29 Theses for the Modern Church

Out of a concern for truth and the furtherance of the Gospel, which stands alone as the power of God that leads to salvation for everyone that believes, I invite discussion and debate of the following theses regarding the present condition of the church, particularly in its Protestant and evangelical form. May all be for the glory of God.

1. The Church’s message is not dictated by those outside the Church, but by the risen Lord, to whom all authority in Heaven and on earth has been given.

2. A church does not honor the inerrant Word of God if its priorities are not set by that inerrant Word.

3. Rather than focusing on the circumstantial question of “what would Jesus do” in a given situation, it is more important to understand what has Jesus done for the eternal salvation of His people.

4. It is biblical doctrine that teaches that Jesus was both Son of God and Son of Man, that He was the Word of God who dwelt among us, that He was perfectly sinless, and that by His sinless life and substitutionary death He both perfectly fulfilled the requirements of the Law and paid the penalty for the Curse upon all who are His, and that His bodily resurrection validated the truth of His claims. There is no sufficient reason to follow and worship Jesus apart from these doctrinal claims.

5. Christianity is about what God does about our sins. If there is no teaching regarding sin – its origins, its reality, its universality, its guilt, its results, and its punishment – there is no reason for Christianity.

6. While “the devil made me do it” may be a good line for comedians, it is not an adequate expression of the Christian doctrine of sin, which emphasizes that we are dead in trespasses and sins and sinful through and through. The reality of a creature named Satan should not divert our attention from the universal and thoroughgoing sinfulness of all of mankind.

7. Given that Jesus taught that those that don’t repent will perish, any version of Christianity that does not address the reality of sin and the need to repent is not consistent with the teaching of Jesus.

8. While the Bible teaches much that can be helpful to us with regard to human relationships and day to day living, Christianity at its root narrates the story of creation, fall, and redemption. That narrative constitutes the message of the church.

9. A church that speaks often of other subjects and speaks only occasionally of creation, fall, and redemption is guilty of hiding the central message of Christ behind a shroud of peripheral subjects.

10. The Gospel, being the power of God that leads to salvation for everyone that believes, is substantively more consequential and effectively more powerful than marketing programs and all other manner of human cleverness.

11. The effort to proclaim the Gospel persuasively is not the same thing as a marketing program.

12. Substituting marketing for Gospel proclamation inevitably leads to syncretism.

13. Building genuine, respectful relationships with unbelievers consistent the second great commandment can result in opportunities to evangelize our neighbors and is far superior to programs that create artificial and manipulative relationships as the basis for sharing the Gospel.

14. The miraculous healings of Jesus and the Apostles verified the authenticity of Jesus’ as Messiah and should not be regarded as any indication that physical healing is part of what is offered through Christ’s atonement other than in an eschatological sense.

15. Jesus’ statements about the necessity of the new birth and the teaching of Paul that those apart from Christ are dead in trespasses and sins reveal the necessity of the Spirit’s role in regeneration for anyone to be saved. While God uses human means to accomplish His purposes, only the work of the Holy Spirit brings the dead to life.

16. Just as our justification is entirely a work of God’s grace, so also our sanctification is entirely a work of the Spirit of God. While God’s liberated children observe His commands out of gratitude for His grace, we should not imagine that our law keeping is the basis for our own Christian growth. Rather, it is the sanctifying work of the Spirit within us, using God’s appointed means.

17. Our destiny, as individuals and as the Church, is not under our control. God alone orders our steps.

18. Churches that by either false emphases or by shrouding the Gospel mislead people into thinking that “God helps those who help themselves” teach a message that is completely opposite the biblical message that “Christ died for the ungodly.”

19. That faith is the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen emphasizes that faith is our empty handed trust in the provision that God freely and completely provides. Faith is neither a technique of positive thinking nor a weapon by which we force the hand of our sovereign Lord.

20. Encouraging Christians to live simply in order to set aside provisions to support the work of the church and to fulfill the second great commandment is admirable, but it should never be confused with the notion that such giving will guarantee a return of greater material comforts and blessings. Those who encourage the neglect of family responsibilities on the basis of such supposed guarantees commit great evil in the name of Christ.

21. The notion that the expected ideal Christian life is one of prosperity and material ease is so inconsistent with both the teaching and the examples of Christ, the prophets, the Apostles, and others among the saints as recorded in Scripture, that this way of thinking is utterly irreconcilable to Christian teaching.

22. The term “Christian” is not categorically something that applies to nations. There is no biblical basis for using the term in this way nor for suggesting that the United States has some unique role in God’s redemptive plan, through which He is creating a people of every people and tongue and nation.

23. God’s means for the church to bring about changed lives and social structures is Gospel proclamation. The death, burial, and resurrection, as opposed to methods for creating political solutions to social problems or for seeking psychological well-being, form the foundation of the Christian’s hope.

24. Biblical warnings about the human propensity for self-centeredness and self-promotion should give pause to those who would use the Gospel message as a method for building self-esteem. That we love self too much, not too little, is frequently the Bible’s message to us.

25. When God created all things, He pronounced His creation good, and since the Fall, creation has groaned while awaiting its final redemption. Consistent with God’s plan for redeeming not only lost humanity, but the creation realm, as well, the goal of the Christian is not escape from the material, but the subjection of all things to Christ.

26. While the image of God in man has been defaced by the Fall, God in His goodness continues to shower His common grace on all. The contributions in arts and culture of all of those utilizing those creation gifts must not escape the attention and appreciation of believers, who long to bring every thought captive to the Lordship of Christ.

27. The notion that some people are better used by God due to their spiritual superiority is dangerous to those individuals and the Church and is an affront to the Gospel of Christ. The kind of priesthood of celebrity that has emerged in much of the church needs to be greatly resisted.

28. The demonstrated failure of age based divisions in church structures as an effective means of keeping children, teens, and young adults in the Church must be faced in order for the Church to return to the Bible’s covenantal based pattern of family oriented worship as normative in the body of Christ.

29. Believing that the growth of the church and the spread of the Gospel are dependent on the power of God above all else should compel us to pray first of all, rather than to regard prayer as an afterthought once we have prepared our clever plans.

The Meaning of the Millenium: Four Views, edited by Robert G. Clouse: a Brief Review

The popularity of Tim LaHaye's Left Behind series, a set of fictional accounts of life in "the last days" just before the second coming of Jesus Christ, demonstrates the ongoing interest of many Americans, both Christian and non-Christian, in the subject of Bible prophecy and the end of the world. The view of the end times expressed in those books, which is known to theologians as dispensational premillenialism, has been arguably the most popular one among fundamentalist, evangelical, and Pentecostal Christians over the course of the last century. Indeed, many believers within those camps assume that this approach to eschatology is the only viable option for Bible believing Christians. However, this is not the case. In The Meaning of the Millenium, a volume that was published in the 1970's, four conservative Christian scholars argue differing positions regarding the Bible's teaching on the end of the age. While the work is now over 30 years old, it remains a relevant guide to the various understandings of conservative Christian scholars on the end times.

In the book, each author contributes an article outlining his basic position of the end times. The writers also each respond to the views of each of their colleagues. This format effectively enables the reader to evaluate each position both as advocated and as critiqued by opponents. That all of the authors are able exponents of their particular views makes this a helpful book in sorting out these issues.

The four positions and their advocates are as follows:

• Historic premillennialism: George Eldon Ladd


• Dispensational premillenialism: Herman A. Hoyt


• Postmillenialism: Loraine Boettner


• Amillenialism: Anthony Hoekema

Based on Revelation 20, which speaks of the binding of Satan and the reign of Christ for 1,000 years, both forms of premillennialism argue that Christ will return and set up a literal reign on earth based in Jerusalem that will last for that precise length of time. In contrast, both postmillenialism and amillenialism contend that the kingdom is spiritual in nature and that the millennium takes place during the church age prior to the return of Christ. The primary distinction between these latter two views is that postmillennialism takes an optimistic view of spiritual and material progress as a result of the successful spread of the gospel, whereas amillenialists see a rise of both Christianity and the forces of evil up to the end of the age.

While the only passage that speaks of a 1,000 year reign is found in Revelation 20, all of the writers emphasize that these views hinge on significantly different hermeneutical approaches to the Scripture. In particular, a- and post millenialists interpret prophetic passages and promises from the Old Testament in light of the first coming of Christ and New Testament teaching, while dispensational premillenialists make the Old Testament their beginning point and re-interpret the New Testament in light of the Old. Interestingly, Ladd, representing the historic premillennial view, largely agrees with Hoekema and Boettner with regard to his understanding of the Old Testament and attempts to distance himself from the weaknesses inherent in the dispensational perspective. Ladd's view is almost entirely driven by his understanding of Revelation 20. Nonetheless, the result of these varying approaches to the Old Testament is that Hoekema and Boettner both view the promises of a Davidic kingdom being fulfilled figuratively during the New Covenant age or during our future eternal state. The premillenial dispensationalists expect those promises to be fulfilled literally on earth. The non-dispensational writers effectively argue that their understanding of the Old Testament coheres with the methodology used by Jesus and the New Testament writers in interpreting the Old Testament as it relates to Christ's first advent and the New Covenant that he inaugurated.

Given the popularity of the dispensational view, it is striking to note how weak, not to mention extreme, it appears when viewed alongside the other viewpoints (I write as one who was raised as a dispensationalist, but who long ago rejected that teaching and now would describe himself as an amillennialist). Indeed, one suspects that dispensational premillennialism only prevails as the dominant viewpoint because most laypeople have not had the opportunity to hear other viewpoints argued. A volume such as this would help remedy that problem. At the very least, it should help disabuse dispensationalists of the notion that those holding differing views are guilty of denying the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture.

This volume is highly recommended for anyone interested in these issues.

The Gospel Driven Life, by Michael Horton: a brief review

Michael Horton opens his provocative new book, The Gospel Driven Life, by explaining his intention in writing it: "The goal of this book is to reorient our faith and practice as Christians and churches toward the gospel: that is, the announcement of God's victory over sin and death in his Son, Jesus Christ."

The stated need "to reorient" implies that Dr. Horton believes that the church has gotten off track. However, it would be incorrect to suppose that this is primarily a negative book. He has previously written Christless Christianity, a book that outlines in depressing detail where the church has become wrongly oriented. In this work, he places primary focus on what Christians and churches should be focused on. In so doing, he has written a book that is relentlessly Christ centered and gospel centered. It is a vigorous call for the church to recenter itself around the gospel of Christ. For many churches, both liberal and conservative, this would represent a change of Copernican proportions.

While Dr. Horton's book is more prescriptive than critical, he does helpfully draw some contrasts throughout the book that help the reader understand what he is getting at. For example:

The gospel is not good advice; it is good news.

The gospel is not about God writing himself into our story; it is about Him givins us a new script, writing us into His story.

The gospel is not something that happens within us; it is something that happened outside of us in real space and time.

The gospel is neither personal nor primarily about our transformed lives; it is a public and objective set of events that occurred in real space and time.

The gospel creates a cross cultural community that has no power other than the gospel and the Spirit; the church does not effect change through coercive means.

Even the modern terminology of the church points to its tendency to conceptually move Christ and the gospel to the periphery. Thus, when we speak about having a "worship experience," we place more emphasis on our pursuit of the experience than we do on the God who is supposed to be worshipped. And, such emphasis on experience in the end leads to burnt out believers.

While Dr. Horton argues that the church should "avoid resorting to hostile rhetoric," he criticizes the church for caving into mindless sentimentality. He writes:

Lazy minds breed lazy hearts and hands.... The greatest threat to Christianity is never vigorous intellectual criticism but a creeping senility that transforms truths into feelings, public claims into private experiences, and facts into mere values. Christianity is either true or false, but it is not irrational.... We must recover our distinctively biblical commitment to rigorous, inquisitive, and persuasive thinking before there can be a genuine renewal of Christian conviction, faith, repentance, and discipleship. It is time once again to love God with our minds.

Indeed. The book suffers from some repetitiveness and as a result is not the most brisk of Dr. Horton's writings. However, it is a worthy exposition of a subject of great import. I highly recommend it.

Jesus Christ, His Only Son, Our Lord

Up until this point, the Apostle’s Creed has focused on the first person of the Trinity, God the Father. Now, it begins to address belief in God the Son. This portion of the Creed can be divided into two sections: the first provides several names or titles for Christ; the latter portion focuses on a summary of his life and work.

The Creed focuses on four specific names or titles for the second person of the trinity:

Jesus
Christ
His only Son
Our Lord

Each of these names emphasizes some specific aspect of His life or work, and all of them should be a regular part of the vocabulary, especially in prayer, of believers. Christians nowadays tend to use these names indiscriminately, based largely on personal preference, but the New Testament writers did not do so. They used these names intentionally, speaking of Him using nomenclature that was relevant to whatever it was about Him that they were discussing at the time.

Thus, for example, there are many Christians who speak of Him almost exclusively as “Jesus,” with no title appended (i.e., Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus, etc.). I have heard some Christians even speak as though there is something especially spiritual in doing so, though there is no biblical basis for that idea. Interestingly, while the Gospels frequently refer to Him in this way, the rest of the New Testament rarely does. The name “Jesus” by itself in the Bible always looks back to something that Jesus said or did during his earthly ministry.

I might also add that many Christians have misconstrued Jesus’ promise to answer prayers made in Jesus’ name. This is not a promise to answer prayers when those magic words are spoken: it is a promise to answer prayers consistent with the character and will of Him.

The term “Christ” speaks of His saving work. He was the promised Messiah who died and rose again in order to save his people from their sins. As there is much about this in the part of the Creed devoted to describing Christ’s life and work, I will leave further discussion to that time.

The phrase “God’s only Son” focuses on relationships within the Trinity. God the Son is not inferior to the Father, but has submitted to the Father in order to accomplish the Godhead’s eternal purposes. The terms Father and Son reveal the eternal and perfect familial love within the Godhead. That love has only been broken once in all eternity: when the Father punished the Son upon the cross because of the sins for which He died. Jesus cried out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” The incredible prophetic passage in Isaiah 53 says that “it pleased the Lord to bruise Him.” It is a remarkable thought that the eternal fellowship between God the Father and God the Son was broken at Calvary as Christ died for our sins.

“Our Lord” refers to the enthronement of Christ, who is the ruler over all Creation. One day, He will be acknowledged by all as the King of kings and Lord of lords.

It may be that those who speak of Him primarily as “Jesus” have focused on His humanity or his closeness to the exclusion of His other attributes, while those who talk only of “the Lord” may have lost sight of His closeness or His saving work. Of course, these are only words, and they may not say anything about the thoughts of one’s heart, but it is certainly worth taking a look inward to see if we are thinking of the Lord Jesus Christ in a way consistent with all of His majesty and glory.

Learning to think and speak His names and titles in this way is a difficult habit to start, and in the beginning it may seem stifling. However, in learning to do so there is great devotional value, as intentional thinking can help to produce intentional worship that focuses more clearly and dearly upon the Lord Jesus Christ, God’s only Son.

Change the Names to Protect the Innocent

A while back, I googled my own name. Because my first name is not a particularly common one in the United States, I was actually surprised at the number of notable people, real and fictional, who share my first and last name. I learned the following people have (or had) the same first and last name that I do:

• The director of the Pacific Garden Rescue Mission in Chicago who was responsible for the conversion of a baseball player named Billy Sunday, who became the Billy Graham of his day.
• The character portrayed by Richard Pryor in the movie Stir Crazy.
• An on air personality who works for Voice of America.

And then there is one more. I am glad that I knew a little bit about it from Google, as it prepared me somewhat for a visit I received last night.

A person who has the same first and last name as I do is a former Catholic priest who has been accused of molesting young boys in Indiana between 1979 and 1984. 11 lawsuits have been filed against him to date.

Last night, around 6:30 p.m., my phone rang. After asking for me, the caller identified himself as a reporter for the Indianapolis Star. He wanted to ask me some questions. I was confused at first as to why he would want to talk to me, but I remembered my Google finding about the same time that he realized that this was going much too easily and that I might be the wrong guy. He apologized for bothering me, and explained that no one was sure where the child molester lived, but that it was commonly believed that he lived somewhere in Nashville. Because he has never been convicted of a crime, he doesn't have to register as a sex offender.

Oh, great. I had previously had some fear about name association when I read about him in another state. Here in the same city as me? I groaned.

The reporter then had a request. He now explained that he was at the entrance of the apartment complex I had just moved into. He had driven all of the way from Indianapolis based on finding my newly listed address and phone number. Would I mind if he just came by to look at me to confirm I am not the perpetrator?

I figured my choices were to meet him or to have someone waiting outside my door to see me, so I said I would do so. I told him that I would be standing outside the apartment when he drove up. He asked what I looked like. I'm in my 40's, have brown hair....

He interrupted, telling me if I had hair I wasn't the guy he was looking for.

The reporter and I talked briefly. He looked close to my age -- a little younger perhaps-- and he actually seemed like a nice guy, though he was obviously disappointed. He was going to be headed back to Indianapolis, but he had one more request:

Would I let him see my driver's license? He needed to make sure I wasn't someone that was sent out to cover for the real one.

I shook my head in disbelief and pulled out my wallet. He looked at my license, half chuckled, and, realizing that his whole day had been a wasted effort, said, "Well, there you have it."

In some ways, the incident was amusing at first, but the more I think about it, the more I am frightened by the whole thing. I was still in high school when that man began abusing boys as a priest, so clearly there is no way that a rational person could confuse me with him. But what about an irrational one? Could the association of name and place impact my professional life if people I am working with from a distance hear a story and draw a wrong conclusion? Will someone else find my address the same way that the reporter did and assume that I am the perpetrator? Is it possible that I will open my door some morning and see a shotgun pointed at my face? Will they take time to look? If I protest, will they believe me?

I don't blame the reporter for raising these concerns. He's doing his job. I suspect that in preparing his series of stories that he has heard heart wrenching stories of the aftermath of abuse. But, this has scared me. It has scared me a lot.

"Maker of Heaven and Earth"

When reading this portion of the Creed, one immediately thinks of the first verse in the Bible, which declares, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The remainder of chapter one and the first half of chapter two proceed to discuss God's creative acts.

Much discussion of God as Creator nowadays revolves around debates about the age of the earth, whether the concepts of divine creation and Darwinian evolution can be reconciled, and the relationship between science and religion. I have opinions on those issues, about which both many Christians and many scientists sometimes are guilty of making statements that go beyond their areas of expertise, but for this discussion I want to focus on a couple of different questions -- one that should be thought about before discussions of science begin, and the other a consideration of the implications of divine creation.

There are some Christians who both believe that Scripture is divine revelation from God and accurate in all that it teaches who also believe that the Bible is not inconsistent with Darwinian evolution. Again, I am not going to debate that point today. What I will say is that, regardless of the relationship between faith and current scientific viewpoints, philosophical naturalism is not consistent with Christian belief. Naturalism, simply put, is the belief that nature is all there is. Thus, there is no God and no soul. There is only nature.

Of course, nature is the subject matter of science. Nature is what scientists study. However, some scientists are guilty of folding the philosophical definition of naturalism into the meaning of the scientific method and, by extension, the definition of science itself. That confluence should not be allowed to stand without debate. It is one thing to say that nature is what scientists study. It is something quite different to say that what scientists study is all there is. That supposition is both unproven and unprovable empirically, as it outside the realm of what scientists study.

Just as some Christians may be guilty of arrogance in making statements about scientific matters about which they have no knowledge, some scientists may be guilty of an intellectual and philosophical arrogance that claims that nothing is beyond their realm. As to whether God, either by a sudden act of creation or by a guiding hand on what we would otherwise regard as natural processes, created all that there is, the scientist really has no ultimate answers. That is not to say that there are no answers; they just cannot be found conclusively by means of the scientific method.

Christians have faith that God created all that exists, and we find ample evidence in the order, complexity, and beauty of the universe in support of that faith. The question of creation, however, is not merely an intellectual one. Along with the notion that God created comes the thought that God created for a purpose, and that ultimately what God knows about both our lives and his purposes creates accountability for us, as well as the realization that the One who made us best understands how we should live. That accountability and submission to God's wisdom and purposes, which are ultimately sources of joy for those who accept them, are also the ultimate reasons for much -- some would say all -- unbelief. The first sins in the garden were committed in response to a claim that Adam and Eve could be like God, and ever since humanity has desired to have things our own way.

God, as our Creator, has the ultimate say about what our lives should be. To live in the light of his purposes brings freedom and joy. Resisting Him is both temporally and eternally destructive.

This is the latest in my series of posts on the Apostle's Creed. For my previous post, which includes links to all of the others, see here.

God the Father Almighty

Parents frequently teach their children a prayer that begins, "God is great. God is good."

Those words are simple enough for children, but they are also profound. They capture two important aspects of the character of God. He is great -- that is, he is almighty, omniscient, and omnipresent. He is also good -- great in mercy and kindness, a Father and friend to those who are His.

Healthy Christianity maintains thoughts of God's greatness and goodness in a careful balance. Unfortunately, that balance is frequently not maintained, and that lack of balance has at times seriously harmed those who grew up under it. If God is seen as great, but not good, he may be seen as harsh, distant, irrelevant, and an object of unhealthy fear (I say unhealthy, because there is a healthy kind of fear of God).

If God is seen as good, but not great, He is seen as a sort of kindly old man -- good hearted, but not terribly helpful or relevant to life.

Fortunately, the true God is both great and good. God is described in the Bible as a Father, a Friend, and as one who knows how to give good gifts to His children. He is merciful and full of grace. Believers can call upon Him with familial love and approach Him boldly because of what Christ has done in our behalf.

He is also the Creator and Sustainer of all things.

Isaiah Chapter 40, which is addressed to hurting people who have fallen under God's judgment, is one of the most eloquent in all of the Bible describing God's goodness and greatness. Following is a quick laundry list of what we learn about God in this chapter. Read it for yourself, and you may find great joy in meditating on these thoughts about God:

• He speaks through Isaiah words of comfort and tenderness to a people who have gone through a period of judgment because of sin (vv. 1, 2).
• His glory will be revealed to all mankind (v. 5).
• His Word stands forever (v. 8).
• His presence is a reason to proclaim good tidings (v. 9)
• He is the Sovereign Lord who comes with power (v. 10)
• He gathers his flock in His arms and carries them close to His heart (v. 11)
• He has measured the waters and the Heavens with His hand (v. 12).
• His mind is beyond our understanding or counsel (vv. 13, 14).
• Nations are like a drop in the bucket and islands are like fine dust compared to Him (vv. 15-17).
• He is beyond comparison and cannot be worshipped by means of any physical image (v. 18-20).
• His throne is the earth and people are as small as grasshoppers next to Him (v. 22-24).
• He has no equal and has created all things. He is Holy (v. 25-26).
• He is the everlasting God who never gets tired (vv. 28).
• He gives strength to weary and weak people (v. 29).
• To those who hope in Him, He gives renewed strength to soar on wings of eagles, run and not grow weary, and walk and not be faint.

Those who do not know such a God should fear one of such power. Those who know Him should find comfort and confidence in God's goodness and greatness.

This is the fourth in my series of posts on the Apostle's Creed. The others can be found here, here, and here.