How To Tear the Church Apart

I really enjoy Kevin DeYoung's Blog. He usually posts once a day and it is almost always worth reading. Here is an older blog post on trying to balance forgiveness and faithfulness, especially in relationship to church discipline. I enjoyed his last paragraph:

There are two things that will always tear a church apart, sometimes slowly and imperceptibly and sometimes quickly and loudly, but these two things will always rip the fabric of Holy Spirit unity: having no standards and having impossible standards. If you can get one of those two things going on in a church you will be well along your way to ruining that church. But if you can by God’s power find a way to uphold moral and doctrinal standards with a spirit of mercy, humility, and eager forgiveness, then that will be a mighty church and even the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

Counseling Begins in the Pew

Carl Trueman on why Luther thinks you should go to church.

"One could imagine a person seeking Luther's advice for, say, struggles with assurance. Luther's first question of him would almost certainly be, Are you going to church to hear the Word and receive the sacrament? If the answer came back in the negative, it is safe to assume that Luther would send the person away to attend church for a few weeks before he would consider giving him individual counsel. If the person had excluded himself from the objective means of grace, not only would spiritual problems be expected, but also Luther could really offer nothing else to help him."

 

Mary in the Roman Catholic Catechism

Several years ago I read through the Roman Catholic Catechism (RCC) ...twice. For those of you not familiar with the RCC, it is not like the Westminster Catechism or the Heidelberg.  It is almost 700 pages long with numerous footnotes referencing the church fathers, other documents, and Scripture. I expected to find merit theology, justification by works, tradition as equal with Scripture, as well as solid sections on many ethical issues of the day, such as divorce in the RCC. It did not disappoint. One thing I did not expect to find but did, was the prominence of Mary throughout the RCC. Reading the RCC one can see that she is a central part of Roman Catholic theology. Mary is one of the clearest examples of key Roman Catholic doctrines, such as Papal authority, extra-biblical tradition, invocation of the saints, liturgical power, and merit theology. Moving past theology into the 20th and 21st century, Mary gives the Roman Catholics a female power figure when the world was longing for someone to overthrow the patriarchy of the Scriptures. Here are some quotes about Mary's participation in Christ's work and her role in salvation and worship from the Roman Catholic Catechism. My only purpose in this post is to present the Roman Catholic teaching on Mary. All formatting is from the RCC except the phrases I put in bold. 

The preface by Pope John Paul ends with a prayer to Mary. "I beseech the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Incarnate Word and Mother of the Church, to support with her powerful intercession the catechetical work of the entire Church on every level…(p. 6)

Later the RCC talks about the obedience of faith saying, "Abraham is the model of such obedience offered us by Sacred Scripture. The Virgin Mary is its most perfect embodiment. (p. 39)

And further in the same section, "The Virgin Mary most perfectly embodies the obedience of faith. Throughout her life and until her last ordeal when Jesus her Son died on the cross, Mary's faith never wavered...And so the Church venerates in Mary the purest realization of faith." (p. 40)

And later, "The Virgin Mary is the supreme model of this faith... (p. 72)

In the section on her Immaculate Conception this is said, "Mary...was redeemed from the moment of her conception." (p. 123)

Pope Pius IX in 1854 said, "The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception...preserved immune from all stain of original sin." (p. 124)

And, By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long. (p. 124)

On her perpetual virginity it is said, "Mary is a virgin because her virginity is the sign of her faith... (p. 127)

"Finally, through Mary, the Holy Spirit begins to bring men, the objects of God's merciful love into communion with Christ." (p. 191)

In a section on the holiness of the Church the RCC says, "But while in the most Blessed Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she exists without spot or wrinkle, the faithful strive to conquer sin and increase in holiness. And so they turn their eyes to Mary: in her the Church is already the 'all-holy.'" (p. 220)  

Later under a section title "Wholly united with her son" it says, 

Mary's role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to his death; it is made manifest above all at the hour of the Passion. Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother's heart." (p. 251) 

Now it is possible to read these last two phrases simply as a mother suffering with her son. However, reading the rest of the description of Mary in the RCC it is unlikely that was the intention of the authors. 

The Catholics also believe that Mary did not die, but was assumed. 

Finally, the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory...The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and in an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians...she is a preeminent and wholly unique member of the Church...in a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior's work of restoring supernatural life to souls." (p. 252)

This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the final fulfillment of the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation....Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix." (p. 252) 

"The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship...the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title "Mother of God" to whose protection the faithful flee in all their dangers and needs...The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an epitome of whole Gospel, express this devotion to the Virgin Mary." (p. 253)

The entire section on "I Believe in the Holy Catholic Church" ends with this:

After speaking of the Church, her origin, mission, and destiny, we can find no better way to conclude than by looking to Mary. In her we contemplate what the Church already is in her mystery on her own pilgrimage of faith and and what she will be in the homeland at the end of her journey. There "in the glory of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity," "in the communion of all the saints," the Church is awaited by the one she venerates as Mother of her Lord and as her own mother. 

In a section on the indulgences there is a discussion of where we can get merit from. Mary is included here. "This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable and even pristine in their value before God. " (p. 371)

Later in describing the church as teacher the RCC says this, "From the Church [the Christian] learns the example of holiness and recognizes its model and source in the all-holy Virgin Mary." (p. 490)

In the future I will interact with these statements explaining how despite protests to the contrary the veneration of Mary does undermine the work of Christ and the Church. I believe there are many theological, liturgical, and church polity problems in the Roman Catholic Church. But I wonder how many false doctrines have such a stranglehold on the typical Roman Catholic as the veneration of Mary? The veneration of the Virgin Mary has a long tradition in the Catholic Church, a tradition bolstered by centuries of liturgical training. A good Catholic may not know why Mary is important, but they know she matters immensely. How do they know? They have been taught through the prayers and the liturgy. 

Putting Love in a Box

What is love? Perhaps no word is so often used, yet so rarely defined. The meaning floats around in the air. We are sure it means something. But what? For most, love is no doubt a feeling, an emotional response to something we desire or like. It can be a football team, a car, a pizza, or a woman. But for Christians, this definition is not just inadequate, it is blasphemous. For us love is bound up with the character of Almighty God, especially in the supreme act of sending His only Begotten Son. All love must be boxed in by this definition. That means for us love is primarily sacrifice; a willingness to give up so others might have. Greater love as no man than this to lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13). But moderns love is about what we want and what we get. If we love this girl then we will gladly abandon wife and children for her. For the modern, greater love has no man than this, to get what he wants no matter who gets hurt. So love must be boxed in by God's character. Here is my attempt to do that. 

1.      Love is not self-evident. Love must be defined and explained.

2.      God is love.  We cannot properly define love without the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  In the end, there is only the love of God. Hell will be a place of infinite hate. Heaven will be a place of infinite love. To speak of love without speaking of God is like a blind man talking about the glories of a Rembrandt painting. He may heard about the painting or even felt the painting, but he really has no idea what the painting is really about. 

3.      Who this Triune God is, is not self-evident. There are some remnants of God’s image in each man and each woman. But these remnants are twisted. Therefore we cannot come to a definition of God or love by looking into ourselves or at human relationships. We know God from the Scriptures, the whole Scriptures. Thus to know what love is, we must know who God is. To know who God is we must know the Bible. The only path to a coherent definition of love is through the Bible. To speak of love without speaking of the Bible is impossible.

4.      Every Christian believes they are acting out of love. Therefore to tell a Christian that they must love someone else is usually a waste of time. They believe they do love them. The Christian who refuses to call homosexuality a sin believes they are acting out of love. The Christian who tells every woman they meet that they must wear skirts to their ankles also believes they are acting out of love. The fire breathing legalist and the lesbian minister both believe they are acting out of love. No-one believes they are acting out of hate. This is true of most non-Christians as well, though there are some exceptions.

5.      Thus it is not enough to simply say, “You are not being loving.” We must prove how their behavior is inconsistent with the Biblical teaching on love. If they refuse to accept the Bible’s definition of love then they are not interested in worshiping God. They are only interested in worshiping their idol called “love.”

The Faithful Church

What must the church do to combat the idea that homosexuality is fine for Christians? 

1.       She must faithfully and courageously preach the whole Bible. She must particularly preach those passages which the world finds offensive.

2.       She must faithfully preach Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. This means two things: First, he, as our Savior, has defeated sin and can forgive all of our sins. Second, he, as our Lord, commands us to leave off sinful desires and actions.

3.       She must faithfully preach that Christ has given his Spirit that we might overcome our sins.  Those in Christ are freed from their sins.  Sodomy is not excluded.  This doesn’t just mean forgiveness, but it also means victory over those sins in our lives.

4.       She must faithfully show love to Christ, His Church, and to homosexuals by calling them to repent and turn from their sins.  This is to be done graciously, but without compromise.

5.       She must faithfully excommunicate all Christians who refuse to turn from their sins. This includes sodomites, adulterers, thieves, liars, pedophiles, pornography addicts, Pharisees, abusive husbands, etc. Here is one of the greatest failures of the modern church. Her refusal to discipline sinners has caused the inner life of the church to rot. It is hypocritical for a church to refuse to discipline the adulterer, but try to discipline the homosexual. Thus most don't discipline either. 

6.       She must faithfully work to drive wolves out of the Church. Any man or woman who teaches that sodomy is an acceptable lifestyle for Christians is a wolf who is working with Satan to tear the lambs into pieces. Pastor, elders, seminary professors, etc. must be exposed and disciplined who teach that sodomy is not a sin. 

7.       She must expect the world to hate her and persecute her. To combat this hatred she must fight with faith in Christ, steadfastness in prayer, clinging to God’s Word, holy living, the communion of saints, faithful worship, and Biblical love for neighbor. 

Slaughterhouse or Feast?

               Yesterday, I wrote a post stating that the main question in sodomy debate is, "Is homosexuality a sin?" Of course, I believe that it is because that is what the Scriptures teach. Tomorrow I will list some specific things the church should do. Today I want to remind us of what sin does to us.  It seems easy and loving to say that it is not a big deal if churches compromise on this particular issue. But the Word of God says otherwise. 

  

Sin which is not repented of and turned from:

1.       Is displeasing to God. (I Thess. 4:1-12)

2.       Separates us from God. (Isaiah 59:1-3)

3.       Enslaves us. (John 8:34)

4.       Is unnatural. (Romans 1:26-27)

5.       Destroys relationships. (James 4:1-6)

6.       Destroys families. (David’s Adultery, II Samuel 11-19, Titus 1:10-11)

7.       Destroys cultures and cities. (II Kings 17:7-23,Rev. 16:19)

8.       Brings death and unfruitfulness.  (Romans 6:23)

9.       Blinds us to the truth. (Matthew 23:16, 17, 19 24, 26)

10.   Brings down the wrath of God. (Col. 3:6)

11.   Sends us to Hell.  (I Corinthians 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21)

                No Christian who loves Christ, has understood forgiveness, and loves his neighbor would want someone to remain in the state above. To say that sodomy is not a sin is like sending men and woman to the slaughter house while we tell them they are going to a feast. It is a lie with terrible consequences for men, women, children, churches, cultures, and our witness for Christ. Any minister who declares that something is not a sin, which the Word declares is, has invited the devil into the midst of his church. He has declared, "I love to keep my people enslaved. I refuse to bring them to the One who can free." The church cannot declare forgiveness of sin and freedom from sin unless she declares that we are sinners.  

The Elect Lady in II John

1.      John opens his second epistle by referring to the elect lady and her children.  In verse 13 John closes his letter with a very similar phrase; “The children of your elect sister greet you.” It is usually thought that these two references are to a literal woman and her children. For example, my Reformation Study Bible says these two verses cannot refer to churches, but refer to real women for whom John had pastoral care. It is possible that John is referring to two blood sisters that he knew. However, it is more likely that this is a reference to two churches, especially when we examine his use of the term “children.”  John’s uses the term “children” frequently in I John (See I John 2:1, 12, 13, 18, 28, 3:1, 2, 7, 10, 18, 4:4, 5:2, 21).  The only place where it is possible he is referring to real children is 2:12-13, but even here it is not likely.  So here in II John, where children is used three times (vs. 1, 4, 13), it is likely John is referring to disciples, not to literal children. This means the phrases “elect lady” at the beginning and “elect sister” at the end are probably referring to two churches.  Paul frequently sends greetings from one church to another (See Romans 16:23, I Corinthians 16:19, II Corinthians 13:13, and Philippians 4:21-22). John is doing the same thing here though using different language. 

2.      This also has some bearing on John’s command in verse 10 about avoiding false teachers.  He tells the church that if someone does not teach that Jesus came in the flesh (vs. 7) they are to not “receive him into your house or greet him.”  We usually interpret this as meaning we should not allow a person teaching this doctrine into our home. However, if the letter is to a church, it is more likely that “house” here means the church. John is exhorting them to make sure they do not give these false teachers any welcome or any opportunity to teach in the church. It might have application in our homes. But the more direct application is that churches and denominations should not give any forum to false teachers. 

3.      The term for “lady” in verses 1 and 5 is, kuria, the feminine form of lord, kurios. It is only used in II John.  This is not just any woman. She is a queen who sits beside her Lord. 

What is Wrong with Missions?

Here are two great articles on what is wrong with missions. The first is by Doug Wilson. The second is over at the Bayly's Blog where they agree and add some nuance to what Pastor Wilson said. Both are worth your time and thought.

Pastor Doug Wilson's Post

The Bayly Brothers' Post

Haggai : Part I, Background

I finished preaching through the first nine minor prophets (Hosea-Zephaniah) in November. I did not preach the final three prophets (Haggai-Malachi) who prophesied to Israel after their return to the land following the exile. However, I did want to give my people a short introduction to these three post-exilic prophets. Here is the first part of that introduction. It has two parts; a general introduction to Israel's history following the conquering of the Northern Kingdom by Assyria in 722 B.C. and then a short introduction to Haggai.

General Background to the Minor Prophets
You may have noticed that there are twelve Minor Prophets. You may also have noticed that I only preached through the first nine. These first nine are referred to as pre-exilic prophets. All of them were written prior to Israel going into exile in 587/586 B.C. The last of these nine written was probably Habakkuk. The last three of the twelve Minor Prophets, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, are called the post-exilic prophets. These three prophesied following Israel’s return to the land. Here is the first of three short outlines on these final three Minor Prophets. The timeline below visualizes the chronology of Israel’s exile into Babylon, return to the Promise land, the rebuilding of the Temple and the rebuilding of Jerusalem.

722 B.C. The Northern Kingdom is conquered by Assyria
715 B.C. Hezekiah’s reformation
622 B.C. Josiah’s reformation (Zephaniah’s Prophecy)
612 B.C. Nineveh, the Assyrian capital, falls to Babylon
609-605 B.C. Habakkuk’s prophecy
605 B.C. Final assault by Egypt/Assyria against Babylon fails. Babylon gains total supremacy. The first deportation of Israelites to Babylon takes place. Daniel and his friends were probably in this first deportation.
597 B.C. First major invasion of Israel by Babylon
586 B.C. Final destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians occurs.
539 B.C. Persians conquer Babylon
538 B.C. Cyrus, King of Persia, issues a decree allowing Israel to return to the land. (II Chron. 36:22-23, Ezra 1)
538 B.C. First return to Israel takes place under Zerubbabel. (Ezra 1-6)
536 B.C. Restoration of the Temple begins, but stalls
520 B.C. Haggai and Zechariah are sent by God to encourage Israel to finish building the Temple. (Ezra 5:1-2)
515 B.C. The Temple is finished.
460 B.C. God sends Malachi to prepare the people for the ministry of Ezra and Nehemiah.
458 B.C. Ezra returns to the land. (Ezra 7-10)
445 B.C. Nehemiah returns to help rebuild the walls of Jerusalem.

The chronology here, as it is throughout the Scriptures, is important. The prophets are almost always placed in a very specific situation in history. They did not usually prophesy to the air. They prophesied to specific people in specific places who are concerned about specific things in their lives. We cannot understand or apply what is written if we do not first understand when and to whom it was written. Knowing the history of Israel is invaluable in understanding God’s Word.

Background to Haggai
Haggai consists of four sermon summaries that Haggai preached on three days in 520 B.C. These sermons were designed to push Israel to finish rebuilding the temple and to grow in holiness. Haggai is one of the most precisely dated books in the entire Bible. We cannot just date it to a general time period or even to a specific year. We can date Haggai to probably the day the sermons were preached. Here are the probable dates for the sermons that Haggai preached.

1st Sermon: Haggai 1:1-15, preached on August 29th, 520 B.C.
2nd Sermon: Haggai 2:1-9, preached on October 17th, 520 B.C.
3rd Sermon: Haggai 2:10-19 preached on December 18th, 520 B.C.
4th Sermon: Haggai 2:20-23 preached on December 18th, 520 B.C.

There is one other important date, September 17th. On this day, a short time after the first sermon, the people began to work on the temple again. Thus the last three sermons were preached while the temple was being worked on. The temple was not finished until March, 515 B.C.

Where to Begin

I have read several longer books on John Calvin's life over the last few years. Every time I am convicted of gaps in my pastoral ministry, not my theology. In fact, Calvin the pastor has had a greater influence on me than Calvin the theologian. Of course, the theology and the ministry go together, but the more I read about him the more convinced I am that it was his theology applied in the church at Geneva, not his theology written, where he left his greatest fingerprint. I recently read David W. Hall's short work on Calvin, The Legacy of John Calvin. This quote struck me because it confirmed what I had been feeling as I read about Calvin.

"While Calvin's accomplishments have had lasting influence in many sectors, it is important to recognize an oft-ignored truism about his work: his reforms began in the church and only then radiated outward...He was prudent enought to realize that the best way to reform the culture was indirectly, that is, to first reform the church.

Leithart: All Theology is Political

Peter Leithart is a man I greatly respect, even when I disagree with him, which is not often. Here is a wonderful interview where he lays out how he thinks the Church should intersect the world, particularly politics. What I liked about this interview is the practical suggestions Leithart gives. He can be long on theory, short on practice. But here he gives many excellent ideas as to how a local pastor can see the church as a political body. The interview is well worth your time. Note especially the strong stance he takes against abortion and sodomy and the fact that he believes all men, including rulers, should be called upon to submit to Jesus as Lord.

The Art of Pettiness

A good friend recently gave me a stack of old Credenda/Agenda journals. This journal was published by Douglas Wilson and friends. They no longer publish the journal, but instead post articles on the web. The web version of Credenda can be found here. I encourage regular eating at their site. The food is good and the fellowship is usually cheerful.

Anyway, back to the print copies that currently sit in a magazine rack near the throne. The articles from the magazine are a delight. Numerous articles filled with practical advice on parenting, church, preaching, marriage and politics. They also featured movie and book reviews and works of fiction. Most of all the articles were often very funny, a mixture of satire and joy that is rarely seen in the Christian Church today.

One very funny article was by Doug Jones on The Art of Pettiness. It is a great blend of insight into what pettiness is and satire about why Christians are petty. I thought I would post some of his "insight." The entire article is tongue in cheek. Jones talks as if he is teaching someone how to be petty. I thought I would just post one portion of it. He lists several things that must be avoided if one is to remain petty or live small as he calls it. Here is what he says:

1. Avoid Holidays: They can sometimes break through and remind people of what's "really" important to the masses. It's best to avoid them altogether; after all holidays are also quite wasteful and unnecessary. Especially Christmas.

2. Avoid Fiction: Trusts us on this one. Famous novelists often practice the technique of jumping from one character's prespective to another, and this often feeds the illusion that others have important angles on the issues. Over time, it will weaken your commitment to the sanctity of your own perspective. Dangerous stuff.

3. Avoid Comedy: We've lost so many pettiness artists because of comedy. Wear the smile of laughter but don't fall for its silliness. You don't have time for comedy.

4. Avoid Children: You may need to reproduce, for some reason, but try to avoid unncessary contact with children. Everything they stand for works against the petty.

5. Avoid National Parks, Oceans, Cathedrals, etc.: These things were made by enemies of pettiness with the goal of undermining our whole vision. Don't fall for them. They all obsess pathologically about "the big picture, the big picture," over and over. They're really quite selfish. They suck attention away from your perspective just to hog it to themselves.

6. Avoid Sex: Be sure to call it this; avoid it as much as possible, except when you can use it as a weapon. But too many times yikes--it just obliterates a good pattern of pettiness in a marriage and you have to start all over again.

Growing Weary

G.K. Chesterton-Weariness is the enemy of all noble things.
Paul in Galatians 6:9-Let us not become weary in doing good.

Surveying the current cultural landscape a Christian is easily discouraged. All around, where there stood truth, there now stands lies. And we like it that way. Sociologists and others will study for years the demise the American Empire and how she got where she is. How did we reach a place where sodomy is right, where state's rights are destroyed by a tyrannical federal government, where nine men on a bench decide that killing children is not murder?

There are of course numerous factors. One could point to the failure of Christians to preach the Lordship of Christ in all areas. Certainly the lack of discipline in churches is one of the reasons our country has decayed. The fact that most believers send their children to government schools would also explain why the car is in the ditch. However, as I read the above quote by Chesterton a new reason for the decay struck me. We became weary.

We became weary of raising children for the Kingdom, so we sent them somewhere elsewhere or didn't have them at all. We became weary of preaching Christ and Him crucified, so we began to preach Jesus the great therapist who will cure all your ills. We became weary of not being accepted by the scientific establishment, so we accepted evolution and higher critical theories of the Scriptures. We became weary of being called irrelevant and boring, so we made our worship look like the world. We became weary of studying the Scriptures, so we turn to psychology, sociology and anthropology to learn theology. We became weary of shepherding the flock, so now we buy them and keep them like so many customers. We became weary of being called bigots, so we tossed out the Bible's teaching on gender roles. The world wore us down.

One of the trumpet calls in Scripture is to persevere. We find it in the words of our Lord , when He tells us to put our hand to the plow and not look back. (Luke 9:62) Paul tells his converts to "continue in the grace of God." (Acts 13:43) He tells the church at Philippi to "stand fast in the Lord." (Philippians 4:1) The writer to the Hebrews fills his book with encouragement to persevere. (Hebrews 2:1, 3:14, 4:14, 6:11-18, 10:23 and 12:1-13)

There are many virtues in the Christian life, but they all wither and die without perseverance. We must learn to not grow weary, but to continue in the faith, no matter what the personal toll is to us. And just as important we must train our children to do the same. For surely they will reap the bitter harvest of past Christians having given up. If we learn this lesson and keep heart, then there will be laid up for us a crown of righteousness, which this world knows nothing of.

Joyful Martyrs: Part II

Last week I wrote how we are to embrace difficultes with joy that we might follow in the footsteps of our Lord. While the truth of this applies to all, there are particular groups prone to thinking things really should be easier. Here is some advice to those groups.

1. Parents need to carefully examine their attitude toward their children. It is very easy to approach young ones (or teenagers!) as a necessary duty, but not a joy. Children and all the difficulties associated with them can quickly become a burden. Instead of recognizing that raising children is the essence of building the Kingdom of Christ, we see our duties at home as obstacles to "the real work." We will bear little fruit if we see children as a burden and do not raise them in joy.

2. Pastors are frequently guilty of this approach to their flocks. They imagine that Paul never had things as bad as they do. The apathy, the immorality, the pettiness can create a perspective on God's people that is unbibical. A pastor can find himself looking on the flock as a great drain on his time and energy. He sees what God has given to other men and assumes that he deserves those things and that the path God has given these other men is easier than his. Both of these are carcinogens to the soul. The minute a man believes things are better somewhere else is the minute he begins to lose his passion for those in front of him. He is not called to be a Piper or MacArthur. He is called to embrace with joy the flock in front of him.

3. Finally, with the church in America in such disarray, we should expect God to raise up reformers whom God will use to call His people back. Young reformers in particular tend to think this type of thing is easy, a quick fix. The persecution, hatred, back-biting, and general animosity that often accompanies attempts at reform are forgotten. A good dose of church history will cure that. Reformers always pay a dear price for their attempts. From Jeremiah to Paul to Wycliffe to Bonhoefer the cost is heavy. All is rosy at the beginning, but the long, hot road of reform can discourage many a man. We are fools if we believe the recovery of the Gospel in our age will leave us or our loved ones unscarred.

In 1544 John Calvin published a book calling the German princes to support the Reformation in Europe. Calvin anticipates that many princes will not take up the mantle of the Reformation believing the work to be too difficult. Here is what he says, "However, considering, according to the well-known sentiment of an old proverb, that there is nothing illustrious which is not also difficult and arduous, can we wonder, that in the greatest and most excellent of all causes we must fight our way through many difficulties." How quickly we forget that all good things come at a great cost. Die with joy knowing that the Lord loves to raise the dead.

Civil Disobedience

The Times Online has an article about the chair of the Sustainable Development Commission over in the motherland, England. This article states that, "Couples who have more than two children are being 'irresponsible' by creating an unbearable burden on the environment." He also says that "curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming." Here is the entire article here.

This is not that shocking. Our world hates life because it hates God. Children and the weak are the first to suffer. As Christians we can practice political incorrectness by having many children and raising them to love children and care for the weak. However, one day we may not just be politically incorrect. One day we may be an enemy of the state. HT: The Bayly Brothers

Roman Catholicism: Institutionalized Infallibility

The foundational issue in the debates between Roman Catholics and Protestants is authority. God has placed numerous authorities over us as Christians. Husbands have a level of authority over their wives. Parents have authority over children. Masters/employers have authority over slaves/employees. Elders have authority over the congregation. The issue is not authority itself. The question is the nature of that authority. No authority on earth is absolute or infallible. Rome believes her authority to be infallible on the main issues of doctrine and practice. This does not mean that her priests and bishops cannot sin, but rather that when the Roman Catholic Church speaks with authority she cannot err. This presents numerous problems, which we will get to in a minute. Here are some relevant quotes from the RCC (Roman Catholic Catechism).

"The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's Successor, 'is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.' ' For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." (p.234) Note here that the Pope is to be unhindered in his work. On a practical level that means what Nathan did to David cannot be done to the Pope. The Pope is above being called to repentance. The irony is that the "First Pope," Peter was called to repentance at least three times. (Matthew 16:22-23, Matthew 26:68-75 with John 21, and Galatians 2:11-14)

"The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ...Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals." (p. 235)

"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful...he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith and morals. The infallibilty promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council. (p. 235)

Finally, after a lengthy discussion of the Magisterium and its purpose, the RCC says this, "The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of Divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, and observed." (p. 492)

The errors associated with this doctrine of infallibility are many.

First, Paul specifically says in Romans 11:16-21 that the church at Rome must be careful. If God could cut off the natural branches (Jews) then he most certainly can cut off those who were grafted in (Gentiles). The great irony here is that this is exactly what the Roman Catholic Church says cannot happen. She cannot be cut off.

Second, there is no indication in the Scriptures that infallibility was given to anyone. Now Paul wrote infallibly when inspired by the Spirit, but even he made it clear that he could fail. (I Cor. 9:27) He never said that he was infallible and thus above reproof. Also Peter is plainly rebuked three times in Scripture, with one of those coming after Pentecost. I have never read a Roman Catholic apologist on this, but I would be interested in knowing what they do with this.

Third, what does this doctrine do to the idea of sin in the Bible? It is clear that all men are sinners. (Psalm 51, Romans 1-3, I John 1:8, etc.) But now we have a man who cannot sin in certain situations and a group of men who cannot sin in certain situations. The RCC is not simply saying the past councils were right or the Pope said some things that were correct, but rather it is impossible for these men to sin when they are in certain settings. Scripture is against this idea. All men are sinners and in any given situation a man or group of men can sin. History as well as Scripture bears this out.

Finally, the greatest problem is that they have institutionalized this view of infallibility. There is no doubt in my mind that there are Baptist, Presbyterian, and Episcopal pastors/ministers who deep down believe they can do no wrong. Of course, they would not say that, but they still believe it. They pontificate from the pulpit with bluster and with very little accountability. The difference between these pastors and the RC position is that the RC position is official and in writing. We all know how hard it is to change "tradition" whatever it may be. It is especially difficult when that tradition is one of the defining marks of your organization. For the RCs to change their view on infallibility would require not just a shifting of doctrine here or there, but a wholesale turning from centuries of teaching. I do not see that happening. It would require too much repenting, which I am not sure the Catholic leaders are ready to do.

Roman Catholicism: Scripture and Tradition

In Roman Catholicism there has been a development of the idea of tradition and what tradition means. The issue of tradition and what authority tradition has is the greatest issue in discussions with Roman Catholics. No RC argues that all they believe is found in the Bible. It doesn't have to be. Tradition is equal in authority with the Scriptures. This has not always been the case in RC thought, but it is certainly the case today. The argument is that the Divine Revelation was first given to the Apostles who then gave bishops "their own position of teaching authority. Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time." (RCC, p 25) Bishops are not apostles, but their authoritative teachings carry the same weight as the Apostles. Here are some quotes from the Roman Catholic Catechism that follow this discussion of apostolic succession:

"Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture then are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal." (RCC, p. 26) Note that both of them have the same source.

"As a result the Church, to whom transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted [By the way I agree with this. PJ], does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence." (RCC, p. 26)

"It is clear therefore that, in the supreme wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the slavation of souls." (RCC, p. 29)

The problem, of course, is not tradition. We all have a tradition. To not listen to how the Holy Spirit has spoken to the Church through centuries is foolish. Most of American Protestant churches despise their rich heritage. Protestants should take their traditions more seriously. But all traditions, no matter whether ancient or new, must be held up to the light of Scripture. It is the only final, infallible authority.

A second problem with this perspective is that the RC's themselves do not have one great tradition passed down from the early days. Reading these quotes one would think that there is some clean line of teaching plainly visible from the early church. A quick study of church history shatters this image. The history of the Church is messy. At one time there were 23 popes in 60 years. At another point there were three popes at one time. Over the last two millenia there have been contradictions, lies, and deceit mixed with holiness, wisdom, and deep theological study. To argue for a tradition that does not exist is hard indeed.

Finally, the reformers argued that Rome had left the traditions of the Church. This was one of their chief arguments. The arguements of the reformers rested primarily on the Scriptures, but their knowledge of what the Church taught was extensive. All one has to do is look at Augustine in the index of Calvin's Institutes. They often declared that it was the RC's who had abandoned apostolic teaching and what the early church fathers taught.

Foundationally this is the issue with Roman Catholics. When we want to discuss a problem we start with the Bible. We may use other sources to strengthen our position, but in the end it must proven from the Scriptures or simply be accepted as man made. For RCs it does not begin and end with Scriptures. For further study of this issue I cannot recommend too highly Keith Mathison's book The Shape of Sola Scriptura. He does a great job of showing how this doctrine has grown since the days of the early church fathers.

Roman Catholicism: What They Get Right

I was tempted to save this until the end of the series, but I thought it best to be as gracious as possible at the beginning. There are several areas where the Roman Catholic Church is better or has at least thought about things on a deeper level than the Protestants. I thought I would briefly mention these things. Protestants need to do a better job of learning from other traditions while still rejecting their errors. This is not an easy thing to do, but wisdom requires sifting the wheat from the chaff. In some places this is easier than others, but with Roman Catholicism we are dealing with a group that once held the Gospel in all its purity. So here are some things they do well.

1. They have thought more in depth about various ethical issues on a corporate level. In the RCC (Roman Catholic Catechism), there is an extensive exposition of the last six commandments, which are commonly called the second table of the Law. In this section, the RCC deals with things like suicide, abortion, homosexuality, incest, sale of arms by countries, scientific research, divorce, use of common goods among people in a nation, social justice, and use of media for communication. The point is not that Protestants haven't thought about these things, though it must be confessed that much of it has not been well thought out by Protestansts, but rather that Protestant denominations rarely speak with a unified voice on these matters. At least the Catholics have attempted to address these things publicly and corporately.

2. Adding to the previous point, the Catholics have taken a very strong stand against abortion and divorce. Compare this to many Protestants churches where divorce is tolerated and rarely preached against and where abortion is silently opposed, which is to say not opposed at all. In fact, numerous Protestants voted for the most bloodthirsty president in history. Now, I think some Catholics did as well, but they would have been going against their leaders, whereas many Protestants would have been following their leaders.

3. They have thought more about beauty in the Christian life. Protestants of the last 200 years or so have been terrible in the area of aesthetics. We write bad books (Left Behind), we paint bad paintings (Kincade), we make semi-good movies, and build churches that look like basketball coliseums. This is a place where Protestants need to repent and learn from others. We shame the Gospel by leading ugly lives and worshipping in ugly buildings. We need to get back to a mindset that builds beautiful things to God's glory. The Catholics can help us here.

4. Finally, they undestand that liturgy matters. They make numerous mistakes here, but at least it matters to them how their worship services are constructed. For many Protestants the shape of worship does not matter. Content does, which is, of course, very important. But Protestants have freqently ignored the way Scripture commands us to come to God in worship. In some ways it is easier to debate a Catholic on liturgy than a Protestant. At least a Catholic believes there is a right way to structure the service. Most Protestants are perfectly post-modern on this point. There is no right way, what really matters is the heart.

So here are a few areas we can learn from the Catholics. There are more than these and I may mention some of them as we move through this series

Roman Catholicism: Initial Thoughts

For several years now I have been involved on a small level in the controversy known as the "Federal Vision." I agree with most Federal Vision men on their theology and understanding of what the reformers taught, as well as changes that need to take place in reformed theology. Because of my association with these men, my views have frequently been labeled Roman Catholic. This caricature has been thrown around often enough that I felt I needed to learn what the Roman Catholics really taught. So over the last three years I have read the Roman Catholic Catechism (hereafter RCC) twice. Lest you think this is a minor feat, since you are only acquainted with the Westminster Confession or the Three Forms of Unity, the RCC is 688 pages long. I read the English version from 1994 that was officially approved by Pope John Paul in 1992. As far as I know this is the official document containing Roman Catholic doctrine. There has been a 2nd edition published in 1997, but it is essentially the same. Thus I am not guessing at what they believe, I am quoting what they believe. I am going to write some posts on what I read commenting as I go on the problems with various doctrines.

Before beginning the posts it seemed wise to declare my perspective on the Roman Catholic Church.

1. From 1517-1845 or so the dominate position of the reformed world was that Roman Catholic baptism was valid. This means there was enough of the true Church within Rome for her baptisms to be accepted by Protestants. This changed as a baptistic worldview came to the forefront in the late 1800s and on into the 20th century. I still consider a RC baptism valid, that means I still consider the Roman Catholics a church.

2. However, there are many problems in the Roman Catholic Church and these problems are not minor side issues. Christ, the Gospel, and the Scriptures are obscured and marred by various traditions that are not in the Scriptures or worse contradict the Scriptures. I will be looking primarily at these errors in hopes of teaching those who read this and clarifying my own thoughts on some Roman Catholic doctrines. In my opinion several of the doctrines, in particular the doctrine of Mary, put the validity of Rome as a true communion on thin ice.

3. Finally, these posts are not meant to gloss over the heaps of errors currently buzzing around in Protestant Churches. We have so many planks in our eyes that it is hard for us to see clearly what is wrong with the Roman Catholic Church. I just finished reading John Calvin's The Necessity of Reforming the Church. What struck me about the book was how many of the problems in the Roman Catholic Church of the 1500s are now found in the Protestant churches in the 21st Century. They are dressed in different clothing, but take off the garb and underneath we look a lot like Rome prior to the Reformation. How different is the marketing of the Gospel in contemporary churches from what Rome was doing to fund St. Peter's Basilica? Rome obscured the true meaning of the Supper behind superstitions. We obscure it by infrequent celebration and often not even on Sunday morning. Rome had her priests and Pope. We have our celebrity pastors who sell millions of books and invite presidential candidates to debate at their churches. To quote Douglas Wilson, "Making all necessary adjustments for the changes in time and place, the modern evangelical Church, eyes fat as grease, bastion of born againism, is fully as corrupt as the Church prior to the Reformation." (A Primer on Worship and Reformation, p. 9)

Singing the Psalms

Douglas Wilson has written many books that I have gained wisdom from. Perhaps his best is this book on how to train our boys. I never read this to my boys. The oldest is nine and he will get into it soon. But I have read this book at least five times. It challenges me regularly on what it means to follow after Christ and exhibit masculine piety.

Here is one of my favorite quotes from the book:

"The fact that the church has largely abandoned the singing of psalms means that the church has abandoned a songbook that is thoroughly masculine in its lyrics. The writer of most of the psalms was a warrior, and he knew how to fight the Lord's enemies in song. With regard to the music of our psalms and hymns, we must return to a world of vigorous singing, vibrant anthems, more songs where the tenor carries the melody, open fifths, and glory. Our problem is not that such songs do not exist; our problem is that we have forgotten them. And in forgetting them, we are forgetting our boys. Men need to model such singing for their sons." (p. 100)

This past Sunday I attended a contemporary evangelical church. It had all the bells and whistles that people are supposed to want today. What was my reaction? Boredom. The music put me sleep. (One of my sons even said he had a hard time staying awake.) It all sounded the same. The words were trite and vacant, with little biblical content. There is no magic bullet for a church like this. But a good start would be to obey the Bible by singing the psalms. (Colossians 3:16)

I was not raised on the psalms. They are new to me, but nothing has increased my love for worship like learning to sing psalms that are played and sung with enthusiasm, joy, and vigor. In family worship, we regularly learn new psalms. We still sing hymns, but the psalms form the core of our praise. For too long this neglected weapon has sat on the shelf, like a relic of the past. It is time to dust off the psalms and once again sing the war songs of the Prince of Peace.