Category: Christianity

A few days ago, Stephen Hawking died. To me, Hawking was just a guy in a wheelchair that suffered from an illness. For some reason he seems to many in pop-culture a successor to Carl Sagan. The only thing both men seem to have in common was a disdain and hatred for organized religion—especially Christianity (why is it that Liberal icons never say anything bad about Islam?)—and both claimed that the cosmos can be explained without a Creator.

Stephen Hawking says he’s an atheist, arguing that science offers a “more convincing explanation” for the origins of the universe and that the miracles of religion “aren’t compatible” with scientific fact.

“…if there was a God, but there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”

In 2011, he told The Guardian that he didn’t believe in a heaven or an afterlife, calling it “a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”

Stephen Hawking Says ‘There Is No God,’ Confirms He’s An Atheist

I find it curious that Christopher Hitchens did not get the same send-off when he died. He believed the same things as Hawking and Sagan.

After people die, there is often a bunch of sentimental nonsense uttered in an effort to comfort those left behind. This is doubly true of those with no hope. Much of this sentimentality comes from or about people with no evidence of faith. In such circumstances we often hear things attributed to them that are undeserved.

“Baby Doe is in a better place now.”

“Uncle Bob is in a place with no cancer.”

“Pirate Sven is sailing in a place with fair winds and calm seas.”

“Johnny don’t be so sad. I’m sure Grandma is running through a meadow in her bare feet and she and Grandpa are looking down on you.”

 

Such was the case for Wonder Woman actress Gal Gadot.

“Rest in peace Dr. Hawking,” Gadot wrote in a tweet. “Now you’re free of any physical constraints. Your brilliance and wisdom will be cherished forever.”

Gal Gadot’s Seemingly Innocent Tribute To Stephen Hawking Offended Some People

I have a number of problems with this expression of sentimentality.

First, I think Gadot was trying to be compassionate towards those left behind in Hawking’s family. In our culture “Rest in Peace” is often used, especially for those who knew no peace in this life or suffered greatly. This expression is an indirect reference to the belief expressed in Revelation 21:4

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Second, atheist Hawking has no reason to hope for any rest. The best he can do is hope for the oblivion expressed in Ecclesiastes 9:5

For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

However, we are assured that all men will stand before God on the last day.

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Hebrews 9:27

The Bible is pretty clear that God doesn’t believe in atheists.

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Revelation 21:8

Gadot received lots of blowback from the Tweet that I just commented on but not from the religious community. It was an attack from disabled leftists and atheists.

People with disabilities and their advocates took offense at Gadot’s statement that Hawking was finally free of his “physical constraints” and said the assertion was ableist, or discriminatory toward people with disabilities.

Gal Gadot’s Seemingly Innocent Tribute To Stephen Hawking Offended Some People

This subgroup of the disabled community who are attacking Gadot are really attacking the foundations of Western Culture. They are denying sin and its effects on the Creation. The Bible is clear that we all have corruptible bodies that are tainted by the effects of sin and that we will get a resurrected body that is incorruptible.

And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.
1 Corinthians 15:49-58

For the disabled community to attack Gadot like they did is a denial that all our bodies are corrupted. When we say ‘disabled” we are talking of degrees of how defective our bodies are. We all age, we all died, we all return to dust. The Bible is clear that no matter how distorted it may be, we are image bearers of God and made in His image. Each of us is created just as God wanted us—even if we are blind or lame we are “fearfully and wonderfully made”.

Another comment on Hawking’s death also got some media attention.

A Texas state representative came under fire on social media Wednesday over a tweet about famed British physicist Stephen Hawking that some found insensitive.

Just hours after Hawking died, Rep. Briscoe Cain, a Republican, tweeted: “Stephen Hawking now knows the truth about how the universe was actually made. My condolences to his family.” Hawking died Wednesday at age 76.

But despite the overwhelming criticism, the lawmaker remained defiant and stood behind his comment.

“While many see him as one of the greatest public intellectuals of the last century, and no one disputes that he was brilliant, the fact remains that God exists,” Cain told the American-Statesman. “My tweet was to show the gravity of the Gospel and what happens when we die, namely, that we all will one day meet the Creator of the universe face to face.

“Stephen Hawking was a vocal atheist, who advocated against and openly mocked God,” Cain continued. “Hawking has said, ‘[T]here is no god. No one created our universe, and no one directs our fate.’ And, elsewhere, `I’m an atheist.’”

Lawmaker’s tweet after physicist Stephen Hawking’s death draws criticism

My first reaction to Briscoe Cain’s comments is preach it brother. God has done everything to necessary to keep us out of Hell but only if we come to Him through Jesus. We can’t live life as we see fit and expect to enter Heaven on our own merit. The best works we could possibly do are called by God “filthy rags”.

But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Isaiah 64:6

But what are filthy rags? The best modern translation is “used tampons”. Here is the Strong’s definition.

In the Old Testament, a woman having her period was ceremonially unclear during that time and for a few days after. So the bottom line is that your best works of righteousness are not just physically unclean but keep you from entering God’s presence. They are fit for nothing but to be burned.

God’s remedy was to send Jesus to die in our place so His righteousness could be used to obtain what we could not, peace with God. But we can only do this on His terms not ours. Only then can we say this:

We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
2 Corinthians 5:8

Stephen Hawking chose poorly.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Romans 1: 18-23

My question is this, is the world that we live in an open or closed system. This sounds outside of the type of categories that we normally use to define or discuss reality; however, I think it has some significant implications. For those philosophy nerds out there, the discussion below uses generalizations to move the discussion forward without pursuing every conceivable rabbit trail that one may encounter on this topic.

Closed System
This idea is that the world around us is mechanistic. The nature of the mechanism is much debated. At one extreme are the Darwinists that think Chaos, Randomness, and Time are the only real rules of the Universe. Any honest observers can see that there is Oder and Purpose to much of what we observe, so the other extreme of the closed system is the clockmaker of Deism. If there is a god, he made the system and we can debate whether he occasionally tinkers with it or not. In this group you will also find Eastern ideas of pantheism, cyclical rebirth, and Yen & Yang.

Open System
This view is found in Jewish and Christian tradition. God is Personal, Loving, and Knowable. He governs the Universe in regular, knowable ways (Natural Laws) but God is not a mere observer, He tends His Creation as one might tend a garden.  Nothing happens outside of God’s will. The debate within this view is does God allow things to happen or actively cause them to happen? Within an open system, people believe that they can genuinely pray and ask God to change the direction of an event—large or small—and if it is His will, He will respond to our petitions to make alterations.

A closed system is without hope. Nihilism and helplessness are the lot of men. The law of tooth and talon reigns supreme. Some folks in the East even think we get to do it all over again until we achieve perfect nothingness. What a dismal prospect.

An open system explains the things that have no basis in a closed system. Love, joy, compassion, purpose, intelligence, and design are all aspects of our Creator and since man is made in His image, we also share in a small way in His nature. Man is imperfect but still retains the marks of our Creator, his fingerprints on the clay so to speak.

The Problem of Sin
Because of sin, we are not in a right relationship with God. Furthermore, we are powerless to correct the problem. The Bible speaks of our attempts at good works to earn God’s merit as “filthy rags”. Folks this phrase is loaded with much content that doesn’t come thru even in King James English. The “filthy rags” are the unclean rags that result from a woman’s monthly cycle. The Bible is stating that your best efforts are rubbish only fit for the fire.

Man’s natural state is one of rebellion and separation from God. Only God can repair the separation of this relationship. It cost the life of His Son, Jesus. Only thru His death and sacrifice—dying in our place—was the penalty of sin paid. Only God’s remedy can restore our relationship. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, the Life. No man comes to the Father but by me.”

Some folks might ask why God—whom Christians claim is all knowing and all powerful—doesn’t just do away with evil, suffering, death, etc.? There are many ways to answer the question, but Jesus directly addressed the issue in this way:

The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Matthew 13: 24 – 30.

Simply put, to root out evil by force will adversely affect the righteous. While all men are tainted by sin, not all will be redeemed. It is better that both continue to grow side by side until the harvest. As they mature, it will be apparent which are weeds and which are good grain. C.S. Lewis spoke of this as over time each will become consistent in its nature, the bad becoming more evil and the good becoming more righteous.

God is not evil but is able to use evil and rebellion against Him to bring His will to fruition. We are not told how He does this just that He does. Some questions about the “why” and “how” are beyond the scope of what has been revealed to us. At some point, we must trust. Some things can be called a “mystery” while others are just not revealed to us. As Lewis states in his Narnia books, they are not part of your story (and the clear implication of this statement also carries with it the idea that thus they are none of your business). Lewis believed that God’s revelation was on a need to know basis, if we don’t need it to know Him then it is not revealed to us.

The bottom line is that the prayers of His children will be answered but only to the extent that our petitions are in accordance with His will. The good news is that God is always active in his creation and incrementally redeeming it as we move closer to the promised harvest.

Today is the funeral of Rev Billy Graham.

I wanted to briefly discuss how Billy Graham touched my family and affected my relationship with God as a result. I thought this a fitting tribute. While my beliefs don’t perfectly align with his, I wish this blog to accentuate the positive on this occasion.

As a condition of being married in the Roman Church, my dad was required to sign an agreement with the Church that he would allow his children to be raised Roman Catholic—my mom’s faith. Just over a decade later, in the 1970’s, I was transitioning from a private Catholic elementary school to a public junior high.

At this period, my mom watched Billy Graham on a local television broadcast. She knew about Jesus but felt distant from him. As Graham spoke, she felt her need to have a more lively faith and walk with Christ. As Graham asked his audience to pray with him, so did my mother.

Graham’s basic message included the concept that it was not our works—the things that we did or did not do—that got us into heaven but that our works were inadequate to gain salvation. Our sin separated us from God. Only the work of Christ dying on our behalf could get us into heaven. We must acknowledge our sin and ask Christ to forgive us and enter our hearts. It was not the external that related us to God but the renewing of our hearts that cause our regeneration (in Graham’s terminology, being born again). To this end, it was Graham’s practice to conclude his sermons with a call to get into a right relationship with God. As such, he would ask that people pray with him as he recited “the sinner’s prayer”.

 

This prayer caused a change in my mother and she began to explore other places to worship. As a result, we ended up attending a local Baptist church. A few months later, my sisters and I attended a summer camp sponsored by the new church. At camp, we also made a commitment of our lives to Christ.

As a result of my camp experience, I was a different person. I had a hunger for reading the Bible and learning about God. I had a lively faith and wanted to share it with others. Over the years, I have continued my walk with God, sometimes closer than others. I have moved beyond the Baptist ways and found a way to make peace with the Roman Church as well.

I am grateful to the ministry of Billy Graham for the difference that has been made in my life.

Today’s blog is one of several that I’ve been intending to write over the last several weeks but now that my finals are behind me, I have time to get caught-up.

There’s an old tale about some folks dying and upon arriving in Heaven, they are given the introductory tour of their new home by none other than Saint Peter. They visit the Catholic section, the Methodist area, the Pentecostal borough and so forth until at last they get to this one neighborhood and St Peter begins whispering. Sensing this sudden change, one of the tourists softly asks, “Why are we whispering?” Peter responds, “We must be quiet because this is the Baptist section and they think they’re the only ones up here.”

Sadly, this is truer than many folks would like to admit.

My topic today is one that has been hitting close to home because the daughter unit has ventured out into the world to spread her wings and for some reason she has decided to worship at a Baptist church. A majority of Protestants in the United States are Baptists in their theology even if they call themselves something else. If your church teaches “The Sinner’s Prayer”, walking the aisle, “making a decision for Christ”, likes singing Just As I Am, or “every head bowed and eye closed” then you are Baptists or the theological offspring of Baptists. Typically these folks will only recognize baptism by immersion and use grape juice for Communion. A corollary is that these guys unchurch everyone else in the body of Christ because we practice infant Baptism.

Before proceeding, let me say a few words about my own experience with this topic in the hopes that I can be granted some credibility by my readers.

I was baptized as an infant in the Roman Catholic Church. I attended Catholic School K – 6. After seventh grade, I walked the aisle at a Baptist Church Camp and “gave my life to Jesus Christ”. A few months later I was baptized again in a local Baptist church. I spent many years in the Baptist world and then after wandering for a few more, I trekked thru Charismania until I came at last to a Reformed understanding of Christianity. I understand the arguments on both sides because I literally have been in each camp at some point or another in my life.

Believer’s Baptism
The Baptist argument is that the Bible says Belief and then Baptism. Hence the name, Believer’s Baptism.

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Mark 16: 16

For someone coming from outside the Church, belief and then baptism is normal. Where we have a difference is when talking about children born into a Christian home.  The moral high ground that people think that Believer’s Baptism gives them dissolves quickly in this area.

Essentially, the paradigm that Baptists appear to embrace is that nobody is regarded as a believer until they make a profession of faith and then they can be baptized. This position would include their young children. Such a position would be consistent if somewhat harsh; especially in light of these verses:

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” 
Acts 2: 38 & 39

They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”  Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house.  At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. 
Acts 16: 31-33

How can God’s promise be “for you and your children” if children born to Christian parents are just young pagans?

Age of Accountability
Baptists are squeamish about this situation too but their answer is sentimentality not Scripture. You see, they say that they believe that the only way to the Father is faith in Christ but those not professing faith go to Hell. So what happens when a parent has a miscarriage or their child drowns in the neighbor’s pool or said child dies of cancer at three years of age? Surely such innocent children go to Heaven right?

It is at this point that Baptist folks introduce the doctrine of an “age of accountability.” They say that until a child can know the difference between right and wrong that they are in a state of innocence. Thus if a child dies in this state, they will go to Heaven if they die.

I once held this view until “the baby shower.” “The baby shower” was held at Gibson Ranch, here in the Sacramento area. It was in fact an event sponsored by Operation Rescue to crash a company picnic being held by a local abortion clinic. Like others at the event, I got toe-to-toe with some people on the other side. The lady that I got into a discussion with took this concept of an age of accountability and hit me right between the eyes with it. Her argument was simple and effective. “If an unborn child cannot know the difference between right and wrong, where does the child go when it dies?”

I instinctively replied, “To Heaven.”

She continued, “But if that child were born and was old enough to know right from wrong then they could go to Hell for rejecting Jesus, right?”

I answered, “Yes”  and knew that she had me painted into a corner that I couldn’t escape from.

Under this doctrine of an age of accountability, the only way to insure someone would go to Heaven was not by placing their faith in Jesus but being aborted!

Think about it, universal salvation is free to all that are murdered before knowing right and wrong. This principle also allows that the mentally handicapped can be literally put down for their own good and as a bonus we have assurance that we are sending them to Heaven. Could this apply to elderly with dementia too? Lastly, wasn’t this view all the rage in Europe about 80 years ago?

Even though Baptists reject infant baptism, they have a substitute that they practice; baby dedication. They bring an infant before the congregation and make a promise that is very similar to infant baptism to raise their children in the faith in hopes that they will one day believe and make the faith of their parents their own.

Unfortunately, these Baptists that think they are attending “Bible believing” churches are building parts of their faith on the sands of their own creation and not Biblical teaching. Biblically speaking, I could make a better case for Purgatory than for an age of accountability.

Again, what do Baptists do with their children? Are they little pagans or children of the promises of Christ?

Rebaptism
The other situation that you encounter in the Baptist Church (and from their fellow theological travelers) is the kneejerk reaction to unchurch everyone else by saying their baptism is invalid.

However, the Bible only knows one Christian Baptism and one formula for the baptism.

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Galatians 3: 26 – 29

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism;  one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
Ephesians 4: 4–6

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Matthew 28: 19

Again, there is one baptism in the Church and one formula, baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Baptists try to argue two things, you must believe before being baptized and that the method must be immersion. Why is it that Baptists take the Greek word for baptism literally while the Greek word for wine is figurative?

Baptists are not alone in arguing about methodology as it relates to baptism, the Orthodox Church argues that only infant baptism that includes Chrismation is valid.

Since most don’t know what I’m referring to, here is Wikipedia version of Chrismation

Typically, one becomes a member of the Church by baptism and chrismation performed by a priest as a single service, or subsequent to baptism performed by a layman. While chrismation is often performed without baptism, baptism is never performed without chrismation; hence the term “baptism” is construed as referring to the administration of both sacraments (or mysteries), one after the other.
Wikipedia: Chrismation

Why can’t Christians talk about such things as our preference is better than yours instead of unchurching everyone with a different view?

Alternative Interpretation
There is a different paradigm that can be used to look at this question, one that includes a consistent theological view that treats children as Christian children and deals with the biblical teaching that there is one baptism in the Church.

The Bible only knows one baptism. It does not attach an age or belief to performing it. Only the parents (or head of the household depending on how you read it) must believe in order for all to be baptized.

Look at Acts 16: 31-33 or other similar verses.

They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”  Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house.  At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized.

The pattern is clear, parents believe and all –including children are baptized. Such verses don’t list exceptions or weasel words. For those that know the Ten Commandments, you might notice this principle is similar to Exodus 20: 8-11

Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.  Six days you shall labor and do all your work,  but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns.  For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

The Sabbath was for the entire household not just Jewish members.

The historic Christian position is not one of individualism and Arminianism, but Covenantalism. Baptism is the New Testament covenant symbol in the same way as circumcision was in the Old. Thus children are baptized as infants because God’s promise really extends to the next generation just as He promised in both the Old and New Testaments.

So what happens if a child grows up and rejects the faith? The same thing that happened in the Old Testament; the child is treated as a Covenant member until such time as they bear fruit that says otherwise. There is an expectation that as a child matures that he will make the faith of his fathers into his own. The Jews have bar mitzvah (or bat mitzvah) while Christians in many parts of the Church have Confirmation. Confirmation is a reaffirming of the vows made at the infant baptism of a child.  This is where the child makes the faith of their parents into their own.

Confirmation also serves another use which biblically solves the rebaptism dilemma. Let me illustrate.

Teddy Texan lives in Houston and is attending the local mega-church run by Joel Osteen. Joel baptizes Teddy in front of thousands of people. For purposes of this illustration, Joel uses the correct formula and baptizes Teddy in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Later, Teddy takes a job in Sweetwater Oklahoma and starts attending the Park Avenue Anglican Assembly. Park Avenue is in a very different theological place than Joel Osteen but Teddy wants to join their church. What should they do? Should they require Teddy to be baptized again? Park Avenue knows that Teddy was baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but Joel’s theology is heretical so what should be done? Knowing church history, Park Avenue’s Pastor—because he did have formal biblical training unlike Osteen—knows that this very question was faced by the early church. The answer of the early church was Confirmation. Teddy attends classes to be sure that he believes the historic doctrines of the Creeds and then is welcomed into the church via a Confirmation ceremony.

This has been the historic answer to the rebaptism question, not another baptism but a confirmation of faith. Thus the New Testament position of one faith and one baptism is honored and the doctrine of the Church is defended.

Conclusion

The Bible says, “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” 
Acts 2: 39

The truth is that the Baptists are the ones that are building their theological house on the sands of their own making. There no biblical warrant for children to wait until they can experience “Believer’s Baptism”. There is no such thing as an “age of accountability” in Scripture. There is no such concept as a “sinner’s prayer” or “Alter Call” in the Bible. The Bible does not know a baby dedication ceremony apart from receiving the sign of the Covenant. The only rebaptism you can find is when someone was baptized by John the Baptist and then again by receiving Christian baptism.

While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples   and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”  So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied.  Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”  On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 18: 1-5

Christians being baptized again by another group of Christian believers is not found in the Bible and in fact is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture.

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
Ephesians 4:4-6

I don’t unchurch my Baptist brothers just because they are wrong about one of the core tenants of their theology. I walked in their shoes for the better part of two decades before I was able to set aside their traditions of men and rely on the Bible. I just wish they would grant the rest of Christ’s Church the same grace that we are willing to extend to them.

As for the daughter unit, if she goes forward with joining the Baptists by being rebaptized, she is squandering her inheritance and simultaneously excommunicating her mother and brother. In fact, the practical ramification of rebaptism would be a declaration that she believes her mother and brother are damned and going to spend eternity in Hell. Child, ideas have consequences. I’d like to think you were raised better than that.

For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

1 Corinthians 2: 2

Introduction
Whether ancient or modern, Christians claim that we all need to come to Jesus. Furthermore, while church membership does not save you, most bodies expect that you will affiliate with a group of believers once you have made a profession of faith. This has been the case since the time of the Apostles. It was the practice in the early church that converts would go through a period of two to three years of discipleship and learning before formally joining the church via baptism; often as part of the Easter worship celebration. Catechisms date to the first century; the oldest being the Didache (also known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles).

In most Christian groups, baptism is the normative method of adding a person to church membership. Membership for people coming to the church from outside also involves some instruction or agreement with a statement of principles. Children raised in the church may follow a different path than outsiders to achieve full membership and privileges in their particular denomination. Following baptism, Christians can access Holy Communion or Eucharist which involves partaking in the symbolic body and blood of Christ.

Thus far, I think I have avoided stepping on anyone’s theological toes but clearly I’m about to stomp on somebody’s.

Membership Has Is Privileges
Church membership is a means of guarding access to Communion but what if it’s a barrier to people joining your church due to extra biblical requirements.

We sing songs like “Just as I Am” But do we really mean it?

Is your church a hospital for sinners or an exclusive club that only allows “the right kind of people” to join?

Frankly, I’ve been struggling with this very question for many months and I don’t like the conclusion that I’ve reached. Let me set this issue up for you and see if you agree.

Positive Spin
First, there are two different ways to define or describe your beliefs. You can use negative statements or positive ones.

Negative example
“I don’t drink and I don’t chew and I don’t go with girls that do.”

Positive example
“I believe in healthy life choices and avoid the common vices of the ignorant. My ideal life partner will embrace similar views to mine.”

As the old song says, “Emphasize the positive.”

Sometimes by stating the positive answer, you are leaving unstated that the opposite condition is bad.

Have you ever heard someone say something like this? “I believe that faith in Jesus is necessary for salvation and I look forward to spending eternity with Him.”

This is a very positive statement and a true one. However, what is left unstated? The negative corollary can be condensed to this, “If you reject Jesus then you will spend eternity in Hell.”

The Westminster Confession of Faith—when dealing with things like the Ten Commandments—states both what is forbidden and what is commanded by God’s Law.

Remarkable Claims
In the church that I attend, the Preface of the denomination’s Constitution concludes with this remarkable sentence:

Accordingly, we profess that the principles set out in this Constitution are binding on us in the same way as are the historic confessions of faith, catechisms, and creeds of the church listed below.

The church’s constitution is just as binding as the Historic Creeds! Let that sink in for a moment before you continue reading my post.

In light of both the above; namely, people stating their viewpoint in the most positive way and the Constitution of the church being equal to the Historic Creeds, please read the following carefully.

Accordingly, we reject the subordination of the family and church to the State in matters of faith and religious practice. As an extension,

(i) We believe in promoting and supporting the training of our children in Christian educational institutions, especially in the home schooling method.

Book of Church Order, page 6 (B. 2. e. WCF 23)

What is left unstated? What is the negative of these statements?

Positive—what is commanded
“We reject the subordination of the family … to the State…we believe in … training our children in Christian educational institutions…”

Negative—what is forbidden
“We accept the subordination of the family … to the State…we believe in … training our children in State educational institutions…”

Translation: Good Christian parents don’t send their children to public schools.

Here is a portion of Deuteronomy 6  which will be discussed below:

And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

(Variations of the word “command” appear 14 times in this chapter.)

We promote and support the Christian educational training of children

The Bible gives parents the clear direction in Deuteronomy 6 that they are to train their children in the statutes of the Lord throughout the day. This mandate is compromised when children are sent to public institutions of learning where they are indoctrinated in the principles of secular humanism and influenced by worldly peers and teachers. The result of such secular instruction is a weakened church and divided families. We promote, instead, those educational alternatives which are guided by and serve Biblical principles and purposes. These include Christian homeschooling and biblically regulated covenant schools.

Distinctives

Please note that the “clear direction in Deuteronomy 6 ” is described as a “mandate ” in the next sentence. If a mandate is found in Scripture then I think it can fairly be described as a Command of God.

Using word substitution the second sentence reads as follows:

“This Command of God is compromised when children are sent to public institutions of learning where they are indoctrinated in the principles of secular humanism and influenced by worldly peers and teachers.”

Granted that it’s been a few years since I was in a Sunday school room, but don’t we tell children that sin is the result of breaking God’s Law, His Commandments?

Here is the logic:
1 God commands us to educate children “in the statutes of the Lord throughout the day.” This is God’s Will, His Command, His Instruction.
2 This Commandment (mandate) is violated by sending our children to a State run government school.
3. Disobeying God’s Commands is sin.
Therefore, sending your child to a public school is a sin.

Even if you want to stop short of describing sending children to public school as a violation of God’s Commandment (or you’re just squirmy about it), per the above you are still sinning because James 4: 17 states:

Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.

Privileged Have Their Membership
This is the set of rules that governs the church that I have been attending for the last few years. Over time, this distinctive has really grown to bother me. In my previous blog, I spoke of the suspicion of strangers and the simultaneous lament that the church is not growing. Now throw a prohibition against public schooling in the mix. I look at the totality of the beliefs and practices that I have mentioned and marvel at how we have twisted the Gospel of Christ.

So what happens if Bobby Baptist were to experience the Light of the Reformation and as he begins to embrace the likes of John Calvin, he comes to our church? Or Peter Pagan manages to run the gauntlet and get a chair during our service and then comes to a saving faith as he hears the Gospel from the pulpit?

What are we to do?

In a state like California, a married couple with children is likely to be struggling with two college loans, two car payments, a mortgage, and a host of other bills. Both he and the wife work and their children are in public school.

Believing the Gospel is not enough in our congregation. At what point do we have to deny people access to the Lord’s Table because they are openly sinning against God’s Commandment by sending their children to public school?

It is common practice in the church that people in open rebellion and sin are not only prohibited from Communion but will be subject to the discipline of the church including trial and excommunication if they don’t change their ways.

My family is the only non-home school family that is a member of the congregation. We often joke that we were the most conservative members at our previous church and now we are the most liberal. But all kidding aside, this is a serious issue.

We have added a socio-economic barrier to church membership that discriminates not on the basis of the Historic Creeds and Christian Faith but an additional demand of income; so if God doesn’t bless you materially as much as somebody else then we don’t want you. If you were a young man that made poor financial decisions—as defined by Dave Ramsey—then you can’t be in our little club?

What happened to James 1: 27?

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Remember that applying Deuteronomy 6 to the issue of public schools is a serious doctrinal position. The Commands in this passage are clearly not optional.

Consequences of Exclusivity
The culture of distrust of strangers which I discussed in a previous blog and condemnation of those not home schooling their children colors the actions of our congregation. The things that I have described about the church not only keep people from getting in but keep us from reaching out.

We are unwilling to go to the highways and byways and compel them to come in. We systematically refuse to get involved in our community. I can’t help but wonder if this is because we only want to minister to people that already are predisposed to agree with us. However, people that home school for religious reasons are typically already involved in a church somewhere and not usually looking to jump to another congregation.

If we really want to grow our church we need to reach out to the unchurched or those underserved by their current house of worship. We purposely offer no programs for youth or children because we are “family integrated” which means that children sit with their parents during church. We don’t own our own building so there are no mid-week services or events. The net result is that we can’t out do the programs offered by the local mega-church, so we refuse to offer anything. Thus, our only real opportunities for growth lie in converting the heathen or reaching people that left the church earlier in their youth.

Try this scenario. Our friend, Peter Pagan and his wife have experienced a conversion by attending our church. They believe in all the tenants of the Historic Creeds and ask the pastor to join the church. At what point do you ask about having his wife quit her job and moving the children out of the public school?

If the church really believes what it claims, would it be unreasonable to comp the family so they can attend Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace University and help them develop a plan to be able to live off of one income? What about childcare and medical benefits for the family? Can we help the father develop his skills and get a better job to make all this achievable? Sadly none of these things has ever been discussed, let alone implemented.

Christian education—especially home schooling—is not just a preference of the denomination it is a “mandate”. How does Peter Pagan get from where he is to where the denomination says he should be? Sadly, he is left to his own devices.

Conclusion
Now I’ve shared my dilemma with you. Coming “just as I am” is just not good enough. I clearly can’t change the rules of the denomination or the culture of the congregation. But where else would I go? I agree that in theory a Christian Education—however that is defined—is better than the government option in many instances but…

To circle back to the beginning of my discussion, is my church a hospital for sinners or an exclusive club that only allows “the right kind of people” to join?

Meanwhile, if you have paid off your student loans, cars, mortgage, and credit cards; your wife can stay home all day to cook, clean, and teach the children; and you can throw ten percent of your income into the collection basket each month then look us up; we’ll be happy to have you. Oh, and don’t forget about the potluck after the service.

I often critique or admonish the behavior of other folks on this blog. Often it is because of something that I care about or view as a potential learning opportunity for readers. This blog post is about my church and a set of problems that I have been having with them. I can think of three things with which I have real disagreements with the leadership. Two of the three will be discussed publicly and the other will not. The present subject is the first upon which I wish to vent.

Strangers

The Bible has much to say on the subject of strangers. Some folks clearly do better than others in regard to how they treat new people. Here are some sample passages from the Bible:

• Rahab the harlot treated strangers well and became an ancestor of Jesus.
• The people of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to fornicate with the strangers (angels) visiting their cities on the final night of their existence.
• Joseph treated his brothers harshly and with many trials before revealing himself.
• The disciples were told that if they were treated badly to shake the dust off their feet when leaving an unwelcoming town.
• Hebrews tells us, “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.”
• Exodus reminds the Jews, “Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
• Matthew quotes Jesus, “For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:…”
• Paul wrote the Ephesians, “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God;”
• John said, “Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the brethren, and to strangers;”

Given the weight of biblical evidence, it is clear that we are to treat strangers the same way as those we know. People that have one set of rules for themselves and another for the masses are violating Scripture.

Furthermore, those claiming any part in the theology of John Calvin bump into the doctrine of Predestination. One thing that Predestination means is that everything has been ordained by God for His purposes. Unfortunately for my church, that includes encounters with strangers.

My church is openly hostile of strangers. We meet in a rented public building next to a very large park. We place signs out on the street showing folks where we meet and then lock all the doors to the building. We used to have unlocked doors that were guarded. For some reason, allowing folks to enter the building that want to use the bathroom is equated with inviting bad guys into our place of worship.

Many men in my church carry firearms to the service and many of the young men carry as many as three knives. Young children are expected to be escorted to the bathroom and are never left unattended.

Are we hyper-Calvinists or what? Why can’t a stranger entering our door be viewed as a Providential appointment to share the Gospel? Why not expect that people will respond favorably to Christ and stop assuming that everyone that we don’t know wishes us ill or is at least an irritation that we don’t want to deal with? What happened to give a cup of water in the name of the Lord?

It is ironic that members lament that our numbers are not growing and wonder why? “Welcoming” is never a word used to describe our fellowship. It seems to me that we are way too busy hiding under our bushel basket instead of being a light. Yeah, lights may attract moths but it also can lead people to safety.

The final irony is that two members of the congregation are registered sex offenders and nobody is afraid of them. (This policy towards strangers predates the attendance of either man.)

Reformation or Revival, we need a little more Jesus in our lives today.

On Oct. 31, 1517, an Augustinian monk named Martin Luther posted 95 debate questions on the door of Wittenberg Church, which began the movement known as “the Reformation.”
Link: 500 Years Ago Today: The Birth of Protestantism