Christians in the Marketplace

This post exhibits the unrelenting and ignorant posture the main stream media takes regarding anyone who dares to embrace Christian Theism. Their ignorance is both malicious and intentional.

Michele Bachmann and Dominionism Paranoia

Once again the popular media demonstrate how woefully poor is their understanding of American evangelicals.
By Douglas Groothuis, August 25, 2011

Attacks on presidential hopefuls will increase in volume, frequency, and audacity as the primary season draws near. Time is short, the stakes are high, and the pundits will pounce on their prey. One recent barrage against Congresswoman Michele Bachmann not only impugns her integrity as a political leader, but also questions something fundamentally and luminously American: the right of religious individuals to participate according to their deepest principles at every level of political life.

There is a buzz in the political beehive about the dark dangers of Bachmann's association with "dominionism"—a fundamentalist movement heaven-bent on imposing a hellish theocracy on America. In the August 15 issue of The New Yorker, Ryan Lizza asserts that Bachmann has been ideologically shaped by "exotic" thinkers of the dominionist stripe who pose a threat to our secular political institutions. The piece—and much of the subsequent media reaction—is a calamity of confusion, conflation, and obfuscation.

Lizza notes that Bachmann was influenced by the writings of Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-84), an evangelical minister, theologian, and philosopher. Schaeffer, along with the contemporary writer Nancy Pearcey and others, are "dominionists." That is, they believe that "Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy secular institutions until Christ returns." Worse yet, Schaeffer, in A Christian Manifesto (1981), supposedly "argued for the violent overthrow of the government if Roe vs. Wade isn't reversed." Lizza also writes of the influence of the prolific author Rousas John Rushdoony (1916-2001), who advocated "a pure Christian theocracy in which Old Testament law...would be instituted." Bachman is allegedly thick as thieves with all these "exotic" subversives—and should be exposed as such.

Having read reams of books from all these authors (and every book by Schaeffer) over the last thirty-five years, as well as having taught many of these books at the graduate level, I assign Mr. Lizza the grade of "F." Consider four reasons.

First, Rushdoony argued for a position he called reconstructionism (not theocracy), which would have made biblical law the civil law of the land. However, neither Rushdoony nor his followers desired to impose this system through violence or illegal activity, but rather see it come to fruition through a long-term change of minds and institutions.

Second, Rushdoony's devotees make up but an infinitesimal fraction of Christian conservatives. The vast majority of those who have been influenced by certain aspects of Rushdoony's writings emphatically reject his understanding of biblical law, as do I.

Third, the key Christian influences on Bachman are not Rushdoony and his followers, but Francis Schaeffer and Nancy Pearcey. Schaeffer referred to Rushdoony's views on mandating biblical law as "insanity," and never sanctioned any form of theocracy. (The name "Rushdoony" does not even appear in the index of Schaeffer's five-volume collected works.) Schaeffer explicitly condemned theocracy in A Christian Manifesto (p. 120-1). Nor did he call for the violent overthrow of the government if Roe V. Wade were not overturned. Schaeffer rather explained various ways of resisting tyranny according to a Christian worldview and in light of church history. He saw "civil disobedience" (his phrase) as a last resort and did not stipulate any specific conditions under which it would be advisable in America. In fact, Schaeffer worried (on p. 126) that speaking of civil disobedience is "frightening because there are so many kooky people around." Further, "anarchy is never appropriate."

Fourth, Nancy Pearcey has extended and further applied Schaeffer's thought. Like him, she does not endorse theocracy, but rather the participation by Christians as good citizens in all areas of life.

Those who tar and feather "dominionists" are confusing their readers by conflating Rushdoony's reconstructionism with the thinking of Schaeffer and Pearcey. Worse yet, Lizza and company may believe that any Christian influence in politics is dangerous and un-American. If so, they should reread and ponder the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom and the freedom of speech. Christians are free to be active members in the public square—along with those of other religions or none. Erecting "dominionist" straw men does nothing to advance this noble cause of freedom.

Douglas Groothuis is Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary and the author of Christian Apologetics.

**PLEASE NOTE** I circulate this to educate people about the wretched (and I might add intentional) ignorance and unrelenting bias of the main stream media against Christians. This is not an endorsement of any political candidate. This is an excellent treatment of a very fundamental and important issue for all Christian to understand. John Neuhaus wrote The Naked Public Square 20 years+ ago to alert Christians that there is a deliberate and concerted effort to deny access to Christians in the political processes of America. tcf

Scripture Interprets Scripture

Acts 16:4 As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem.

We are preaching through the Book of Acts this year at SEC. Acts 15 is the Jerusalem Council. The verse quoted above is commentary on what took place at this assembly.

Scripture interprets Scripture. There are many who vigorously oppose the role of Elders in the NT Church. This passage is clear testimony about what took place at that gathering. The people were most certainly involved, informed and granted the dignity that each Image Bearer deserves. However, the decision was made by the Apostles and Elders. Unless you deny the Inspiration and Authority of the text this is the inescapable conclusion.

Therefore, since this polity applied then, there is nothing to say that this polity does not apply today in the NT church. I rest my case.

Deep Roots = Much Fruit

Our Child Development Center had an end-of-summer program this past Thursday. I went over to the auditorium to watch the children sing in Spanish, recite Scripture that they had learned over the summer, etc.

I noticed a dime sized hole in the side walk. Out of that hole there was a small plant growing. I reached down to pull it out. What a lesson in spiritual vitality!

The above ground portion measured 3 inches. The root was 13 inches long!!! There is a very clear lesson in this. We are commanded to bear much fruit. Deep roots, vital connection to the vine makes that possible.

John 15:1-6 John 15:1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch of mine that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.

How deep are your roots? What is your connection to the Vine? Are you bearing fruit?

Church As "Life in Community"

There are many definitions of 'church'. Many of them are absolutely valid. It has long been one of my contentions that a primary issue in defining church and determining the health of any given assembly is "Life in Community", the body's obedience to the One Another Commands of the NT.

In the past week God provided two real life expressions of this reality in the church I pastor, SEC in Columbia SC. I share them in brief here and I pray that every Pastor enjoys a similar expression of the goodness of God in their Pastoral Pilgrimage.

Example #1 - Jack Jones, AP Writer, husband father. Member of SEC since 1992. His father ended up in the hospital with intestinal distress. In fact, he had a major blockage. This turned out to be Pancreatic Cancer. In less than three (3) weeks Jack's Dad was dead. He and his family attended all the usual events associated with such a crisis. At the same time it was confirmed that his Mother has either severe Dementia or Alzheimers.

Last Thursday we were together in an Intercessory Prayer group, ladies in one room. men in another. The song writer intones "Big boys don't cry!" Not true! In the presence of a room full of men, one of whom is one of Jack's adult sons and a Seminary student, Jack wept openly as he shared how comforting and overwhelmingly affirming it was to just walk into a room filled with people that love him and care about the events that shape his earthly pilgrimage.

THANKS Jack for your unvarnished display of "Life in Community"!

Example #2 - Shirley Smith is a five year breast cancer survivor. They recently discovered a small nodule in one of her breast. She went to the doctor and they did a biopsy. When she returned to her car she burst into to tears and uncontrollable sobbing. For a brief moment she was gripped by fear.

Then the Holy Spirit reminded her of her Christian Family. She had all those ladies numbers in her cell phone. One by one she began to call them and simply share the situation. Each of them prayed with her. Her countenance immediately changed. She shared this morning that 6-8 years ago she would not have had this level of understanding and maturity. Both she and the body have been immersed in the grace of God, growing in grace. Both her doing this and even more sharing it openly and publicly this morning were a blessing to all and most of all Glory to our God who one day will gather us all in His presence. The biopsy was negative - no cancer.

So, I close with this question - "Do you know what real "Life in Community" is and have you ever enjoyed such incredible JOY?

Psuedo-Evangelical Luminaries (sic)

I posted an entry on face book challenging the use of air-brushed photos. Men seeking to look 30-40 years younger than they actually are. The following is an accurate and substantive response I received. Think on these things!

Eight by ten glossies? This refers to a picture (eight by ten inches) used for promotion. The type budding celebrities produce, sign and give away. Be sure of this: the pose, the lighting - everything is perfect. All blemishes are air brushed away. Nice!

Such picture-perfect pictures makes sense for that type of promotion - first impressions, lasting images and all that. Yet, they remind me of our obsessive and wearisome efforts to make and maintain the right image as good Christians.

Oh the tiresome burden of “being a testimony” by putting on a false front of perfection, people with no struggles and certainly no doubts. Thus my effort at poetry & no pretense of being a poet.

Please know: I am not saying live however you would like – sloppy and sinful. I am pleading for more honesty, integrity and refreshing transparency.

"But we have this treasure in jars of clay
to show that this all-surpassing power is from God
and not from us. "
2 Corinthians 4:7 - NIV

Eight by Ten glossies, slick press reviews
Displaying our glory, and all we can do

Slick beyond words, dressed to the nines
We're competent, versatile, quite a rare find

We hardly look weak, or in need of much aid
We have it all handled, we're clam, cool and stayed

“Just look at who we are, just see what He's done.”
Most certainly we will draw them to God’s only Son

Of course God can use us, of course we're His tool
Just look at our lives, they sparkle like jewels

They'll wish they we're so blessed, and hope they can be
Such bastions of strength, real “witnesses” we

Yet, it's weak ones He uses, the broken ones too
Our cracks and defects, give Him room to shine through

When He uses the least, the ones who are weak
His grace becomes something, hurt others will seek

Perfection - it threatens, creates quite a threat
"I'll never be like you, that's a sure bet"

The damaged but useful, they attract other ones
Who feel they're unworthy, of love from the Son

Resist the temptation, to glaze over cracks
To hide them from view, behind other's backs

Why not share your weaknesses, declare you have needs
Yours is a garden, that still has it weeds

Yet He is at work, He loves and He uses
They very same ones, who usually loses

Is not what we do, or the skills that are ours
That makes us a tool, by HIS mighty power

Shredding 8 X 10 Glossies, refusing image control
Concerned for His glory, solely His virtues extol

We chipped jars of clay, don't hold treasures too well
We're vulnerable vessels, from which treasures can spill

Yet, when treasures are seen, in mere jars of clay
Vulnerable vessels, that serve "everyday"

When gold is deposited, in such basic vases
It shows that God's pleased, with us common-type places

The sweet Rose of Sharon, the raised Son of God
Loves to be shown off, in means that are odd

So bring Him your brokenness, lay bare your scars
Let Him shine forth from us, mere vessels, clay jars

“To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me.

But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.” 2 Corin. 12:7-10 (NIV)

What Is Church?

The brief post that follows has been on my mind for several years. What is church? We have substituted cultural affinities for racial prejudice . We have "Biker Church", "Equestrian Church", "Millenial Church", ad infinitum. We do not display the oneness that our God designed. We have one shepherd seeking to serve multiple thousands that he does not know and never sees. Does this model meet the parameters of the NT norms for church?

Are these assemblies about Jesus Christ, Sin, Salvation and eternal life, or, are they simply another form of self-centered market driven hype?

I for one think these are questions we ought to be asking and investing serious prayer and exegesis to find the answer. Appreciate your thoughts.

Posted: 08 Jul 2011 01:55 PM PDT

There is a fascinating article on multi-campus ministry in the latest Christianity Today. I will not bore readers with too much of my usual shtick about the celebrity/megachurch culture which seems to have engulfed even the Reformed wing of evangelicalism in the last five years. You should read the article for yourselves. I was particularly struck, however, by the comparison of megachurches to Walmart, and the language of branding and entrepreneurialism. All of this seemed most apposite and insightful.

I wonder if we are truly on the verge of an era where smaller churches - where people know each other by name, are known by name by at least one of their elders and have to give sacrificially of their time and money to keep the ship afloat -- is coming to an end? Are we at a time when the form of Willow Creek has triumphed even in the midst of, on paper at least, a more orthodox theology?

These are sad days, when the biblical models of church and pastoring are being swept away by the avalanche of numerical success allied to personality cults and corporate values. The Apostle Peter clearly likens pastoring the church to shepherding, connects this shepherding to Christ as the great shepherd and, by implication, to the kind of quality of relationship Christ has with his sheep (1 Pet. 5: 1-5; cf. Jn. 10:14). Can multi-site, out-of state ministries even approximate in the vaguest and most attenuated way to this? Is there even a debate to be had here? Is there a single one of these megachurch outfits that isn't basically identified with one or maybe two big personalities? Is that not a warning light that something may be amiss? And isn't it about time that somebody who carries real weight in the young, restless and reformed world spoke out about this kind of ecclesiastical madness? Or are we so steeped in the celebrity/corporate/megachuch culture and so mesmerisied by numbers that nobody sees the problems any more?

(From Reformation 21 BLOG, July 8, 2011)

Contending for The Faith

Paul’s letter to Titus makes it crystal clear that Elders must embrace sound doctrine and also rebuke those who contradict it. One of the observations I have made over the 42 years invested in acquiring some proficiency in interpreting the text of Scripture is this:

The church is usually 20-25 years behind the cultural changes that relentlessly take place. Change is constant but the church seeks to live in a cocoon and implements change only when it is literally forced upon her.

The result of this is engaging issues with outdated and ineffective responses. The church is anachronistic in much of what she attempts to do and is maligned and mocked accordingly. This is true in the realm of rebuke issued for doctrinal error. What would the Apostle Paul have thought of Boyd’s “Open Theism”? What would Luther have said about Dave Hunt's soteriology? To be effective we must be current. Wickedness escalates as we approach 'the end' and our knowledge of error and response to same must be mature, sharp and current.

I was recently the recipient of some 'left-handed sarcasm' because I even mentioned the priority of doctrine over methodology (read David Wells 5 Volumes written between 1993 - 2008). The Pslamist wrote that the word of God is forever settled in heaven (Ps. 119:89). Long after methods have changed repeatedly, the Scripture and Doctrine stands.

The link provided below is an article posted by Phil Johnson. He seeks to define what is and what is not a “primary doctrine”. All doctrine is essential. How we rebuke those who error must be defined by the consequences of any given error. Join me in grappling with this issue and above all may we as pastor/scholars be engaged with the armor and issues that are current and not anachronistic.

He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:9, ESV)

ἐλέγχω fut. ἐλέγξω; 1aor. ἤλεγξα; 1aor. pass. ἠλέγχθην; (1) in the NT, generally as showing someone that he has done something wrong and summoning him to repent bring to light, expose (JN 3.20); convince, convict (JA 2.9); (2) in the sense of setting right reprove, correct (1T 5.20); in an intensified sense rebuke, discipline, punish (HE 12.5)

http://phillipjohnson.blogspot.com/2005/09/sometimes-fellowship-is-better-than.html