A Lack of Sufficiency

A recent conversation in the comments with my dear reader, "Anonymous" got me thinking about matters of sufficiency.  Really, Anonymous got me thinking about experience, but experience then lead me to sufficiency because of the questions I had in regards to experience.  Simply put, my question was this, "When is experience sufficient?"  Obviously that question will have different answers for different people, and for different situations.  But, there is a legitimate question with why we place "experience" as a qualification, and why certain amounts of experience are seen as sufficient, whereas other amounts of experience are not.

Admittedly, I have a dog in this game.  For the cause of full disclosure: I'm looking for work in a field in which I cannot claim to have direct experience.  Yes, I have experience serving in a church and working with pastors.  I have been in charge of a ministry and have been involved in multiple ministries over the last 3 years.  But, I have never been a pastor, I've never been an associate pastor, and I've never been in a paid position with any church.

So, for me, the idea of experience being a necessary qualification for any position seems rather difficult, philosophically speaking.  But, I have to admit that there is a good rationale behind the idea.  I mean, I'd rather have a doctor who has done 20 surgeries operating on me, not the just out of medical school intern who has never operated on a live patient before.  Yet, that young surgeon has to begin somewhere, and it is the responsibility of those who have placed me in the care of that surgeon to know that he is ready and qualified to actually do the surgery.  The idea of experience is important, because experience can demonstrate competence in a field, and almost all of us would rather have someone competent than someone untried in important positions in our lives.

But, not every job is the same.  For instance, would anyone say that a mathematician shouldn't be trusted because he does not have the experience of years behind his work?  Or would we dismiss the work of a physicist or a chemist, because of a lack of experience?  Hard sciences, or purely logical pursuits do not require high levels of experience.  Thus, we must recognize that there is a limit to what experience means, and whether or not it is important.

The challenge is to determine where a given job falls in the continuity of experience.  For those jobs which are learned skills, jobs that require quick decisions and have very flexible situations, experience becomes more important.  For those jobs that have rigid rules, that require the exact performance of a set duty, experience becomes less important (generally speaking).  A man working on an assembly line does not need to have a great deal of experience to do his job well, so long as his job is simple and repetitious.  A bank president who must deal with multiple people and multiple emergencies in a given day should probably have significant experience so that he is not quickly overwhelmed.

Yet, even in the case of someone who has significant experience and high qualifications, there is a warning.  Do not begin to think that your experience, your ability, and your persistence are the reasons you are successful.  Remember that success is a gift from God.  (Deuteronomy 18:17-18)  Give thanks to God for the good things you have received, be humble and remember that your experiences have been good because of God's blessing.  Do not boast in your own might, for Scripture is clear that the power of men is fleeting, and the one who does not give thanks to God stores up wealth for others whom they do not know.

At the same time, there is the reverse fact, that sometimes it is the one without experience who has been given the blessing of wisdom.  Look at the example of Elihu in the book of Job.  He says,

"I am young in years,
   and you are aged;
therefore I was timid and afraid
   to declare my opinion to you.
I said, 'Let days speak,
   and many years teach wisdom.'
But it is the spirit in man,
   the breath of the Almighty, that makes him understand.
   It is not the old who are wise,
   nor the aged who understand what is right.
Therefore I say, 'Listen to me;
   let me also declare my opinion.'" (Job 32:6-10)

So it is important that we remember, that sometimes it is not a matter of age and experience.  Sometimes the one God has gifted to do a certain job, or fill a position, is the one who is young and un-experienced, because it is that person who will most demonstrate the glory of God.

We could note any number of examples in Scripture of the foolish, the inexperienced, and the weak being used by God for the sake of his glory.  Likewise there are multiple examples of God using experience, age, and wisdom for the purpose of bringing glory to himself.  God is able to bring himself glory through whatever means he chooses, and it is not for us to say that one is too young or too old to be used by God.  Thus Paul gives Timothy his famous charge, "Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity." (1 Timothy 4:12)  We must also embrace this word from Paul, as a guide for our own thoughts, and make a point of not despising those who are young and those who do not have great experience, but must inquire of God to see if he is seeking to use "the foolish" for the sake of his glory.

Paul understood well the reality that it was not his experience and his work that made him anything special.  He says in 2 Corinthians 3:5, "Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God."  He understood that it was God who made him a minister of the gospel, not his own works.  Even in something as theoretically simple as sharing the Gospel of Christ, Paul did not take credit, but acknowledged that God was the one who empowered him.  So we, in whatever we do, whether seeking to fill a position, or seeking to find someone to fill a position, should be more interested in glorifying God than in worrying about matters of experience.

In trying to get the best possible person for a position, and in striving to be the best possible person for a position, let us avoid making experience into an idol.  Give experience its due, admit that those with experience and demonstrated ability are the ones most likely to succeed in the future.  But also recognize the limits of experience, and that sometimes God desires to work through the less renowned for his renown.  In success, be humble, and do not scorn meager beginnings.  Bow the knee to God, and let him glorify himself as he desires.

Why International Missions isn't Foreign

Recently I had the privilege of teaching a lesson on international missions at my church here in Carrollton, Georgia.  The lesson itself was on missions going on in Thailand.  In many of the international missions lessons in local churches congregations learn about the demographics of the country, they hear about a few specific missionaries, and then they are told how they can pray for those missionaries specifically.  While there is nothing wrong with this method, and in fact there is a lot of very useful information to be learned from this method of teaching, I decided to take the lesson in a different direction.  My goal in the lesson was not simply that the congregation would learn facts about Thailand, but that they would understand that Thailand is not that different from Carrollton, and that international missions is not just something "over there," but that it affects us here at home, and what we do here at home affects international missions.

This post is a follow up to that lesson.  The fact is international missions ought not be some foreign concept or idea.  International missions should flow directly from home missions, from local missions, and from every Christian's personal mission in the world.  International missions is the spread of Christianity to every tribe, people, tongue, and nation, fulfilling the command of Christ to go and make disciples of all nations.  (Matthew 28:18-20)  Therefore, the mindset of international missions should be part of every Christian, as we strive to be faithful to what our Lord has called us to do.

There are two specific reasons I want to address as to what International missions is not foreign: people, and Scripture.  If we understand the reality of who we are serving, and who we have a mission to reach, we will understand that these are not just people who live thousands of miles away, but they are brothers and sisters, and no matter how far away family may be, family is not foreign.  Likewise, if we understand Scripture, then we will understand how what we are to minister is never foreign, it is the wonderful Good News of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, that all men might be reconciled to God, redeemed from sin and free to live to the glory of God.  The message is not foreign, and the people are not foreign, even if the culture is totally alien to us.

It may seem like a bit of a contradiction to say that the people are not foreign if the culture is foreign, but people are not just their culture.  Specifically, in terms of international missions, every person is exactly the same.  What I mean is that what Paul says about humans, he says about all of us, he makes no distinction between Jew and Gentile, Greek and barbarian.  Paul says, "As it is written:

'None is righteous, no, not one;
   no one understands;
   no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
   no one does good,
   not even one.'
'Their throat is an open grave;
   they use their tongues to deceive.'
'The venom of asps is under their lips.'
   'Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.'
'Their feet are swift to shed blood;
   in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known.'
   'There is no fear of God before their eyes.'

Every human has sinned.  No one fears God naturally.  Not one of us is innocent, and all of us are condemned before God, according to what Paul says here.  Therefore, when we go to minister to humans in any place, any time, and any culture, we are ministering to sinners.  Just as you, if you are a Christian, were a sinner who received the Gospel from someone who ministered to you, so they are sinners in need of ministers who will bring the gospel to them.  There is nothing foreign in sin, we who walk in the light know the ways of sin, because we walked in sin ourselves.

But, not only are people the same, Scripture is the same.  Yes, translation is an art and a science.  And yes, there may be challenges in bringing Scripture to different cultures.  Due to linguistic barriers and the lack of a written language, it may be very hard to explain Scripture or make it widely accessible to certain peoples.  But, despite these challenges, Scripture itself does not change.

The reason Scripture does not change is because God does not change.  Scripture is the personal revelation of a personal God.  Unless God changes, his revelation will not change, and God has said of himself that he does not change. (Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, Malachi 3:6, James 1:17)  Therefore, in every culture we minister the same Scripture, the same message, and the same God, that all men may know of the Lord who made them and desires that they should come and fellowship with him.  This Gospel does not change, because it is the same to everyone, no matter who they are or where they are.

There are a lot of things that can be foreign in international missions, from language and culture, to location and climate.  But, the things that really matter, the needs of people and means of addressing those needs, do not change.  Every person needs to be reconciled to the God who made them, who requires worship from them.  And the only means of reconciliation is faith in Jesus Christ.  Therefore, international missions may involve going to foreign places, eating foreign food, learning foreign languages, and living under foreign shelters, but there should be nothing closer to home than the ministering of the gospel to those who desperately need to know of the hope that is found only in Jesus Christ.

Happy Thanksgiving

I find myself in an odd situation today.  I am surrounded by family, I have a beautiful wife, I have eaten my fill, and I have all the blessings that come from living in middle class America.  I know that I will have a bed to sleep on tonight, I have clothes to wear and even a cellphone and a car in case I have an emergency and need to contact someone or go somewhere.  In addition to this, I have a wonderful church family, I have brothers and sisters in Louisville and Savannah, and I know that there are many people who love me.  In all of this, how could anyone not be thankful?

Yet, at the same time, I find myself in the same place as many Americans today: I am unemployed, my financial resources are taxed, and I'm not sure when that situation will change.  In addition to this I, like many others, have an advanced degree, and feel a specific calling on my life that I would like to accomplish, and that I have dedicated years to fulfilling.  Even though I have been the beneficiary of the wonderful generosity of family, so that I have a place to live, there is a distinct enjoyment missing.  An enjoyment that comes from working and providing for my family.  This situation is frustrating, and the reality of it cannot be escaped.

 In thinking about these two situations I am forced to conclude that being thankful really is about what perspective we choose to have in life.  We can look at what we want, what we have not yet accomplished, what we have lost or our ills and pains, and we can conclude that life is not as good as we would like.  Or, we can choose to look at what we have received and what we have, and we can be appreciative for life itself.

The second mindset, the one that looks at life with appreciation, is the one to which the Christian is called.  As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4:7, "What do you have that you did not receive?  If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?"  The point being that everything we have, from life, to love, to wealth, to family, all of it is a gift to us from God.  In addition to this we can add salvation, hope, enjoyment, and any number of other blessings.  For the Christian, we are called to be humble, acknowledging that God has given us great blessings, but that also then means we must be thankful, because in acknowledging that we have received blessing, what else can we do but be thankful to the one who has given those blessings to us?

So, on Thanksgiving, and on every day, let us consider what attitude we will have in ourselves, whether being thankful, or holding life in contempt.  And, as we are challenged to be thankful for all the many blessings we have received, let us remember who we are thanking.  Being thankful necessarily assumes being thankful to someone or something.  So, let us give God the glory, both for what we have received, and because he is the one who gives us these things.  Let us always remember what James says, "For every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change."

Let us be humble enough to appreciate the good gifts we have been given.  As I said to a friend not too long ago, when I was in Virginia I saw beautiful sights from the tops of mountains.  I saw valleys of green laid out before me and watched as below me hawks flew in search for prey.  Such wonderful sights remind me that I do not know what the future holds, whether I will stand on mountain tops and look across open valleys, or walk on the sea shore and hear the roar of the ocean.  But, I know there is still beauty in the world, even if I am in the midst of gray and dreary day.

So, I will be thankful for what I have seen, knowing that those beautiful days brought me to where I am now.  I will be thankful for today, knowing that where I am now must yield to the hope of what I will see tomorrow.  So, let us always give thanks to the Father of Lights.  Let us worship him who gives to us perfect gifts.

Do You Know What You Believe?

Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, from which I graduated in May, recently got involved in another scuffle regarding his statement that yoga is not Christian.  The complaint has come back, of course, that many devout and well-meaning Christian's practice yoga and do not find it incompatible with Christianity.  Dr. Mohler has, effectively, made two responses to this.  His responses are that the individual is either involved in a form of syncretism, in which yoga is being adapted to Christianity, or that what is being adapted is not yoga at all.  It is worth looking at these two responses further.

Can yoga be adapted to Christianity?  Dr. Mohler contends that yoga is necessarily non-Christian because of the mind emptying meditation involved in it, and the focusing of sexual energies through the body as a means of communing with God.  I think Dr. Mohler makes an excellent point with this statement.  The mind emptying forms of meditation that are common among many Eastern religions are simply not compatible with Christianity.  The reason is because Christians are called to meditate on God's Word, his deeds and actions.  It is impossible to empty the mind when filling it with thoughts of God's law, his holiness, his love, and everything else that a Christian might meditate on.

Scripture never commands Christians to empty our minds, but only to empty our minds of sinful thoughts and selfish desires, which ought to be put far away from us.  Even Paul commands us to think of whatever is good and lovely.  To seek to escape from ourselves or reality is not a form of Christian meditation.  To be reminded of God, to find his holiness and awesomeness surrounding us constantly, that is Christian meditation.

Likewise, Scripture never says that we are able to commune with God in any way other than through his Son, Christ Jesus.  We cannot approach the throne of God through focusing sexual energy, personal energy, or even spiritual energy.  We approach the throne of God through prayer, according to faith in Christ, who died for our sins.  Regardless of whether we feel God's presence more or less, the Holy Spirit is poured out upon us at all times, we are never separated from God.  Therefore, we do not need to enter some specific pose or focus some mystical energy to hear from God and speak to God, we have his Word, written to us to tell us how to live, and we have the right to come before him in prayer to thank him, praise him, and petition him for our needs or wants.

On these two points, making up Dr. Mohler's first reaction to those who claim Christianity and yoga can be harmonized, it would seem that Dr. Mohler has said nothing controversial, what then of the second reason he gives?  If you strip the meditation and other religious elements out of yoga, is it still yoga?  On this point it is purely a matter of convention as to how we answer this question.  What I mean is that words can change meaning over time, and often times the actual meaning of a word is purely a matter of the convention of the society in which it is used.  Therefore, the question is simply, "What is yoga?"

For many people yoga does not involve any spiritual activities whatsoever.  Many people go to yoga lessons and stretch and talk and smile and get a good, low impact, workout.  In fact, if you were to ask most of the people across these United States, "What is yoga?" most of them would not include any discussion of "spirituality" or "religion" in their definition.  (This, of course, is based purely off of my own experience, I did not go out and conduct a survey for the sake of a blog post.)  Therefore, it would seem that when people use the term "yoga" to mean "a form of exercise that involves stretching, flexibility, and holding various positions that place strain on the anatomy" they are correct in saying that yoga can be practiced by Christians without a conflict of faith.

While this may very well be the common use of the term, "yoga" it is not the only use of that term.  A quick search of the web reveals that if you look up the definition of yoga you find that the most relevant websites all recognize either the Hindu origin of yoga, or they discuss yoga as a means of attaining greater spiritual consciousness.  Thus, it seems, that most teachers of yoga and most of those who have done research into yoga agree that it is not best defined as simply a form of exercise.  The best definition of yoga must acknowledge the spiritual aspects that go along with serious yoga practice.

It would seem, therefore, that Dr. Mohler is correct in saying that if what you do when you do yoga is simply a form of exercise, then fine, just don't call it yoga.

My point in bringing all of this up though is that it is interesting to me that Christians would actually complain about Dr. Mohler saying that yoga and Christianity are not compatible.  I really think the issue is simply that most of us simply do not know what we believe, or why we believe it.  When Christians think that the spiritual aspects of yoga can be adapted to Christianity, my thought is they simply do not know what Christianity really teaches about our communion with God.  Why would anyone seek to draw closer to God through physical and mental acts of will, when God has revealed to us that the way to grow closer to him is through his Word and his Son?

When Christians seek to redefine the term "yoga" to mean simply "exercise" then they are guilty of not understanding what the term really means, they are guilty of not understanding that words have meaning.  Even in this Christians are guilty of not really knowing what they believe, because, in redefining a term, they open themselves to adapting more than just a series of poses and an exercise routine into Christianity.  It is always important that we know what a word means, and that we understand that when we say we are doing something like yoga, the word means a lot more than merely sitting on a mat with our legs crossed.  When we understand what we believe, then we understand that changing what we do is not a light matter, because our actions are a reflection of our beliefs.

Where do you stand on this subject?  What do you really believe?  Only once you have figured out what you believe can you really understand why you believe it.  Have you given thought to the terms you use, the things you do, and whether those things are really compatible with your Christian faith?  If you aren't a Christian, have you ever taken the time to think about what you believe?

A Good Father's Discipline

My parents can tell you that I was a curious child.  I'm sure in fact that they would confirm both implications of the previous statement, but I want to focus on the questioning nature of a curious soul.  My mother used to say I could ask the same question in 20 different ways.  I did ask a lot of questions, and often those questions were the same question asked in different ways, because I wanted to make sure that I understood what was being said.  Maybe it was because I was a bit thick sometimes, but I know that often I asked questions because I wanted to understand, well, everything.

I think that same principle animates most of us.  Not that we realize that we want to know everything, but that we will not do that which we do not see the purpose to doing.  For instance, to this day, I rarely make my bed, because I figure I'm going to get back into it anyhow, why bother making the sheets nice just so I can mess them up when I sleep?  Besides, I figure leaving the sheets open in a bit of a tangle helps to air out the bed from where I was sleeping on it all night.  But, if I know that I have a guest coming, or that, for whatever reason, someone may go into my room or see my bed, I'll take the time to make it, so as to keep a presentable room when necessary.  (Fortunately I am married to a wonderful woman who thinks much the same as me in this area.)

I think this is the way most of us live.  When we understand the purpose of something, we are willing to do it, we may even embrace an action that we find particularly meaningful.  But, when we do not understand we are less willing to do what seems to be a hindrance.  Sometimes we skip over what we think to be minor steps in an order of operations, and sometimes that is okay.  But, sometimes what appears to be a small thing turns out to be a major thing.  The problem is that we cannot understand everything, and sometimes we have to accept that what we are called to do we must do based on our faith in the one who has commanded it, and not based on our own wisdom and understanding.

I think that is what has happened with church discipline.  There was a time when we understood that discipline was necessary, and was an integral part of our faith and our walk with God.  Now a days, when people can simply go to any church and can move from place to place quickly, it seems more of a hindrance for a church to worry about discipline.  However, if we understood how serious discipline really was, perhaps we would be willing to do it.  Perhaps, if we understood how serious discipline is, we would embrace it as part of our culture once again.

I want to take a minute to explain what I mean by church discipline.  To be honest, until I went to seminary, that term was not one I was familiar with.  I belonged to what I have come to think of as the typical Southern Baptist church, one that did not practice church discipline, and had ceased to even teach on the subject at all.  Thus I think there is perhaps a large portion of this generation of Christians (in America) who have no idea what church discipline is.  I'll try and explain it briefly.

Church discipline, most narrowly conceived, is that process by which a church attempts to correct a wayward member.  Usually this starts with one person confronting another with some specific and public sin.  After that person has been confronted with this sin, if he refuses to repent and turn from his sin, whoever initially confronted him will bring others with them to confront the person again.  After this second confrontation, if the person who has sinned still refuses to repent, then after an appropriate season of prayer, the matter will be brought before the congregation, and the whole congregation will then join in asking the person to repent (often this is done through letter from the congregation hand delivered to the person in question, if they refuse to come to the meeting arranged for this purpose).  After this, if the person remains disobedient, the congregation will then move forward to discontinue fellowship with that person, basically saying that the person's continuous disobedience brings their salvation into question.

The last point here addresses the seriousness of church discipline carried through to its end on an unrepentant person.  The goal is to make clear that the behavior of the person in question is such that it cannot be tolerated by the church, and that no Christian should willingly engage in this behavior.  Therefore, the response of the church, if fellowship is withdrawn, is not that the church is saying, "We don't like you" instead the church is saying, "We cannot discern that you really are a Christian, and because we do not want you to be confusion as to your eternal state, we are going to treat you as a non-Christian, so that you may realize your need for Christ and repent of your sin."  Discipline is thus the most loving thing a church can do, because discipline takes seriously the question of a person's eternal fate, and encourages people to examine themselves before God that they may know if they are condemned.

But, because of the very serious nature of discipline carried out this far, it ought not be done for light matters.  For matters that can be shrugged off the church should bear with, and bear up, the weaker brother, so that his faith may be strengthened.  Judgment ought to be reserved for matters of clear sin, not for petty arguments and complaints.  Moreover, discipline ought only ever be done for matters of public sin.  "He said, she said" arguments ought never go to the point of discipline, because the matter is private, and ought to be resolved privately.

But, church discipline should not really be that narrowly conceived.  The fact is that discipleship is discipline.  When we tell someone that God needs to be Lord of his life, and that God has certain ways he wants things done, then we are asking them to submit to church discipline.  The goal is to get the person so disciplined in spiritual matters that he can go on to train and discipline others, creating a cycle of discipleship and discipline that glorifies God through many lives.  Everything the church does, from encouraging prayer and bible reading, to practicing witnessing and faithful living, is discipline.  That means that we need to always be open to rebuke, to correction, and to encouragement, in every aspect of our spiritual lives.

Hebrews says that our fathers punished us for a time as they saw fit, and that no man enjoys discipline while he is going through it.  But, the end result of discipline is that a man is better prepared for life, discipline is good.  Likewise Hebrews says our Father does the same for us, that he disciplines us for our good.  Therefore, the teaching of Hebrews is that discipline from God, when rightly understood is for our benefit.  Thus, though it is painful, we should embrace it, because it will bring us glory on the day that Christ is revealed.

Often I have read this verse and thought of the discipline that I have gone through in various trials and troubles in life.  From learning to do with little do to unemployment and poverty, to learning to enjoy the simple of things of life through having possessions stripped away from me, I thought this was discipline.  It has taken me a long time to realize that God does not just discipline through these events, but also through the church.  Those who have come along beside me, my brothers who have prayed for me, my sisters who have shared with me, my family who has taught me and walked with me in good times and bad, they have been the discipline of God in my life, and that discipline has been good for me, and good to me.

Discipline, godly discipline, is good in every way.  We ought to embrace discipline, training one another, correcting one another, loving one another enough to share not only in the good, but in the bad as well.  We think of discipline as only the hard times when a brother or sister refuses our correction, and we forget that the one who hardens his back is the one who is not being disciplined, because he will not submit.  We, who remain pliable clay in the hands of God, are the ones who are disciplined, and we find joy because of that discipline.  Sometimes we must disassociate with someone, because we want to love the stubborn soul.  Embrace discipline when it first comes upon you, and discipline others as well, because we are the tools of God, his hands and feet in performing his will here on earth.

Wash and Wear Christians

One of the oldest arguments that baptists of all kinds have engaged in is the importance of believers' baptism.  If you are not from a baptist tradition, I'll try to explain the idea quickly, and then address the argument itself.  Basically the baptist tradition is that baptism is only for believers.  That means that baptists do not baptize infants, and, historically, have not accepted those who were baptized as infants as members of baptist churches.  Only those who are believers can submit to baptism, and therefore if someone was "baptized" as an infant, unless they undergo a real baptism, as a believer, they are not generally granted membership in baptist congregations.

There are exceptions to the statement that baptists do not allow membership to those who received only infant baptism (paedobaptists).  John Bunyan, for instance, advocated that paedobaptists should be allowed church membership, and that they should be allowed to come to the Lord's Table.  However, even in his day, there were those who argued against him.  More recently John Piper and Mark Dever argued about this point, with Piper taking Bunyan's side, and Dever taking what I am calling the historical baptist side.

I would like to make a point of clarification though.  I am not calling Dever's position the historical position because it predates the position of Piper, but only because it has been the position accepted by most baptists throughout history.  This is why most baptist ministers, at least until modern times, would "fence the table" when inviting people to participate in the Lord's Supper.  The "fence" could be put up with a statement as simple as, "We invite those of like faith and practice who are in good standing in their church..." wherein the "faith" is the Christian faith, and the "practice" is those who had received believer's baptism.  The "good standing in their church" indicated that the person was not under discipline, and therefore there was no question of that individuals standing before Christ.

This last point could be broken into a whole essay of its own, and I intend to address the point eventually, but for now it is sufficient to note that most early baptist churches (and most baptist churches up to the 1950's at least) practiced church discipline and took it very seriously.  It was in fact because of church discipline that this whole issue arose.

Why would church discipline cause baptist churches to need to discuss the question of membership of paedobaptists?  In part it was because of the Lord's Supper.  Most baptist churches held that there were effectively two (or three) ordinances of the church.  In the three ordinance division you have foot washing, baptism, and the Lord's Supper.  In the two ordinance division you can remove foot washing.  Most baptists today do not practice foot washing, nor was it ever the majority of baptists position that it should be practiced.

Ordinances for baptists are not a means of grace.  The acts of baptism and the Lord's Supper are spiritually significant and symbolic events.  In the case of baptism the believer is joined to the death of Christ, and his resurrection through baptism.  But, what baptists mean by that is that the believer who has been baptized has made a public demonstration of their need for cleansing, of which the baptism is only a symbolic demonstration.  The actual salvation of the individual happens at conversion, in which the person is sealed by the Holy Spirit and joined to Christ eternally.  Thus baptism (as commonly expressed and understood) is an outward sign of an internal reality, and an act of obedience to what Christ has commanded.

For baptists historically then the argument has been that those who refuse to be baptized after coming to faith are living in disobedience to Christ.  Because the individuals are living in disobedience to Christ they cannot be given church membership, nor should they be invited to the Lord's Table.  To invite someone who is living in disobedience to the Lord's Table to is make light of their sin, which is wrong.  Moreover, to invite someone to the Lord's Table who has refused to participate in one ordinance of the church then includes that person in another ordinance of the church, and thus would be to treat the person as a member, even though they do not meet the qualifications of membership.  Thus, those who cannot be members of the church, for a refusal to participate in the ordinances of the church, ought not to come to participate in that ordinance which is restricted to only members of the church.


To explain this position from Scripture, baptists take seriously the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11.  In verse 18 he says, "For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part."  This indicates that what Paul is about to say he says to the church, not individuals.  Thus when he says in verse 26, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes," this is not a command to individuals, but to the church.  Therefore it is those who are in the church who should eat the bread and drink from the cup.

Further, we read, "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself." (1 Corinthians 11:29)  This passage is not telling people that they must simply examine themselves, but that they must understand who they are in Christ.  Yes, an individual ought to examine himself to see if there is any unrepentant sin in his life, but what Paul calls us to here is a consideration of who the body of Christ is.  The body of Christ is to partake of the Lord's Table, and the body of Christ is the regenerate church here on earth.  The question then, for who can partake of the Lord's Supper, is one of who is a member of the regenerate church on earth.

This is where baptism enters the issue.  We have already seen that the Lord's Table is to be open to all members of the church.  But, baptism is generally recognized (by baptists) as the means by which one enters into the church.  Thus, if one has not been baptized, then they are not to be considered members of the church.  If they are not to be considered members of the church, then they are not to take of the Lord's Supper, and they are not subject to church discipline.

But, why should baptism be a required ordinance for church membership?  If, as baptists have historically professed, faith alone is the means of salvation, shouldn't the church accept all of those who profess faith in Christ, regardless of whether they have been baptized?  The answer to that question must be answered "no" if the historic argument is to stand.  But is the answer no?

Yes, the answer to the question is no.  Yes, all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.  Yes, we are saved by grace through faith, and this is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God. (Ephesians 2:8)  And yes, all those who are saved are part of the regenerate church here on earth.  But, no, the church should not simply accept those who profess faith in Christ as members with no reservations.

The reason for this is what James says, "Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." (James 2:18)  The fact is that we, as humans, cannot judge perfectly the salvation of any person.  It may be that someone has been genuinely saved, though we cannot discern such from their lives.  But, we are called to judge the works of one another (ourselves included) and determine if those works line up with that which Scripture commands us.  Therefore, while we may wrongly exclude some from membership with the church because we cannot discern their salvation, we must labor to rightly discern the body, that we may know, as far as possible, that those who are members of the church do appear to be Christians.

Once again, this is where baptism enters the equation.  If baptism is a command of Christ (and baptists hold that it is, based on: Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38, Acts 10:47, Romans 6:3, and many more passages besides) then those who refuse to be baptized are not simply refusing to undergo some specific event, they are refusing to submit in obedience to God.  Therefore, while these people may evidence many other signs of salvation, the fact that they persist in refusing to be baptized causes the baptist to look at them with some reservation, recognizing that the church should be wholly obedient to Christ, and not only obedient in some, or most ways.  Therefore, baptism becomes a necessary step for anyone to enter into church membership, because it is the sign that demonstrates that the person has indeed entered into the death of Christ, and risen with him.


The reason I have attempted to lay out this discussion is because unfortunately many baptists are losing their distinctiveness.  Most baptist churches have failed to seriously educate their members as to what the significance of baptism is, and why the Lord's Table is so important.  Most baptists would probably still say that they do not want to allow paedobaptists as members, but would they know why, from a biblical perspective?  Whether you agree with the argument or not, I hope that you understand now that baptism is not just a matter of one becoming a "wash and wear Christian" but it really is important.  Because it is so important we ought not neglect the discussion of baptism in our churches.

If you aren't aware, I am a historic baptist.  I was raised in the Southern Baptist tradition, and I have come to embrace that tradition as I think it is the most orthodox biblical position.  That does not mean that there aren't skeletons in the closet of Southern Baptists.  Our racial divisions and the long standing issue of slavery that lead to the formation of the Southern Baptist convention need to be dealt with.  The last generation of Southern Baptists made apology for how our tradition assisted in perpetuating slavery, but they were not able to overcome the racial divisions that still exist in most Southern Baptist churches.  But, despite the problems that exist within the Southern Baptist tradition, we must continue to hold to the importance of believers' baptism, and in order to do so we must understand the importance of the Lord's Table and church discipline, understanding which has been lacking in the last 50-60 years.

The Hound of Heaven

On Sunday I listened to the end of one of Ravi Zacharius's sermons with my wife as we were driving to church.  If you are not familiar with him, he is a Christian apologist who addresses various philosophical issues with the Christian faith.  I have always found him imminently readable and enjoyable.  He is not always a scholarly apologist, sometimes writing popular works that address issues at a level easier for those with no philosophical training to appreciate.  But, he is also very intelligent, and some of his works are a bit more complex.

One of his favorite poems, if I were to judge based on how often I have heard him quote from it is, "The Hound of Heaven" by Francis Thompson.  It really is a very good poem.  However, the poem was written in a bit of the old English style of 19th century poets.  That means that some of the terms and language used is a bit archaic to our ears.  If you've never read the poem though, I would encourage you to do so.

I'll post the poem here, but you should know that poetry.elcore.net has a glossed version of the poem, explaining most of the difficult terms used.  The link above will take you to that gloss if you would like to read the poem but need a little help with some of the language.  Again, I highly recommend that you take the time to read the poem, and hopefully, from this poetic testimony of a man who came to Christ after fleeing him for so many years, you can appreciate the love of God just a little more.  It is good to serve the God who does not give up on wayward sons and daughters.

This version as taken from bartleby.com

The Hound of Heaven by Francis Thompson I FLED Him, down the nights and down the days;
I fled Him, down the arches of the years;
I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways
Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears
I hid from Him, and under running laughter.	5
Up vistaed hopes I sped;
And shot, precipitated,
Adown Titanic glooms of chasmèd fears,
From those strong Feet that followed, followed after.
But with unhurrying chase,	10
And unperturbèd pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,
They beat—and a Voice beat
More instant than the Feet—
‘All things betray thee, who betrayest Me.’	15
I pleaded, outlaw-wise,
By many a hearted casement, curtained red,
Trellised with intertwining charities;
(For, though I knew His love Who followèd,
Yet was I sore adread	20
Lest, having Him, I must have naught beside).
But, if one little casement parted wide,
The gust of His approach would clash it to.
Fear wist not to evade, as Love wist to pursue.
Across the margent of the world I fled,	25
And troubled the gold gateways of the stars,
Smiting for shelter on their clangèd bars;
Fretted to dulcet jars
And silvern chatter the pale ports o’ the moon.
I said to Dawn: Be sudden—to Eve: Be soon;	30
With thy young skiey blossoms heap me over
From this tremendous Lover—
Float thy vague veil about me, lest He see!
I tempted all His servitors, but to find
My own betrayal in their constancy,	35
In faith to Him their fickleness to me,
Their traitorous trueness, and their loyal deceit.
To all swift things for swiftness did I sue;
Clung to the whistling mane of every wind.
But whether they swept, smoothly fleet,	40
The long savannahs of the blue;
Or whether, Thunder-driven,
They clanged his chariot ’thwart a heaven,
Plashy with flying lightnings round the spurn o’ their feet:—
Fear wist not to evade as Love wist to pursue.	45
Still with unhurrying chase,
And unperturbèd pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,
Came on the following Feet,
And a Voice above their beat—	50
‘Naught shelters thee, who wilt not shelter Me.’
I sought no more that after which I strayed
In face of man or maid;
But still within the little children’s eyes
Seems something, something that replies,	55
They at least are for me, surely for me!
I turned me to them very wistfully;
But just as their young eyes grew sudden fair
With dawning answers there,
Their angel plucked them from me by the hair.	60
‘Come then, ye other children, Nature’s—share
With me’ (said I) ‘your delicate fellowship;
Let me greet you lip to lip,
Let me twine with you caresses,
Wantoning	65
With our Lady-Mother’s vagrant tresses,
Banqueting
With her in her wind-walled palace,
Underneath her azured daïs,
Quaffing, as your taintless way is,	70
From a chalice
Lucent-weeping out of the dayspring.’
So it was done:
I in their delicate fellowship was one—
Drew the bolt of Nature’s secrecies.	75
I knew all the swift importings
On the wilful face of skies;
I knew how the clouds arise
Spumèd of the wild sea-snortings;
All that’s born or dies	80
Rose and drooped with; made them shapers
Of mine own moods, or wailful or divine;
With them joyed and was bereaven.
I was heavy with the even,
When she lit her glimmering tapers	85
Round the day’s dead sanctities.
I laughed in the morning’s eyes.
I triumphed and I saddened with all weather,
Heaven and I wept together,
And its sweet tears were salt with mortal mine;	90
Against the red throb of its sunset-heart
I laid my own to beat,
And share commingling heat;
But not by that, by that, was eased my human smart.
In vain my tears were wet on Heaven’s grey cheek.	95
For ah! we know not what each other says,
These things and I; in sound I speak—
Their sound is but their stir, they speak by silences.
Nature, poor stepdame, cannot slake my drouth;
Let her, if she would owe me,	100
Drop yon blue bosom-veil of sky, and show me
The breasts o’ her tenderness:
Never did any milk of hers once bless
My thirsting mouth.
Nigh and nigh draws the chase,	105
With unperturbèd pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy;
And past those noisèd Feet
A voice comes yet more fleet—
‘Lo! naught contents thee, who content’st not Me!’	110
Naked I wait Thy love’s uplifted stroke!
My harness piece by piece Thou hast hewn from me,
And smitten me to my knee;
I am defenceless utterly.
I slept, methinks, and woke,	115
And, slowly gazing, find me stripped in sleep.
In the rash lustihead of my young powers,
I shook the pillaring hours
And pulled my life upon me; grimed with smears,
I stand amid the dust o’ the mounded years—	120
My mangled youth lies dead beneath the heap.
My days have crackled and gone up in smoke,
Have puffed and burst as sun-starts on a stream.
Yea, faileth now even dream
The dreamer, and the lute the lutanist;	125
Even the linked fantasies, in whose blossomy twist
I swung the earth a trinket at my wrist,
Are yielding; cords of all too weak account
For earth with heavy griefs so overplussed.
Ah! is Thy love indeed	130
A weed, albeit an amaranthine weed,
Suffering no flowers except its own to mount?
Ah! must—
Designer infinite!—
Ah! must Thou char the wood ere Thou canst limn with it?	135
My freshness spent its wavering shower i’ the dust;
And now my heart is as a broken fount,
Wherein tear-drippings stagnate, spilt down ever
From the dank thoughts that shiver
Upon the sighful branches of my mind.	140
Such is; what is to be?
The pulp so bitter, how shall taste the rind?
I dimly guess what Time in mists confounds;
Yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds
From the hid battlements of Eternity;	145
Those shaken mists a space unsettle, then
Round the half-glimpsèd turrets slowly wash again.
But not ere him who summoneth
I first have seen, enwound
With glooming robes purpureal, cypress-crowned;	150
His name I know, and what his trumpet saith.
Whether man’s heart or life it be which yields
Thee harvest, must Thy harvest-fields
Be dunged with rotten death?
Now of that long pursuit	155
Comes on at hand the bruit;
That Voice is round me like a bursting sea:
‘And is thy earth so marred,
Shattered in shard on shard?
Lo, all things fly thee, for thou fliest Me!	160
Strange, piteous, futile thing!
Wherefore should any set thee love apart?
Seeing none but I makes much of naught’ (He said),
‘And human love needs human meriting:
How hast thou merited—	165
Of all man’s clotted clay the dingiest clot?
Alack, thou knowest not
How little worthy of any love thou art!
Whom wilt thou find to love ignoble thee,
Save Me, save only Me?	170
All which I took from thee I did but take,
Not for thy harms,
But just that thou might’st seek it in My arms.
All which thy child’s mistake
Fancies as lost, I have stored for thee at home:	175
Rise, clasp My hand, and come!’
Halts by me that footfall:
Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstretched caressingly?
‘Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,	180
I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me.’

Lest We Forget

9 years ago today a tragic event happened in our history.  Let us remember to set aside time today to pray for our nation, for those who suffer still in the memory of this day, for those who serve over seas in wars that developed as a result of 9/11, for our leaders to make wise decisions, and for Muslims across the world who are enslaved to the lie of Islam.  Let us pray to be peacemakers, leading people to Christ for the glory of God. 

There is so much to pray for, every day.  But, in memory of this day, let us turn back to prayer, for our God is great, and he has told us to come to him in prayer, asking for what we want.  James says we have not because we ask not, and when we do ask, we ask with evil motives, seeking to spend what we get on ourselves. (James 4:1-10)  Let us repent, turn to God, ask that our motives might be changed, and that we might pray to him and ask for what is good in his eyes.  As we remember the tragedy that happened this day, let us not remember it like the world: as just a tragedy, as a reason for anger, resentment, and violence against those who would harm us.  Let us remember it as Christians: in repentance, in humility, and in hope that God will redeem a fallen world for the sake of his glory.

Today, let us pray.

The Right Thing for the Wrong Reason?

By now, if you've been watching or reading the news, you should be aware that the pastor who was going to burn Qur'ans tomorrow has decided to call off the event.  Unfortunately his reasons for canceling the event were not due to concern for his fellow Christians who are serving as missionaries over seas.  Nor did he call of his plans because he saw the offense it would cause within the Muslim world and the way it would negatively impact the spreading of the gospel.  His reason, according to the news, was because he claims the Imam who is building the community center and mosque at Ground Zero promised him that the mosque would be moved.

In short it appears that the right thing is being done, but the reasoning behind these actions is all based on worldly concerns.  It ought to always be the goal of the Christian to glorify God and to spread the gospel.  This pastor seems to confuse American with Christian.

Too much has been made of this event by the media, so that a fringe lunatic became an international sensation.  But, one thing that has come out of this event is that we were able to be reminded that there is a stark differences between what concerns the world, and what concerns the church.  While the world was concerned about social and political unrest, and rightly so, what they missed was the profound spiritual impact of this event.  The cross of Christ truly is nonsense to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God to salvation.  Let us always remember that our focus needs to be different than the world's.

Why so Literal?

In modern politics no line is probably more laughable and more revealing than the line spoken by former President Bill Clinton during his grand jury testimony in addressing the question of whether he had sexual relations with Paula Jones.  That infamous and oft quoted line is, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."  The line is revealing because it demonstrated the moral failures of a man who was willingly attempting to avoid honestly answering a question he understood.  The line is laughable because it assumes the very thing it asks: by using the word, "is" directly after saying that it depends upon what "is" means, Clinton reveals he knows what "is" means.  Unfortunately, what may be laughable and of limited political importance and duration can be serious and infinitely destructive in theology.

Let's take a look at a couple of examples and let me see if I can't shed a little light on what I mean.  Starting with Romans 5:12 Paul lays out an argument for the power of Christ's death as a deliverance from sin.  However, Paul's argument only works if there was a literal man, Adam, and if his sin inaugurated all other sin.  Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 15:21 and on, Paul ties the actual historicity of Adam directly to the Gospel.  What Paul makes clear is that if there were no literal man, Adam, and there were no literal single event of sin entering the world, then the death of Christ is meaningless for us as Christians.

Why is the death of Christ meaningless without the existence of Adam?  Because Adam is our progenitor.  Not only physically is Adam the first man, he is also the first representative of man before God.  Adam was a type of Christ, so that if there is no literal Adam, then there is no type to which Christ refers.  What that means is that if Adam is only a literary construct, then we have no corporate representative in him bringing sin upon all men.  But, if we have no corporate representative in Adam, why should we assume we have a corporate representative in Christ?

The fact that Christ serves as a propitiation for the sins of all men is tied up in the fact that Adam serves as a corporate representative before God, a perfect man who sinned and thus introduced a sinful nature to his own.  We see this in 1 Corinthians 15:22 when we read, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."  If there is no man, Adam, in whom we have all died, then what hope have we that we shall be made alive in Christ?  Because Adam serves as our corporate representative, and because we have all partaken of a sin nature through Adam and Eve, so also we are able to partake of a spiritual nature because of the life of Christ, who is the spiritual representative before God for those of us who have faith in him.

But, some modern scholars would do away with a literal Adam.  Some scholars argue that Adam is a literary figure, Genesis is not to be taken literally up through chapter 11, everything preceding Abraham is allegorical, or a literary story written to illustrated God's power as the one who organizes and brings order to the world.  This is not a new argument, necessarily.  For instance Origin and Augustine both argued for an allegorical reading of Genesis 1.  Both of these church fathers argued that Genesis 1 could not be read as literal history because the idea of creation in seven days, or the idea of the days as literal periods of time, made no sense to them for different reasons.

My argument is not with those who would argue that Genesis 1 is allegorical, or that Genesis 1 and 2 are meant to be a story discussing how God ordered the earth and made man for the purpose of fellowship with him.  However, those who hold that all of Genesis 1-10 cannot be history, those who reject the literal existence of Adam and Eve, those who deny that there was a unique creation of man that resulted in one couple who sinned in that Garden of Eden and who were cast out by God, those individuals do massive theological harm to the gospel of Christ.  Those who deny the historicity of Adam and the way sin entered the world through a man are forced to do away with passages like Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Timothy 2:13, and Jude 14.  All of these passages refer to a literal Adam, and all of them tie the existence of Adam directly the gospel.

It is here that theologians begin to undertake gymnastics to avoid dealing with the text as it exists.  Scholars argue that we can do away with Adam because it does not have any significant impact on the gospel.  After all, why do we need to have Adam in order for sin to have entered into men and have become part of our nature?  Why do we need to have Adam to recognize the power of the blood of Christ to forgive us our sins?  Adam is only a matter of secondary importance, and doing away with Adam does not effect the death of Christ on our behalf, or the efficacy of his blood for our redemption.

But, doing away with Adam does away with Paul.  For instance, Paul says that all of Scripture is inspired by God, specifically he says it is breathed out by God. (2 Timothy 3:16)  If Paul is wrong about there being a literal Adam then either God did not inspire him, or God got something wrong, or God allowed error on his part in what he inspired.  In any of those conditions we are now left with Scripture that is potentially full of errors, Scripture that we must analyze carefully, dissect and correct, so that we are able to determine what is true and what is false.  If that is the case then nothing in Scripture is safe from this examination, all of Scripture must be parsed and examined lest there be any historical error in it at all.  And, even if we are able to determine some parts are accurate, what do we do with those sections we cannot empirically test?

For instance, if Paul is wrong about there being an Adam, and if Paul is wrong about the importance of Adam to the gospel, then what else is Paul wrong about?  Obviously Paul's understanding of the gospel will no longer suffice, because his understanding relied upon an historical Adam.  So what understanding will we replace Paul with?  Who will become our teacher when we cannot trust Scripture to be accurate in what it teaches?

There are those who, for whatever reason, refuse to embrace the full criticism of Scripture that comes with removing Adam from the Bible.  But, why should any truly rational person who accepts that Adam did not exist stop only there?  Why shouldn't we question Paul?  Why shouldn't we question Chronicles, reject Hosea as a prophet, (he references Adam as a literal man) do away with Luke, and then even question the necessity of the death of Christ himself?

When we engage in biblical criticism that questions the very integrity of Scripture, it is both revealing and laughable to the watching world.  It is revealing to those who look on because they can see that we do not really trust our own holy book.  We think that our holy book, that which claims to be inspired by God, is need of correction, because it is incompatible with a modern world.  Our criticism is laughable because we still want to find some value in a set of stories written thousands of years ago, even though we don't think they are historically true or philosophically sound.  While attempting to defend our bible we make it into a joke, because we are not willing to make the full commitment to treating it either as a sacred text, or a near eastern fable.

We do not need to reject science or reason to be Christians.  Human genetics, modern technology, stem cells, antibiotics, gene therapy, microchips, and so much more has been discovered over the years, and none of these things contradict or contravene Scripture.  But, when we say that there cannot be an Adam because evolutionary theory does not allow it, or when we say that Genesis cannot give a factual account of the creation of the world because geology contradicts it, then we are not simply accepting science, we are worshiping science and reason.  I'm not saying that only those who accept a young earth are Christians, not at all; but those who reject the early chapters of Genesis or who mock Scripture based on what current scientific theory says, those people are a danger to the faith.  They are a danger to the faith because they have placed Scripture under another authority, they have set themselves up as judges over the word of God, and they have found it wanting; and what then is there to act as a corrective if their wisdom leads them to reject the claims of the gospel entirely?  When we accept those people who exalt science or human deliberation above the word of God, and place them in positions of authority, then we ought not be surprised when they dispute every doctrine and ridicule every portion of what we once though was sacred.

I know that what I have said will offend some.  My intent is not to offend, but to point out the logical inconsistency we engage in when we attempt to ignore the plain meaning of Scripture because we think modern history and science trump with Word of God.  Let us be consistent.  Elijah said, "If Yahweh is God, then follow him, but if Baal is God then follow him."  Let us heed those words today: If Yahweh is God, then follow him, but if human science and reason is greater than the God of the bible, then follow it.

Christians and Politics

Where do we draw the line in political disagreements?  For instance, there are those in conservative political circles today who make comments such as "the Kenyan in Chief" and "the African in the White House."  While I will put aside the arguments people make in regards to whether these comments are racist, (I personally think people who utilize arguments like this intend certain racist implications) I do think Christians need to think about whether such comments should ever be heard coming across our lips, or seen coming across our keyboards.  Regardless of whether you support or dislike any leader or President, don't you have a Scriptural command to submit to his authority as leader and to show him the respect due him as the one God has placed in charge of the country? (Romans 13:1-7, pay special attention to verse 7, "Respect to whom respect is owed.")  Christians do not have the freedom to say whatever we like, we have an obligation to obey Scripture in regards to the words that come out of our mouths.

James says that the tongue can set things on fire, and is itself set on fire from hell. (James 3:6)  What did he mean by that?  Simple, our hearts are not pure.  Christ says that from the abundance of a man's heart he will speak. (Matthew 12:34)  Therefore, recognizing that we are undergoing sanctification, even while we are not yet perfect, we must be slow to speak.  Our hearts are still idol factories, as Calvin put it, and therefore they are prone to lead us to speak devilish words as devilish idols fill them, unless we take the time to first bridle them with by the power of the Spirit of God.

Speaking hastily and disrespectfully of our leaders leads to our disgrace.  Those who we might have had the opportunity to speak the gospel to are turned away because we are so busy denigrating the President, that we do not realize they still hold him in respect.  Even if they do not hold him in respect, they may still think that the office of President is such that it is worth respecting, regardless of the one who sits in the chair.  Is our personal animus or anger toward any individual worth losing the opportunity to speak to someone about Christ?  (Yes, I think this admonition should apply to those currently in the position, and those who previously held the position.  Are we any more justified in calling Bush an idiot than we are in calling Obama a traitor?)

In addition to this, our words demonstrate that we do not trust the sovereign God who establishes all authorities.  In Ephesians chapter 1 we read that Christ has been placed high above all authorities and has all things under his feet.  Is the American electoral system then able to thwart the will of God?  Can we possible vote into office someone who God did not intend so that his will is not being accomplished?

Some may say, in response to all this, "Does that mean that we should support the anti-Christ when he appears?"  We ought to always pray for all of our leaders.  Scripture does not give us any indication that there is anyone we ought to exempt from our prayers.  Likewise, if the anti-Christ has authority over us, then in every way that we are permitted to do so from Scripture, yes, we should submit to him (that is, in every way that we can obey him without disobeying God, we would be required to render obedience).  This does not mean we submit to him in everything, it does not mean that we agree with him at all, but it does mean that we recognize that God has given him authority for a time, and we must submit to God's good will in recognizing whatever authority he has put in place.

Consider the relationship of Pharaoh and the Israelites.  Could God have commanded Moses, "take your people and flee, do not regard Pharaoh as having any authority!"  He could have, but he says that he raised Pharaoh up for the very purpose of displaying his might.  God wanted that Pharaoh (whichever he was) to have authority at that time so that the Lord could demonstrate his might over all things in bringing Israel out of Egypt.  If we are spiritually Israel, then why should we assume that God would never want to do the same with us?

Note also that in Revelation it is said that those who overcome do so through not loving their lives.  They overcame him by the blood of the lamb.  The martyrs in heaven, who die for the faith, they are the victors.  It is not the "Christian rebel" here on earth who overthrows a government through weaponry and violence who is given accolades in the throne room of heaven.  It is the one who is faithful to Christ, who shares the witness of Christ, and who dies honoring God who is seen as victorious.  (As I spoke with another brother about, this does not mean that men like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who tried to assassinate Hitler, we wrong in using violence in their situations.  I think the particularly situation in that place and time was such that Bonhoeffer did what he thought was the most moral thing he could because of the horror of the reality he was faced with.  And I think he was right.  But such situations are so far from the norm that giving justice to such considerations would require a whole other blog post.)

Politics is important.  God has given Americans a way by which the average person may exercise some level of authority in how we are governed.  We should never take that for granted or say, "I won't vote because I trust God will cause the person he wants to be elected."  Such a fatalist position is never encouraged or defended in Scripture.  But, at the same time, our words ought not be offensive when we speak of political opponents.  More important than any election is the kingdom of God and spreading the gospel here on earth, and we must watch our tongues to that end.

What is the value in calling the President an impostor or a fraud?  Why only insult or denigrate, when there is opportunity to build up?  Remember, we are called to be people of encouragement, not people of discouragement.  There are appropriate ways, and times, for making your disagreements with a particular politician or position known.  But, is it worth it to damage your witness and lose the opportunity to represent Christ just for the sake of blowing off some steam?  Let us act wisely in regards to what we say and how we say it, particularly in regards to such a divisive topic as politics.