a woman pastor who regularly conducts the services of the church! It is sin, it is treason against the most holy God, and must be repented of! No two ways about it!

The problem with us living in a society of radical individualism and autonomy, with an unholy entitlement complex, is that we subconsciously bring this mindset into the church. We think that ministry is an entitlement that we can grasp, and see God's good commands as limitations upon our ambitions of "service." We resent the fact that God has only called SOME to serve, not all, and we are constantly thinking of new ways to circumvent God's holy ordering of the world and the church. This is something that we all have to repent of constantly, and submit to Christ in all things in our lives, both men and women, ordianed men and unordained men. Amen.

Rebekah and the consequences of doing God's things our way

[This is based upon my Bible reading for today]

The children struggled together within her, and she said, “If it is thus, why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the Lord. And the Lord said to her,

“Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you shall be divided;
the one shall be stronger than the other,
the older shall serve the younger.”

(Gen. 25:23)

Isaac loved Esau because she ate of his game, but Rebekah loved Jacob. (Gen. 25:28)

But Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, “Behold, my brother Esau is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man. Perhaps my father will feel me, and I shall seem to be mocking him and bring a curse upon myself and not a blessing.” His mother said to him, “Let your curse be on me, my son; only obey my voice, and go, bring them to me.” (Gen. 27:11-13)

The story of Isaac's favoritism and Rebekah's deception is a sad story about division within the covenant family of God. Isaac was given a prophecy from God at the birth of the twins Isaac and Esau, and if he had heeded God's Word he would have given God's blessings to Jacob when the time was right. However, Isaac favored Esau over his brother Jacob and in his favoritism he was willing to defy God and give Esau God's blessings instead. We note also in Genesis 26:34-35 that Esau had taken unbelieving women to be his wives, which were a source of sorrow to both Isaac and Rebekah. That action by Esau should in and of itself invalidated his claim to the blessings of God, if Isaac had actually paid attention. But in his spiritual blindness, Isaac overlooked all the many circumstances that disqualified Esau, and moved to pass God's blessings to Esau nonetheless.

In God's providence, Isaac's spiritual blindness was reflected in his near physical blindness. Rebekah stepped in to prevent the looming catastrophe of Isaac's folly and so preserve the covenant promises of God to His people. To do that, she schemed a devious plan to deceive Isaac such that Isaac would bless Jacob while thinking he was blessing Esau. We stop to note that what Rebekah desired was good— that Isaac blessed Jacob in accordance with the prophecy from God. But instead of asking God for intervention and/or remonstrating with Isaac, Rebekah came up with a pack of lies to execute the plan of God. Knowing the sins involved in the deception, Jacob feared for God's curses only to have Rebekah claimed the curses to fall upon her instead. Rebekah's deception succeeded! Jacob took the blessing and the covenant lineage was preserved. But it came about through a pack of lies! Does the means justify the ends? Well, God's redemptive plan is not thwarted, but should it have come about through sin, for indeed Rebekah's scheming is sin?!

We note that Rebekah called for the curse of God to fall upon her for her scheming, if any. The question we should ask then is: what subsequently happened to Rebekah? Here we note that the last scene where Rebekah was present is Genesis 27:46, and then we do not see her anymore. In Genesis 27:43-45, we see Rebekah stating that she will send for Jacob when Esau's temper has cooled, and we know that that obviously did not happen. Given that the next time Jacob met Esau was twenty years later (c.f. Gen. 31:38, 32:6), we can deduce that Rebekah must have passed away sometime within that twenty years. Rebekah passed away early in life, and from the time of her deception to her death she could not see her favorite son Jacob. Thus, we note that the curse of God did indeed fall upon Rebekah. For although she desired what was right, yet she went about it through sin. Taking on the curse of God on behalf of Jacob, her life was cut short earlier and she suffered maternal anguish in being separated from her favorite son. So God had indeed punished her for her sin, despite the fact that what she did put God's redemptive plan on the right track.

Thus, we see that the means does not justify the ends. Pragmatism as a ministry philosophy is spiritually bankrupt. To appeal to pragmatic reasons apart from Scripture and biblical exegesis is sin. While God might not cut short our lives or separate us from our loved ones until our deaths now, there are still consequences for sin, even if our sin practically advances the kingdom of God. God's things must be done in God's way, or not at all.

Societal witness and the goal of evangelism

As we bear witness about God's moral law, many people have a phobia about being painted as part of the "Religious Right." Along with this fear is a whole host of stereotypes about what standing for godly laws amount to, chief of which has to do with evangelism and reaching out to others with the Gospel.

The main accusation as it concerns evangelism is the idea that we are putting stumbling blocks in front of unbelievers. Instead of hearing about the grace of God, all they see is Christians pouring condemnation upon them. This objection however fails in many ways, especially as it fails to properly understand Law and Gospel. The Gospel makes no sense apart from the holiness of God and the sinfulness of sin. Telling sinners about the Gospel without the necessary work of the Law makes the Gospel superfluous to sinners. If in the process of proclaiming the Gospel, we talk about sin as a general phenomenon, few sinners will actually make the connection to their specific sins. Christianity will be seen as a self-improvement and "spiritual" thing that is good if you want it, but definitely not positing a demand upon all peoples everywhere.

For sinners who love their sins, it makes little difference whether you tell them nicely or you tell them in the midst of heated controversy, for they will reject your message nonetheless. If you tell them nicely, it might be a case of one ear in, another ear out and your message might not be taken seriously. In the midst of controversy, their true hatred of God's law will be manifest as they take the reminders of the moral law seriously. This is not to suggest that we should always seek to be offensive, but it is to suggest that thinking somehow that unbelievers are more likely to respond positively if you refuse controversy is a fool's dream. More importantly, in the midst of controversy might just be the perfect time when they will actually treat what you say seriously, and the relevance of God's law to their lives is made abundantly clear, even if they are to reject it.

Now, it is of course true that stumbling blocks may be placed in front of unbelievers, but only if the Christian witness is done out of spite and hatred, and it is done with merely a statement of the law. Together with the message of what God's Law says must be attached the call of God's grace for salvation. Needless to say, hypocrisy by its proponents is to be rejected, which is to say some measure of holiness is to be expected of believers, for there is nothing more stumbling than an immoral person telling unbelievers immorality is wrong!

As long as it is done correctly, there is no reason why societal witness is antithetical to evangelism properly understood. And unless we would like to deny the commands of God, then we must bear witness in society, not as activists but as believers, seeking not for worldly gain but for God and His Law to be vindicated in our societies.

Sermon: The Sacrifices of Ministry (1 Cor 9)

Here is the sermon I had preached on 1 Corinthians 9, on Aug 19th 2018, entitled The Sacrifices of Ministry.

The "foolishness of preaching"

ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔγνω ὁ κόσμος διὰ τῆς σοφίας τὸν θεόν, εὐδόκησεν ὁ θεὸς διὰ τῆς μωρίας τοῦ κηρύγματος σῶσαι τοὺς πιστεύοντας (1 Cor. 1:21 -BGT)

For it is because in the wisdom of God the world did not know, through its wisdom, God, God was pleased through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe. (1 Cor. 1:21. Own translation)

How does one translate the Greek genitival phrase τῆς μωρίας τοῦ κηρύγματος? Is it an objective genitive, subjective genitive, adjectival or reverse adjectival genitive? Therein lies part of the beauty of such Greek phrases, which cannot be translated into English, and many other languages, without an attempt to decide how the genitival relation between "foolishness" and "preaching" is to be understood.

Various English translations have translated the phrase differently. The KJV decided to leave the ambiguity as it is by just literally stating it as "the foolishness of preaching." The NIV and ESV and even the NKJV decided to resolve the ambiguity by interpreting the phrase as an objective genitive and thus interpret the phrase as stating that it is the content of the preaching that is foolishness to the world. But is that a correct interpretation of the phrase? Surely it is the most natural understanding in our modern scientific context, but is that what Paul is trying to convey to us?

We note here the larger context of the phrase as describing the means by which someone can come to know God. The world, utilizing the instrument of its own wisdom, has shown itself unable to come to know God. In contrast, the "foolishness of preaching" is the instrument that God uses so that sinners who believe can come to know God. That is the contrast the verse is putting forward. The world's wisdom, versus the "foolishness of preaching." The people of the world, her philosophers, utilize their thinking and their wisdom to create empires and ideology, and ultimately the entire modern world with the modern nation-state and science and technology. But despite the greatness of the world's wisdom, the world cannot come to know God.

The question for us then is whether the interpretation taken by many modern translations of the Bible is correct. Certainly, on a theological level, what is preached, the Gospel message, is foolishness to the world. Saying that it is the message preached that is the foolishness that saves, or saying that it the act of preaching that is the foolishness that saves, are both true. And certainly grammatically, there is nothing wrong with translating that particular phrase as an objective genitive instead of a subjective genitive. But which interpretation fits better for our text? Since the "foolishness of preaching" is contrasted with the world's wisdom, and thus the "wisdom of the world," it is better for the phrase "foolishness of preaching" to be a subjective genitive just like the phrase "wisdom of the world" is a subjective genitive. Moreover, does the world just throw propositions in an attempt to come to know God? Or rather, they engage in the act of reasoning using their reason in an attempt to come to know God. Likewise, just as the means of wisdom is thinking, so the means of "foolishness" must be an action as well, which corresponds to preaching.

The phrase in 1 Corinthians 1:21, the "foolishness of preaching," therefore in my opinion should be best translated as the "the foolishness of the usage of preaching." Certainly it is true that the mere act of preaching is an issue, since Greeks love orations and speeches. But rather, it is the act of preaching as the instrument for salvation that is foolishness to the world. For if you want to "make friends and influence people," and even more, save the souls of men, would anyone past and present consider preaching to be a valid means to bring a person to salvation? Sophists engage in orations to entertain their audiences with their eloquence. Philosophers engage in dialogues (e.g. the Socratic model) to convince people of their truth. Many people today prefer the use of drama and multimedia presentations to bring the Bible stories "to life." (Since when was the Bible ever dead?) But God has ordained the means of preaching unto salvation, foolish though it seems to the world.

As those called to proclaim His Word, pastors therefore ought to stand firm in their conviction of the necessity of biblical preaching, not for mere instruction but also to save souls. It is in the faithful preaching of God's Word, Sunday after Sunday, where the Holy Spirit will most certainly work in the hearts of its hearers. While God can use any other means, we should not think that our "ministry" in workplaces or elsewhere is any substitute for biblical preaching, and most certainly should not have the expectancy that God will certainly work in those extra-ecclesial gatherings. For pastors, the burden to correctly parse and proclaim our Lord's work is heavy when one pauses to see its importance, so let us not treat this lightly but seriously, so that we may handle such a privilege and responsibility with reverence and godly fear.

Against "Dogmatic preaching"

Preaching is the proclamation of God's Word by God's ambassador to people. True biblical preaching is the proclamation of God's Word from the actual words of God in the Scripture, for Scripture is the authority for the Christian mind and life. As such, it is very important how preaching is to be done, for, as the proclamation of God's Word, it is supposed to be authoritative, bearing upon all who hear it.

There are many ways preaching has been done throughout church history, some good, some not so good. But what I want to focus on here is a certain type of preaching that is practiced among those who focus on dogmatic theology, and thus the preaching can be called "dogmatic preaching." Such preaching often utilize a text of Scripture and exposit it based on theological concerns that have some relation to the text. In such preaching, the historical progression of revelation often takes a back seat, if taken into account at all. The text becomes a focus for theological consideration, and after the doctrines that have some relation to the text have been expounded, then application is made of these doctrines to its hearers.

Just as a caveat, this is not the same a preaching doctrines from the text. The difference is that dogmatic preaching downplays redemptive historical progression and concerns, if mentioned at all. Doctrinal preaching preaches doctrines that are shown to arise from the text, while dogmatic preaching uses the text like source material (if I may put it this way) for doctrines.

Just from the description and the contrast, it should be clear why dogmatic preaching is a problem. Assuming that the doctrine expounded is correct and orthodox, what is unclear is how the doctrine is actually biblically derived. The goal of preaching is to proclaim God's Word, but for that to be the case, what is proclaimed must be perceived to be from the Scriptures. But if one downplays the immediate context of the text, and omits the progressive nature of redemptive historical revelation, how can the doctrines being expounded be seen to be derived from the text, instead of being read into the text? If one flattens the text of Scripture such that there is no difference in kind when one preaches from the Old in contrast to from the New Testament, then the Scripture is used as a dogmatic source-book instead of revelation in history. Scripture loses its historical nature, and become transcendent (instead of revealing transcendent truths), as if the Bible were dropped directly from heaven to earth.

As a Westminster graduate, I obviously prefer redemptive-historical Christ-centered preaching, although not necessarily owning to anything and everything that calls itself by that name. I do not know if that is the best way of preaching, but what I do know is that, whatever style of preaching is used, the truths proclaimed must be seen to be derived from the text of Scripture. Failure to show how that is the case will at best not teach the hearers how to handle and interpret Scripture correctly, and at worst promote falsehood.

My ambivalence towards online ministries

During the online memorial service (which I could accept as a memorial, but calling it a service without actual congregational participation on site is sort of a stretch for me), there were words of remembrances from various people who were very much influenced by Pastor Ken. I know these people online, and have interacted with some of them before. Yet, hearing them speak evokes mixed emotions in me.

One of the issues I am thinking of is how they use the term "ministry." Now, besides OPC scruples, at least for me the main thing is that I'm rather uncomfortable with calling what they do ministries unless it's officially linked to and endorsed by a church. Now, I'm not saying that they shouldn't do what they do. Some of them are women, like my former fellow CRN contributor Erin Benzinger. Others like my friend Mike Ratliff are laymen. The Scripture injunction for women to be silent however is within the church, and I have no problems with women speaking their mind on any issue outside the official church structures. But calling what they do ministries is something I would hesitate on. Is what they do beneficial towards the Body of Christ? Yes. Can God call them to sound the alarm in the form of discernment blogs? I do not see why not. But ministries seem to indicate to me official church authority, the delegated authority of Christ in His visible and institutional Church. Since they're not linked to any Church (besides Apprising Ministries), I would think that calling these "ministries" would not really be appropriate.

The second issue has to do with the calling of God and the temptations of such *online ministries*. As someone who was in those circles, I came to feel a certain temptation. Now, I do not know whether others involved in discernment ministries faced this, but the temptation I had felt was pride. I wanted to sound the alarm and I wanted others to come to know the truth, and I still do. But the issue here is that even our best motives are tainted with sin. Yea, I'm probably nobody in my online presence compared to Erin and Mike and many others, but even the slightest "recognition" of any kind feeds a desire to build one's name, to glorify myself as someone who knows it and can instruct others. That is why incidentally, for those who have been reading my blog for some time, they will realize my output has greatly decreased since it began. Partly this was due to busyness and study, but I needed to wrestle with my own flesh. Am I seeking to glorify God, or seeking to make a name for myself? Again, I am not saying that everyone goes online and into *online ministries* to feed their pride and reputation. I am just saying that is a temptation, and it is something I do struggle. You don't have to be a mega-church pastor to be puffed up and arrogant; you just need a few people who cling onto your very words to do so.

Now, the reason why I mentioned this is because of a remark during the online service that Pastor Ken was instrumental in helping and encouraging people to set up their own ministries. In the online discernment community, which tends towards Fundamentalism (at its best not worst), this sort of talk concerns me. Now, it might be the case that someone is indeed called to warn others in this fashion. But it is a fallacy to think that everyone who suddenly has his or her eyes opened should immediately plunge into *online ministry*. By all means, I think that those who are indeed called should do what God calls them to do, but how should we deal with the issue, especially in light of the doctrine of the Church with her offices — that does not seem to be considered, and that concerns me. God is the one who opens eyes, but the opening of eyes does not necessarily mean that God has called the person whose eyes were just opened to ministry.

So yea, I am ambivalent towards online (and by that I mean online-only) ministries. By all means, blog away, but I really think that the online discernment community needs to think more about the doctrine of the church and ministry praxis in general.

Paper: Gender Roles: Ordained Order of Mankind towards the Creator

I have finally received back the last of my papers to be returned from last semester. The paper is entitled Gender Role: Ordained Order of Mankind to the Creator, being an exegesis of 1 Tim. 2:8-15. The paper can be found here. An excerpt:

The issue of women ordination in particular and women ministry in general is a hotly debated issue since the 1950s. With the rise of Feminism in the general culture, the Feminist movement has also impacted even professing Evangelical and Reformed churches. Numerous articles and books have been written on this issue, and it has generated controversy in churches and denominations. With the splitting of Evangelicalism into approximately two camps on the issue of women in the church, namely Egalitarians (“Biblical Feminists”) and Complementarians, accusations and counter-accusations have been made regarding the compromises and distortions of biblical teachings done by the other camp. Recently, egalitarian theologian William David Spencer has formulated a document entitled “An Evangelical Statement on the Trinity,” in which he accuses Complementarians of embracing Subordinationism in order to prop up their belief in the submission of wives to their husbands. Such a charge has been made before, and it is easily refuted.

[more]

The problem with "Marketplace ministry"

[This is an improved revised version]

On the Singapore edition of the Christian Post, a news piece has been put up which attempts to showcase one particular "marketplace ministry." The idea of marketplace ministry stems from the basic premise that every church member is to be salt and light in their particular workplace, in reaching out to friends and colleagues and others for the Gospel. This particular "marketplace ministry" has it seems manage to tie in the idea of work together with the idea of "ministry." As a financial planning agency, the director of this agency trains staff "to be 'pastors' to their clients." Financial planners are to treat their clients as sheep, to care for them and aid them in their struggles. In this business endeavor, business and ministry fuses together, and these financial planners have the satisfaction of earning money and at the same time doing "ministry."

As Christians, we are definitely to be the salt and light in the world (Mt. 5:14). We are to witness for Christ and share the Gospel with everyone (Mt. 28:18-20; 1 Peter 3:15). But does Christ's mandate to witness mean that such a "marketplace ministry" is biblically warranted? I would suggest not.

The three main errors that such a "marketplace ministry" engage in are confusing vocation and ministry, supplanting the Church, and giving grounds for the accusation of using religion for profit.

Confusing vocation and ministry

The director Doris Ng is very clear that she sees the job scope of her agency as being a ministry in its own right. She sees her ministry as an integration of faith and work, of how Christians could "see their work as their calling." According to her, Christians do not "integrate faith and work" for a few reasons.

Firstly, many people are too busy and engrossed in their own work. As a result, many view integrating faith and work as an ‘extra’. They feel that it is enough for them to attend church on weekends.

Secondly, they are not prepared to pay the price for being Christians in the marketplace. They do not want to face mocking by others for organising Christian activities in the workplace.

Thirdly, there is insufficient emphasis on marketplace ministry in preaching.

Should Christians view their work as a calling, as something they do for Christ? Certainly. But the question comes as to why the idea of vocation must be a ministry of any sort. God calls various peoples to various callings in life. We see John the Baptist for example endorsing the vocations of being a tax collector and a soldier (Lk. 3:10-13). We note here that they were not called to join John the Baptist in his ministry, or help him out in one form or the other. Rather, they were called to do justice in their respective vocations. In other words, they were called to, as Paul later commanded, live a "peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way" (1 Tim. 2:2). They were called, as Christians are called, to live a life of good works in shining for Christ (Mt. 5: 16).

Christians witness for Christ in word and deed. In word, believers shares the Gospel of Christ. In deed, believers glorify God in their deeds and works. God is the God of creation, and a carpenter putting his effort into making good wooden furniture can do so for God's glory. Practicing justice, integrity and honesty in one's dealings for a believer glorifies Christ.

There is therefore no need to "engage in ministry" if one desires to "integrate faith and work." The integration comes in standing for Christ in word and deed wherever one is at. One does not need to be in "ministry" in order to integrate faith and work!

The impetus for "engaging in ministry" therefore must lie elsewhere. It lies in the confusion of vocation and ministry. It stems from a total erasure of any sort between the common and the sacred, an idea that there is no essential difference between officers in the Church and "laypeople." In such a democratized and egalitarian society, such a confusion is sadly common, but it is a confusion that comes from the culture rather than from the Scriptures.

It does not need to be proven that there is a distinction between the common and the sacred in the Old Testament. The argument for democratizing egalitarianism normally stems from the supposed egalitarian passages of the New Testament in erasing all such demarcations. Passages such as Gal. 3:28 and Col. 3:11 supposedly prove the essential equality of all believers in Christ. 1 Peter 2:9 teaches the priesthood of believers in calling all believers a royal priesthood. Pastors and elders and deacons therefore are merely functional officers, of which mature believers are chosen to fill these officers to serve the churches.

The egalitarian impulse however fails to account for the specific context of these passages as well as the broader teachings of the New Testament. First of all, passages such as Ga. 3:28 and Col. 3:11 are passages dealing with salvation — that salvation is given to all in the same manner. At the foot of the Cross, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave, free or any class. But such passages do not teach whether there are other ways in which they differ. For example, there is no male or female in salvation, but nobody is going to deny that therefore we should erase all differences between men and women and just have unisex washrooms (and by that I am not referring to those with an occupancy of one, and yes, I know some places have experimented with such practices)!

Similarly, 1 Peter 2:9 cannot be interpreted as promoting equality in all respects. The context shows that the priestly office of believers is that of offering spiritual sacrifices to God (1 Peter 2:5). It alludes to concepts such as that seen in Rom. 12:1 and denotes the idea of presenting one's life before God and praying to God without an earthly intermediary, something which was not available under the Mosaic economy where there were priests which one has to go to who will offer prayers to God on one's behalf.

In the broader context of the New Testament, we see that the concept of special offices have not been eradicated. The Apostles appointed deacons with the "laying on of hands" (Acts 6:6). The issue of "laying of hands" shows forth the setting apart for special office, as we can see from Acts 6:6 and from its Old Testament background in Num. 27: 18-19 and Deut. 34: 9. Timothy was similar ordained as mentioned in 1 Tim. 4:14 and he was in turn instructed not to be hasty in the laying of hands (1 Tim. 5:22).

The laying of hands therefore is the biblical and apostolic procedure for ordination to the special offices of elders and deacons. Elders and deacons have been given the keys to the kingdom (Mt. 16:19, 18:18) and thus they are set apart by God in their ordination. By virtue of their office, they are in order (τάξις) different from other Christians.

Ministry in its strictest and most particularist sense has to do with the Church. Therefore, while all Christians are called to witness, not all Christians are called to Ministry. One can loosely term the service one does as "ministry" in a loose form, but that is not the same as the Ministry of the Church

The idea of marketplace ministry therefore is in error by confusing vocation and ministry. Reaching out to others, sharing with them the Gospel, standing up for Christ are all good things, but they are not technically speaking Ministry, which brings us to the second point.

Supplanting the Church

The Church is where the officers of Christ's church do ministry. Officers of the Church are set apart and called by God to their sacred tasks.

"Marketplace ministries" supplant the ministry of the Church by acting as a surrogate church. Such a blatant usurpation can be seen in Doris Ng's statement that her agents are to be "'pastors' to their clients." It matters little whether Doris and her agents have pastoral oversight or their "ministry" is approved by their pastors. It matters little also whether the clients have their own pastors. The problem is that none of the agents possess special office and are ordained, and the financial planning agency is not a church. None of them have any authority from God to do what they are doing. By all means if they desire to love and help their clients, they are certainly free, indeed encouraged to do so. But such is not "shepherding" or being "'pastors' to their clients."

Here we see the hyper-spirituality in "marketplace ministries." What is wrong with simply helping people and loving people without the need to spiritualize everything as a "ministry"? Is God more sanctified merely because one thinks one is doing "real Christian work"? There is nothing wrong with merely living the Christian life in this world without dreams of grandeur or "doing ministry," as if not "doing ministry" is a lesser form of Christian living, whereas it isn't. In fact, such a hyper-spiritualization has Gnostic tendencies in its denigration of the mere material realm, as if doing creational good is an inferior work compared to seeing everything as being "spiritual"; more like the Anabaptist idea of 'Grace overcoming nature' rather than the Protestant notion of 'Grace renewing nature.'

As a side note, it must be said that seeing this as a Ministry makes it in blatant violation of Scripture in 1 Tim. 2:11-15, where Paul specifically prohibits women from exercising authority over Man in spiritual matters and leadership. Doris therefore is in clear violation of Scripture in what she is doing.

Giving grounds for the accusation of using religion for profit

The last major concern has to do with the synthesis of business and religion in Doris' financial planning agency. While certainly Doris appears sincere and has the best of motives, yet such is not sufficient to allay the charge.

1 Tim. 6: 5 warns against those who imagine that godliness is a means to gain. In the history of the Church, there have been many charlatans who used religion to enrich themselves. Perhaps the most notorious in Church history is Johann Tetzel, the Dominican seller of indulgences whom Martin Luther railed against. The issue of using religion especially for financial gain has one that dogged the Church anytime it has gotten involved with financial issues.

By synthesizing business and religion so closely, the question comes as to how Doris' financial planning agency can exonerate itself from using religion to further one's financial interests. After all, it is almost a truism that people who feel loved and cared for will be better customers and more inclined to invest with you. Conversely, the opposite question comes as to how this "marketplace ministry" can exonerate itself from the charge of taking advantage of people's weaknesses to push one's religion, noting that agents "bring spiritual solace to clients in their time of crisis." It is one thing to be a friend who does that, and it is another thing when one has a business relationship in which one's livelihood depends on clients' investment in investment products.

Conclusion

The idea of "marketplace ministry" is fraught with problems. While being engaged in outreach to others in one's workplace is certainly commendable, it is another thing altogether to make one's job one's "ministry." Such "marketplace ministries" usurp the authority of the Church and violates God's rule and order for His people. They are not the way Christians should go about "integrating faith and work," but rather is a backward step towards the old Constantinian order of the Medieval period.

Bob Godfrey on worship: Contrasting the Reformed from Evangelical

In the Aquila Report, Dr. W Robert Godfrey has written an opinion piece contrasting the Reformed view of worship with the Evangelical view on two aspects: (1) The presence of God in worship, and (2) The Ministerial Office in Worship. An excerpt:

But are we Reformed really evangelical?

One area in which the differences between evangelical and Reformed can be examined is the matter of worship. At first glance, we may see more similarities than differences. The orders of worship in Reformed and evangelical churches can be almost identical. Certainly, both kinds of churches sing songs, read Scripture, pray, preach, and administer baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But do these similarities reflect only formal agreement, or do they represent a common understanding of the meaning and function of these liturgical acts in worship?

If we look closely, I believe that we will see the substantive differences between evangelicals and Reformed on worship. That difference is clear on two central issues: first, the understanding of the presence of God in the service; and second, the understanding of the ministerial office in worship.

[more]

Marketplace ministry as a sin against the Church

I have been generally ambivalent towards the idea of marketplace ministries. I can see the need to be light and salt where one is at, and there is certainly nothing wrong with desiring to meet fellow believers and share one's faith. As such, I have been generally supportive, ... until now.

Today through Facebook feed, I saw this article on the Singapore Christian Post, where an insurance company has decided that its agents should take the place of pastors towards their clients. Reading it makes me wonder whether the people involved have even thought through the issues, and the whole thing is wrong on so many levels it is not funny.

First of all, who gave the director the authority to operate what is essentially a pseudo-church? Secondly, upon what basis have they decided that Mammon and God should mix, such that one flows easily into the other? What does it say about the whole idea of salvation being free if such "ministry" comes with the package deal of business dealings and contacts? And since such "shepherding" would make the person feel cared for, and thus more likely to pour more money and invest in insurances and investment products, how can one exonerate oneself from the charge that this type of "ministry" is using godliness for financial gain (1 Tim. 6:5)?

Who has ordained these insurance agents to be ministers of the Gospel, to be able to offer to "conduct a funeral service"? The director of this agency is a woman too. While I have nothing against women being directors of a secular company, they have no business being in spiritual leadership over men (cf 1 Tim. 2:11-15), nevermind being the de facto pastrix of her agents/"pastors."

This entire ministry is a violation of God's commands and rules regarding His Church. It matters little whether the pastor of the director agrees with what she is doing. Her entire "ministry" is a violation of God's Law, and with its confusion between the sacred and the secular, ministry and profit, brings the Gospel into disrepute.

Phil Johnson 2012 Standpoint Conference Session 1

Phil Johnson has given an interesting talk for the 2012 Standpoint Conference:

[HT: SharperIron]

The problem of contextualization: A Critique of Keller's idea of contextualization

In my reading into the writing of a non-Western theologian, Kazoh Kitamori, the issue of inculturation and localized theologies do come up. The whole idea of an "Asian theology" or "Japanese theology" of course is just plain nonsense and is heresy against the catholic, apostolic faith as it is not catholic (universal) and not apostolic. Regardless, there is a softer version of this in the idea of contextualization. In fact, both of them flow out of the same font.

Tim Keller has produced a paper which from the looks of it was done for Covenant Seminary. The paper is entitled Contextualization: Wisdom or Compromise?. Last I checked, the paper is not available to the public, and I only have my copy because of a course I took in my winter term.

As the paper is probably not available anytime soon, I would summarize Keller's paper and then interact with the main issue at hand.

Keller's case

In this paper, Keller is putting forward a case for contextualization. According to him, contextualization is

... adapting gospel ministry from one culture into another culture by 1) changing those aspects of ministry that are culturally conditioned, and 2) maintaining those aspects of ministry that are unchanging and Biblically required. "Contextualization" 'incarnates' the Christian faith in a particular culture. (p. 1)

Keller argues that cultures may be good and bad, and that there is "no universal, de-contextualized form or expression of Christianity" (p. 1) Using the analogy of a stone and multiple colored globes, Keller opines that the Christian faith is analogous to the stone and the colored globes represent the various cultures of the world. The stone will always be in a globe, just like the Christian faith will always be inculturated. His point therefore is this: Christians (probably with Western Christians in mind) have their faith (stone) as understood within their culture (eg. a blue colored globe). When attempting to communicate the Gospel and the Christian message to those from another culture, one should take out the stone from one's culture and placed it into the new differently colored globe. So for example if a Western white PCA Christian were to attempt to communicate the Christian message to urban cosmopolitan New Yorkers, one has to take out the stone from one's blue globe and put it in let's say a yellow globe. The stone would thus look different when it is in the yellow than when it is in the blue globe.

Keller makes pain to state that he is against over-contextualization (and under contextualization too). He insists that the Gospel message cannot be compromised. What is essential must be kept, but what is not essential if it offends people must be removed.

The rest of the paper revolves around practice and the idea of showing how the Gospel fulfills the narratives of opposing worldviews, which we will not cover here.

Analysis and critique

Keller is right in saying that there is "no universal, de-contextualized form or expression of Christianity." Certainly, we should not make our culture the determining form of how Christianity is to be practiced. But does this mean that Keller's idea of contextualization is therefore proved?

The problem with Keller's view of contextualization is that it is based upon a Platonic, Idealist view of Christianity. Christianity in Keller's view is this abstract faith out there, which is incarnated into the cultures of their time. Thus the abstract Christian message is like the stone which in the beginning is already placed in a colored globe. Since the world has changed, cultures have changed, and therefore we should not continue to keep the Christian message (stone) within the old culture (e.g blue globe). Rather, we are to "contextualize" the Christian message (stone) by transferring it into the appropriate culture of the receptors (the yellow globe) so that the Christian message will continue to be heard as it ought to be.

One can see the similarity between Keller's version of contextualization and the liberals' version of localized theologies. Like Keller, they acknowledge the "cultural captivity" of the Gospel. In order to interact with other cultures, the Gospel (stone) has to be taken out of its western context and situated in its new context, be it Korean, Japanese or African. The only difference between Keller and the liberals is what each would categorize as essential and non-essential. Keller would, I hope, keep the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone to be essential, whereas the liberals have "moved" beyond that.

The problem with Keller's view is that the Gospel and the Christian message is not a Platonic ideal. The Gospel and the Christian message is revealed through history and in history. There is certainly an ideal archetypal message, but that is not what is revealed to us. What is revealed to us is the Gospel message as ectypically revealed through the prism of the cultures of that time. The Gospel message is therefore revealed through these cultural lenses, and cannot be separated from them.

Thus, Keller's (and the liberals') idea of the Gospel is not available to anyone. It is part of archetypal theology. There is no such "stone" therefore available to anyone but God. Only God knows the Christian message unmediated, not us. Therefore, it is impossible to abstract the Gospel message absent of its historical circumstances, and then re-contextualize it into a new globe.

When anyone therefore faces the Gospel message, it is an altogether alien thing, unless of course one lives during the time of the writing of the Scriptures. The Christian message uses the cultural forms of an age long ago. Thus, biblical exegesis and meditation on the worldview portrayed by Scripture is necessary to grow in understanding the Christian faith. Ad fontes! All cultures are brought back to understanding biblical truths as revealed in the cultural contexts of their time, and then reapplying them to ours. Such application is necessary regardless of whether one is white or black, German or Japanese.

We do not attempt to somehow decipher the core Platonic essentials of the faith and re-contextualize them. Rather, we bring the whole of Scripture together with its various cultural forms to bear on every culture. Every culture has to come to terms with the foreignness of the Christian faith before seeing the pertinence it has for all peoples in every culture.

Keller's view of contextualization is therefore unbiblical. By trying to bifurcate between essentials and non-essentials in his manner, it has more similarity with Adolf Von Harneck's kerygmatic theory than biblical Christianity.

Ministry and the attitude towards learning

Previous:

• Pastors and Seminary Education
• Why being a biblicist is wrong

The vocation of being a pastor/ elder is a tough one. To take care of the flock (Acts 20:28) implies that one knows the truth, and therefore what is not the truth. The shepherd has to lead the flock to green pastures and avoid poisonous plants.

Being a shepherd of the flock of God therefore requires training. God-fearing seminaries are meant to provide that training. Whatever one thinks of the role of a pastor-scholar, it is a fact that anti-intellectualism has no place at all in Christianity. The pastor's office was not called a study for no reason.

This especially means that shepherds and ministers are to be humble and teachable, more so those who are not seminary-trained. This is not to say that those seminary-trained are always correct or that untrained people are necessarily precluded from pastoral ministry, but to say that not being trained means that one must train oneself to the level of erudition needed for the task.

It is a travesty when pastors and elders are not humble and teachable. It is an even worse tragedy when they are both unteachable and wrong. At least if they are right, they would not lead others astray. But what can one do with someone who is convinced that he is right when actually he is ignorant and wrong?

Jas. 3:1 is a serious verse that all pastors and aspiring ministers and elders should always keep in mind. Remember that we are not the lords of the church but servants in charge of Christ's flock. The flock does NOT belong to us, and we are not given the permission to have lamb chops.

Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. (Jas. 3:1)

Why being a biblicist is wrong

"I don't care about labels. I am just following Jesus, and the Bible." Do such words sound familiar? If so, you may have stumbled upon a biblicist — that group of people whose fidelity to the Scriptures make them think that only a plain and "unbiased" reading of the biblical text will lead one to the truth.

On the surface, such a motto should sound appealing to every Christian. Who after all wants to add the philosophies of Man to the truths of Scripture? The problem however comes when we apply some thought to the issue. Do we interpreters of the Bible, any interpreter, really come to the Bible with a tabula rasa, a blank slate? Is there such a thing as absolute objectivity on the part of any man or woman on earth?

If there is anything where postmodernism has its plus side, it is to remind us that we ourselves are personally involved in the process of knowing and interpreting. We ourselves are situated in this present order, and our own upbringing and environment shapes how we think and to some extent even what we think. All people including myself are biased to some degree or another, and we approach issues not as a blank sheet of paper but as people with preconceived ideas and notions.

The biblicist view therefore is in error. There is no such thing as a "just the Bible" reading. That is why the Reformed churches have never just taken the Bible and read it "afresh" after removing all preconceived ideas from our brains. That is simply silly. What we have done is to take the Bible, read it and interact with others who read it, both our contemporaries and those who have gone before us. Only through interaction will we be able to correct our biases to a much greater extent, all done of course with the understanding that the Scriptures have the final say. We believe in Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), not Solo Scriptura (Scripture only).

Being a biblicist is not good. What is worse is being a biblicist who teaches the Word. We then have the specter of someone teaching his own opinions and affixing the label of divine authority on it, as if his environment and prior education did not influence his interpretation of Scripture at all. That is why James 3:1 is such a solemn verse for those of us who have or will be serving the Lord in some capacity or another as a pastor, teacher, scholar etc.

Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. (Jas. 3:1)

It is a fearful thing to be called to account for the souls of those whom Christ has and will put in our care. One wonders why anyone would want to a teacher of God's truth, unless one is indeed called to this task.

Pastors and seminary education

Over on the WSCal blog, Dr. R Scott Clark has posted a broken up article on why pastors need a seminary education. The article was first published in Evangelium, Vol. 5, Issue 3

1. Part 1
2. Part 2
3. Part 3
4. Part 4
5. Part 5

Not only pastors should be seminary-trained, but in my opinion, all missionaries should be too, as are all full-time Christian workers in leading and teaching positions. Most certainly, we want trained people to have the skills to minister to people. More importantly in my opinion, the Church does not need people to misrepresent her Lord and harm others through their own incompetence.

People can point to the famous Baptist preacher C.H. Spurgeon, who was not seminary-trained. The early apostles of course weren't either. Spurgeon however trained himself rigorously and read more books than many people own in a lifetime. The apostles undergo intensive training for three years, and even after that they failed at the critical movement of Christ's arrest. Only after Pentecost did the Holy Spirit illuminate their previous training, bringing what Jesus said to mind. So, yes, seminary training is not absolutely essential, but the alternative is just as rigorous and even more demanding as few people are around to push, motivate and correct you, who are capable of doing so.

Missional, Charismatic, and Reformed?

Over on Driscoll's The Resurgence website, pastor PJ Smyth has written a short write-up regarding the Driscollite unique blend of ministry distinctives. It seems that the inclination to combine the three ministry distinctives of "missional," "charismatic," and "reformed" continues. However, are these really biblical, and are they really compatible?

Missional?

Let us look at the first distinctive: missional. The term itself has various shades of meaning, but we will focus on its understanding and use in the Reformission movement. According to Smyth, "missional" begins with the understanding that "Jesus came to [the] earth as a missionary and he commissioned us to follow his example." Another synonym for this distinctive is the term "incarnational." What are we to make of this term? First of all, they are in error in claiming that Jesus came to earth as a missionary. Jesus' mission was to die on the cross, not to proclaim the Gospel everywhere. Jesus did call people to faith in Him, but more often than not, Jesus concealed the Gospel in parables (Mt. 13:13-15) and such a concealment is judgment upon a nation and people who do not respond in faith to His miracles. Jesus as an intrusion of the last days even proclaimed that certain people are reprobates and not His sheep (Jn. 10:26). Do these actions strike us as something a missionary should do?

Jesus came to inaugurate His Kingdom. As God and Savior, He is unique in this aspect. When Jesus spoke in parables, and when He for a moment revealed the secret decree of God that His opponents then are reprobates, He is functioning as the King of glory, with these actions being a foretaste of the Last Judgment when all will be laid bare. Missionaries are NOT kings or the King. They are not inaugurating the Kingdom of God but proclaiming it. They are not privy to the secret decree of God in exposing the reprobate status of reprobates. As such, missionaries are not to preach to people in parables. They are not to conceal the Gospel message as a judgment upon people.

Jesus was not a missionary but a King and a suffering servant. We are therefore not to be "missional" but "mission-minded." We witness the Gospel to the world, not like Jesus as Jesus did not do so, but as those sent out by the King we serve, like the Apostles and the early church.

Charismatic?

If there is one thing that truly irritates me, Smyth misrepresents Charismatism and non-Charismatism. It is reprehensible that Charismatics go around claiming that they believe in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, as if they are the only ones who do so. Similarly, spiritual warfare in the biblical sense is not peculiar only to Charismatics, neither is the link of sickness with the Fall nor that God heals.

The fact of the matter is that Charismatics add to the biblical teaching on the presence and power of the Holy Spirit an under-realized ecclesiology and an over-realized eschatology. By the former, we mean that the Charismatics have an immature view of the Church as if she is still in the same infancy stage of the apostolic Church. Ignoring the fact that the Gifts of the Spirit have a purpose ordained for them, they insist on the continuing gift of tongues, interpretation of tongues, foreknowing prophecy, words of knowledge etc as the ordinary (as opposed as extra-ordinary) reality of the Church. They ignore the fact that the Church has matured with the closing of the Canon and thus the completion of the function of the sign gifts in general.

On the latter, we mean that the Charismatics believe that the blessings of the last days have already come to a great extent if not has come and is coming with the immanent millennial earthly kingdom. Thus, we have Charismatic healers who are more certain that God will heal people when they pray than God Himself. We have Charismatics who are so thirsty for the presence of God that they seek spiritual experiences outside of Scripture, not realizing that on this side of heaven, Christ is absent from the earth and His presence in this age is only mediated by the Holy Spirit through the Word written (Holy Scripture), the Word preached (exegetically sound sermon), and the Word performed (sacraments). Thus, we have Charismaniacs who see "visions" (of their own delusions) and see the "glory-cloud" of God, seeking by such experiences to drag Christ down from heaven to earth. Yes, more biblical Charismatics do denounce such antics, but one wonders upon what basis they can do so, since such flows logically from their over-realized eschatology.

Charismatism therefore is in error, and should not be embraced by the Church.

Reformed?

As a Reformed Christian, most definitely I think the Church should be Reformed. But what does the Reformission movement think of the word "Reformed"?

As we can see from the article, the word "Reformed" is defined as the "mainstream tradition of Christian theology that acknowledge the sovereignty of God in and over all things." One wonders then if Smyth and the others Driscollites think that Lutherans and Barthians and others should be included under the term "Reformed," since both of these groups also "acknowledge the sovereignty of God in and over all things," at least formally. I mean, Karl Barth not only claims to be Reformed, but he also denies infant baptism, which should be a plus point for the mainly baptistic Reformission guys!

Such a reductionistic definition of the word "Reformed" shows the utter ahistorical nature of the Reformission and the YRR movement(s). "Reformed" is defined by the Reformed Creeds and Confessions, not just an acknowledgement of the sovereignty of God and the embrace of TULIP. It is then no surprise that Smyth can claim to be "Missional, Charismatic and Reformed," for his understanding of what "Reformed" means is indistinguishable from mere Augustinianism. To be truly Reformed however would sound the death knell to this synthesis, for being Reformed means that one embraced the whole of the teachings of the Reformed Creeds and Confessions which proscribe Charismatism (cf WCF I.1).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Reformission synthesis is unbiblical and ahistorical. We agree with Smyth's point that we should remain God-centered, and not only God-centered but Christ-centered, Spirit-led and Word-founded. But we disagree with Smyth's beliefs and synthesis as they are none of these.