moved over to wordpress

hi all, just letting you know that I am now blogging over at endued.wordpress.com

What is a Fetus Worth?

Jan. 22, 2008 marks the 35 year anniversary of Roe V. Wade. It will also be acknowledged as “Life Sunday” in many churches across the land, where our attention will be brought to reflect upon the sanctity of human life and pray for the unthinkable act of abortion to be abolished. Scott Peterson was found guilty for double homicide of his wife Laci Peterson and yet born baby Conner. This case was front and center in the media for some time and I hope awakened people’s evaluation of the value of the unborn baby in the womb.

Scott Peterson was a man who loved the wild life and fought against the reality of growing responsibilities. He was engaged in an adulteress affair at the time of the murder and many think that the very reason he murdered his wife was to escape the responsibilities of fatherhood. Others suggest that he wanted to cash in on a life policy. Either way you look at it, the baby Conner was seen as a hindrance, because say even if he wanted cash from the life policy, he certainly didn’t want it with the responsibility of raising a child all by himself. There was certainly a motive to kill his wife before the baby was born. Scott Peterson was ultimately convicted on first degree murder for his wife and second degree murder for the fetus; which begs the question:

Why the inconsistency on the value we place upon the unborn fetus?

First of all, how can you say that the murder of the fetus was second degree compared to the first degree conviction of his wife? If anything, the murder of his wife was in every way prompted by the presence of the baby Conner in her womb. It was just as first degree as can be. Secondly, the state of California got it partly right in holding Peterson accountable for the baby, albeit second degree. The state even has enough sense in this case to realize that the baby has some value and couldn’t persuasively argue that Conner had no intrinsic value, nor was a factor in Peterson’s plotting. We see therefore a huge inconsistency in how the state views the value of human life. If Laci Peterson, herself, even without the consent of her husband, were to undergo an abortion of the fetus the very same day she was murdered, the state could care less and a large portion of the country just views it as something that is acceptable. But if Scott Peterson takes the baby’s life, without the consent of the mother, it is held against him as murder of a person.

I am in no way suggesting that Scott Peterson shouldn’t be held accountable for the murder of baby Conner. What I am questioning is how does the state have any authority to render a verdict that paints such an act as cold blooded murder in one case and would actually fight to protect the choice of the mother to perform the same act in another situation? Obviously, this country is divided on this issue and even our emotions are divided on this issue when confronted the complexity of the situations that prompt the murder of a baby. As one who is opposed to abortion, we alone are consistent in our position. Can you imagine Planned Parenthood protesting the conviction of Peterson because in their eyes Conner is only really a “non-viable tissue of mass”. I’m sure that Planned Parenthood, along with other pro-abortion groups were having a hard time hearing the media refer to Laci and Scott’s child as: “Conner”, “Unborn Son”, etc. they have fought long and hard to term the baby in other clinical tags, as the once mentioned “mass of tissue”, “zygote”, etc.

The media would have a field day and crucify Planned Parenthood if they protested the usage of the words “Conner” or “Baby” and lined up at the courthouse painting Scott Peterson as a victim of double homicide when it should rightly be single homicide. Pro abortion groups are smarter than that and stayed home biting their tongues. They can’t be consistent in their position because it would make them look cruel and inhumane. They exalt the judgment of the mother as being the sole determining factor of a baby’s viability and perpetuate the new ideals of convenience, a false freedom that binds, shamelessness, on and on. They know it, but want us to believe a lie…they would rather we close our minds and our hearts to the issue at stake in the Scott Peterson case. It is bad PR for them.

It is also ironic that as my wife was expecting our second little girl, my wife qualified for state assisted health care on the account of the little one in her stomach. I am grateful that the state deems our baby worthy of health care even though a couple of months into the pregnancy, when most pro-abortion groups would say that the baby is of no significance and has no inherent value. In fact, Mimi herself doesn’t qualify for health care, but the state will provide care throughout the pregnancy because the baby is deemed as precious and worth caring for. So, the state does recognize our baby as valuable, recognized Conner as valuable in convicting Peterson of murder, but fails to recognize unwanted babies as valuable.

As the media continues to perpetuate an image of Christians as brainwashed zealots, they only do so in their own blindness and complete disregard for the consistency in how we value human life: wanted or not, convenient or not, deformed or not, murdered or aborted (which is murder). Christian, may it never be said of us that we are cold-hearted. If you meet someone who has had an abortion, love them, love them, love them and exalt in the incredible mercy of God that forgives ALL sin. May our neighbors see us as anything but the red-faced angry religious zealots the media paints us to be, and instead encounter within us a loving embrace and hear from our lips and hearts truth spoken in love. Keep also in your prayers the many little ones right now who face an appointment with death in the name of convenience.

Bridge to Terabithia a Bridge to the Gospel?

This movie surprisingly engaged some theological themes. Leslie attends church with the Burke family and on the way home comments that the "Jesus" stuff was interesting. Jess' little sister said that it was all true because the Bible taught it and if you didn't believe it you were going to hell. Jess was a little bit tentative in asserting such, most uneasy over what Leslie's thoughts might be. Leslie basically disagrees and says that they believe this stuff because they have too. This scene really does contrast Leslie's imagination and fantasy, which seems all so real, with the dull out of touch "truth" that the Bible teaches. Basically Leslie's imagination is more gripping and praiseworthy in contrast to Jess' religious convictions.

I basically think that the screenwriter was trying to simply show that Leslie was a free spirit and that she was guided by her imaginations and thoughts in a way that is more attractive in comparison to the Bible-believing faith of Christians. I must admit that while watching this movie, I am drawn to Leslie's character and find it hard to refute her hesitations about a rigid belief system. This is where I had hoped that Jess would be able to share his faith about the Biblical story in an even more awe-inspiring fashion that Leslie's imagination, but such was not the case. Instead we see an unsure tentativeness of basically asserting stuff like a parrot because we were told that such things were true.

I instead am captivated by the Biblical story and think that therein lays great truth and mystery. Truth actually leads us into a tension of asserting God's transcendence in a way that is truly inspiring and full of wonder.

The world of Narnia is guided by this truth, whereas the world of Terabithia is not. I love the world of Terabithia and even think that it parallels the truth of a Satan figure who seeks the destruction of creatures and intruders. The redeemer is a king and princess. These themes are great and awesome, but only because they reflect the one true story of Jesus as king ruling over the dark forces that seek our destruction. The gospel is portrayed in Terabithia, yet rejected in its conceptual theological fashion, at least from Leslie, in the conversation about faith. What Terabithia offers as an alternative to Christian faith is in fact the gospel illustrated. The movie would have been much more glorious in affirming the glorious truths in both, rather than conceptually treating the Bible as a rigid rule book and contrastly portray Terabithia as a free minded expression of fantasy.

Why Keep a Journal?

Jonathan Edwards

There is no definitive right or wrong way to keep a journal, but I just wanted to offer some ideas on what I am doing in my journal taking and would love to hear what some of you do.

First off, I am making reference more to a journal of a devotional nature, containing reflective thoughts on texts of Scripture, prayers, questions for God, etc. I try to journal everyday, but sometimes skip a day. I do realize that one can get in the habit of skipping days and they add up to where you just give up. I try to be careful about that, but have had those experiences as well.

Anyhow, right now, I am simply reading a single chapter of Scripture and then dialoging with the text in my journal. I will often offer praise and thanksgiving for something in the text that causes doxology in my soul and note it. I will also make comments about new insights received from the text or even jot down a question I have for further review. I usually end the journal entry with a written prayer that is related somehow to the text. While journaling as such, I am not using a study Bible or commentaries of any sort. I am simply dialoguing with the text of Scripture on my finite understanding of it.

I mark down the chapter read and the date. If you keep up with one a day, you will journal the whole Bible in about three years. I suggest purchasing a hardcover journal (book bound) from a local bookstore. They will run for about $5-10 for a cheaper one. It will last for a longtime and you can store it in a personal library or pass it down to your children someday.

Another type of journaling that I like to do is write poetry or prayers. I have purchased a nicer leather bound journal for these entries. Maybe once a week or so, I would recommend putting your artistic skills to use and compose a poem, a song, or a prayer. You can compose a nighttime prayer for a child of yours, a mealtime family prayer, a poem for a special occasion or holiday. Imagine having a special journal with written out prayers for every thanksgiving meal, poems for every Christmas, prayer/poems for relatives birthdays and more. You can encourage family members to contribute to this journal and reference it for future prayers at special occasions.

Lastly, I want to mention another type of journaling, which is very special and will require much patience. Buy a large leather bound journal and write out the entire Bible in it. Again, if you write out a chapter a day, it will take 3 years. You can even take turns in your family and it can truly become a “family Bible”, one that adorns a special place in your home. You can read from this Bible for family devotions, holidays, etc. I have yet to do this, but hope to one day accomplish such a task. It will also serve as a touching gift for your children when you will pass on…of much more value than a family heirloom. It would be awesome if I had a written out Bible from an ancient relative.

Well, I would love to hear what your thoughts are and what some of you do for your personal journal time.

Good Times In California

The Hogaboam family went to Cali for a vacation in August and had a wonderful time. We hit the theme parks, the beach, and hung with family and friends. It was great. Anyhow, I just now feel like I am returning to normalcy and even so, I am still catching up with work and stuff.

Well, I hope to be offering up blogs more frequently and look forward to hearing from you!!!

My Response to Recommendations from PCA Committee on " Federal Vision"

I am pasting below a published article and my response is in red italics below the article.

NEWS FROM THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA
MEMPHIS, TENN
JUNE 14, 2007

35th PCA GA Approves Recommendations of Federal Vision Study Report
MEMPHIS, TENN – The 35TH General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America, meeting in Memphis, Tenn., on Wednesday, June 13, approved the recommendations of its Interim Committee on Federal Vision.

After the committee made its report, a motion was made to postpone taking action on the recommendations at this GA, to add two new members to the committee, and to direct the committee to include more exegesis of relevant biblical passages in its report. This motion failed. After further debate the General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to approve the recommendations.

The recommendations included the following:

1. That the General Assembly commends to Ruling and Teaching Elders and their congregations this report of the Ad Interim Committee on NPP, AAT and FV for careful consideration and study.

2. That the General Assembly reminds the Church, its officers and congregations of the provisions of BCO 29-1 and 39-3 which assert that the Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, while “subordinate to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the inerrant Word of God,” have been adopted by the PCA “as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice.”

3. That the General Assembly recommends the declarations in this report as a faithful exposition of the Westminster Standards, and further reminds those ruling and teaching elders whose views are out of accord with our Standards of their obligation to make known to their courts any differences in their views.

4. That the General Assembly reminds the Sessions and Presbyteries of the PCA that it is their duty “to exercise care over those subject to their authority” and “to condemn erroneous opinions which injure the purity or peace of the Church” (BCO 31-2; 13-9f).

Recommendation 3 dealt with nine declarations proposed by the study committee. It asked the General Assembly to recommend that the declarations in the report be considered a faithful exposition of the Westminster Standards. The declarations are:


In light of the controversy surrounding the NPP and FV, and after many months of careful study, the committee unanimously makes the following declarations:

1. The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.

2. The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

3. The view that Christ does not stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience and satisfaction is imputed to individuals who believe in him is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

4. The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

5. The view that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant because it subsumes all of Christ’s benefits (including justification) under this doctrinal heading is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

6. The view that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ through which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

7. The view that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, including perseverance, in that effectual union is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

8. The view that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, such as regeneration and justification, and yet not persevere in those benefits is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

9. The view that justification is in any way based on our works, or that the so-called “final verdict of justification” is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

Byfaithonline – The Web Magazine of the PCA
Make sure to visit www.byfaithonline.com regularly to read articles and news for and about the PCA. To subscribe to the print edition of the Byfaith magazine go to https://giving.christianity.com/donatenow/pca/offers.php.

Dominic Aquila, Editor
Byfaithonline Newsletter
daquila@byfaithonline.com
www.byfaithonline.com

I agree with just about everything…although I have some minor qualms with point #2 The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

I understand what is at the heart of this statement…but my understanding of such a text as 2 John 1, where the epistle is addressed to the “elect” lady and her children; would seem to me to be an endearing designation of those who are the “ekklesia” by means of their confession, baptism, and participation in the covenant community. When such people go out from the church in apostasy, John says that they were never really a part of us…meaning that they proved themselves to be insincere in their faith. Even so, while participating with all marks of a true believer, they would be addressed as the “elect” presumptively…and contingently, based on persevering faith in the redemption in Christ. In this sense then, the covenant community would all be addressed as the “elect” although some would fall away, not making their calling and election a sure thing…and therefore no longer be addressed as the “elect” in such an apostasized state, but would regain such an endearing term if they were to be restored to the church. In this sense, I do believe in a broad use of the term, “elect”, to refer to the local body. I would even argue that the word church, meaning “called out”, even carries with it much the same identity of “elect”.

Though I would not necessarily say that one loses their election, one must at least admit that they are forsaking the elect community and the saving benefits found in her (I am sounding like a sacramentalist, but that is okay, I think) and such a person would no longer be assured of the salvivic benefits they once enjoyed while participating in the “elect” community…they would be cut off…but of course welcomed back if genuine restoration takes place. Basically, being part of the “elect” is contingent on several things: repentance, baptism, fruits of repentance, a lively faith. One shows themselves elect based on only these visible evidences that we have to judge and administer discipline accordingly. We can only presume and never claim to be infallible in our judgment as a church. We are left to press on and make our calling and election a sure thing…a final reality.

John Piper’s, “Future Grace”, was very helpful and influential in some of my thinking in this matter and it may very be that I adapt more of Federal Vision than I am aware. My understanding all stems from Scripture, to which my conscience is captive…even if I should die a heretic.

Any thoughts?

"Cumorah Hill, Mormonism, Joseph Smith" (All in my backyard)

A picture of the Cumorah Hill, where legend has it that Joseph Smith befriended an Angel named Moroni, who entrusted him with golden plates full of Egyptian Hieroglyphics, containing the Book of Mormon. Anyhow, this is located right near me in Palmyra, New York (where I happen to get Chinese food quite a bit by the way). The hill also is a perfect sledding hill in the winter. Also, this serves as the site of a yearly pageant that includes a huge cast and special effects, quite a show I hear. It is also frequented by a professing group of Christians whom I have heard dress up like Joseph Smith and Satan, depicting Satan having his way with the tormented Smith... I, however, object to such a drama and would probably much prefer the Heretical pageant for purely entertainment purposes...but don't deny the truth that Smith may in fact be suffering such a horrible fate. I have yet to meet a Mormon who has cited this expedition as wooing them to the Evangelical faith....can you figure why not? I think Paul said something about truth in love, right? Anyhow, this concludes the longest picture caption you have seen in your life.

Growing up, I befriended quite a few Mormons and actually considered a couple to be my closest friends for a time. I was welcomed by their families into their homes and was even asked to lead a devotion and prayer before dinner on one occasion. I would engage in numerous theological discussions and found myself doing more research than the typical high school student. One thing became painfully clear in my research: the LDS Church was no church of Jesus Christ. I attended their services, their Sunday school, and conversed with the local bishop (who was my friend’s father) and realized that their theology was not Biblical. We were both convinced in our beliefs and thought the other was in error, which prompted a loving disposition of winning the other over.

I am well aware of the accounts of Joseph Smith obtaining the gold plates on the Cumorah Hill in Palmyra and was very interested in visiting the hill when Bob Young (elder at my church) was giving me a tour of the area in my first visit to the Church. I continue to be astounded a hill in Palmyra is the source for the faith of millions in one of the fastest growing religious sects in the world. It all comes down to whether or not Joseph Smith received plates on that hill, and I am convinced not. It is interesting to note that when Joseph Smith was a young adolescent, a traveling magician and diviner came through Palmyra and drew the curiosity of the young Smith. This diviner carried along with him magic stones that he said would allow him to find buried treasure. He would offer his services to the locals at $3 a day to search their property. No treasure was found, but the young Smith remained intrigued by the thoughts of magical stones and became a clone of sorts. He offered his own services and once traveled to Damascus, New York to find treasure that he said was buried by the Spaniards. Many joined in the excavation work and no treasure came up…Smith said to keep digging because an enchantment lowered it deeper. At this, people labeled Smith a charlatan and ceased their digging. By the way, Smith was getting paid quite well from this venture.

Smith later details how magical rocks aided him in his translation of the words found upon the gold plates that he received from the angel Moroni on the Cumorah Hill. I wish not to assault Joseph Smith and his now many followers, but rather point out the great danger that exists in fascination with the occult. The young Smith was fascinated by the itinerant diviner that came through Palmyra and it birthed within him an ongoing search for the mysterious and hidden. This venture was unfruitful for the young Smith, so he went on to create a fable that would lend credence to his professed abilities and in doing so, founded a religious movement that has so recklessly banked their faith upon Smith’s credibility and reliability.

Whether Smith’s story is a mere fabrication or his occult fascination invited the adversary as an angel of light to actually encounter him and lead him in his findings…we can clearly say that Satan was at work, as he is both the author of all lies and the one whose presence is found in occult pursuits. It was not surprising to hear, after moving here, that Palmyra has a history of occult incidents and Satanic worship. It has also been brought to my attention that the Wayne County region has a whole has given place to occult practices and falsity (including the Fox sisters and the rise of Spiritualism). It is my prayer that God would bless Palmyra and rid it of all occult fascination and bring forth the light of His Son, who is the eternal truth. May Wayne County behold the truth in Christ and turn from the darkness that would seek to bind her. May we prove faithful in our defense of the one true gospel and call our Mormon friends back to the church of the one and true Jesus Christ.

"Shepherding Movement, John Piper, Church Membership" All Discussed in this Response

I am posting below a response I made to a very thoughtful critique of my original post on "Church Membership: What's the Point?" from a blogger, John Bailey, who is an elder in a PCA church in Torrance, CA. His response is copied in first, and then my response.

Hi Rick,

I am a ruling elder at a PCA church in Torrance CA. I have a background similar to yours and have asked the same question about church membership. I am happy to hear you are becoming member of your church. We recently received new members into our church and it is a joyous occasion to me. Before someone is brought into membership the elders interview them. In the interview one thing we are looking for is an authentic conversion testimony. We are careful to assure all those seeking membership are actually Christians.

I understand your thoughts when you say, “What’s the point.” The same question could be asked about marriage or national citizenship but I don’t claim there are perfect parallels between them. What I do know is that we are a people that are afraid of commitment. In church membership we make a commitment or covenant with a particular group of people. Many would say a formal declaration of this is unnecessary and to them I defer to the marriage analogy. If formal membership is meaningless to one’s commitment than why not do it? Of course we know that it is not meaningless but instead makes one accountable.

Church membership has other implications. There is the business aspect. A member is like a shareholder and does have voting rights. I for one have strong feelings against church leadership that seem to have a totalitarian slant. The Presbyterian form of church government has many built in safeguards against this. Because of this it is important to clearly define the members and make sure they agree to the form of government before joining. But membership is significant to me in ways other than bureaucratic.

The other aspect that is worth mentioning is church discipline. Part of being a member is the ongoing submission to the leadership of the elders. A church’s jurisdiction surely can not extend to those who have not willingly agreed to be under it.

Probably the most telling thing that can be said about me is that I am a church member. There is no other one thing that defines me as thoroughly as that. My church is not perfect any more than yours is but my commitment to it is a commitment to the Biblical concept of community and purity and God centeredness. With all of the quirkiness that the idea of church membership may have I hope that some of the things I have said will push the scales back in the other direction a little.

In Christ
Sincerely
John Bailey


John,

I appreciate your thoughtful response. I do like the analogies you used with marriage and citizenship. Most people are treating the formalities of marriage as unnecessary now days so I think that fits particularly well. Marriage is indeed important because it is a covenant relationship and certain rights are bestowed in the ceremony and recognized by the state. The state does indeed take into account marriage when dealing with certain legal matters...so it is no small thing. People fear such commitment because they want the entitlements without the covenant stipulations.

Church membership is indeed a covenant with the local church and a declaration of submission to the governing body. I also like how you mentioned that membership bestows certain rights, like that of voting...etc. Today, most evnagelicals cringe at the thought of submitting to the governing elders of a local body. Membership is definitely the way to communicate within a local church that such submission is indeed taken seriously.

I am also aware that such a paradigm has lead to abuses in many cases, particularly with the "shepherding movement", where elders basically ran the lives of church members...even to the point of directing decisions on what homes to buy, entertainment choices, apparel, etc. While Scripture does speak to some of these issues and I find it refreshing in some cases that churches actually take the whole counsel of God seriously and try best to implement it in their lives, I still cringe at some of the pain inflicted upon people who were told not to buy a certain car or marry a certain individual when the issues were well within the confines of Christian liberty. It is important to remember at this point that all elders will have to give an account for how they led God's people.

I guess that we have seen the abuses of both extremes: the abusive elders who govern people's lives on one hand; and the commitment free entitlement mentality of those who "church shop, church hop" and simply leave when the going gets tough or their "needs" are no longer being met.

I think we are both on the same page in wanting to foster a God-centeredness in the local Covenant community and strive for continued sanctification as a corporate body. I guess at the end of the day, some of your most committed believers could be the ones without official membership and you would heartily commend such folks.

BUT you bring up a great point in asking: Why not become a member?

Actually, I can now think of a situation in one church: Bethlehem Baptist, pastored by John Piper, where they attempted to amend the bylaws for membership requirements to strike the prerequisite of baptism by full immersion. They have a contingency of folks who have been baptized as infants and would like to become members of a church that they love and Piper was sympathetic to such a situation and wanted to bestow upon such folks membership status. Anyhow, the church was not ready for such a change and such folks remain outside the formal membership of the church.

This incident really got me thinking about what should be "required" for membership into the local church. You mentioned that the prospective members must give their testimony before the elders. Is there any baptismal requirement? Is there an affirmation of faith to any particular creed, statement of faith, etc.?

What do you think should be the requirements for local membership?

Also, I mentioned that RCA requires only an annual attendance to sustain active membership and I am wondering; what constitutes active membership in your local PCA church?

Thanks for your dialogue!!!

Church Membership: What's The Point?

This has been my first reading of John R. Sittema, a pastor in the PCA, serving a congregation in North Carolina. I only read a single chapter, “Church Membership: Committed to Follow a Recognized Voice”. It was offered up to me by an elder in my church after we had some discussions about the idea of church membership. The chapter was to the point and spoke critically of the current trend in American evangelicalism to view membership as archaic and meaningless.

I am still thinking through the idea of church membership. I am former student at Calvary Chapel School of Ministry in Costa Mesa (basically their unofficial seminary, not to be confused with the many Calvary Chapel Bible Colleges…the school of ministry was a master’s level study). Anyhow, I only lasted 1 semester because of some doctrinal differences that I had with their eschatology, which doesn’t make allowances for anything other than a pre-trip rapture, literal 7 years period of tribulation, followed by a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on the earth, etc (basically, common dispensational eschatology). Anyhow, I am off track…alright back on track: Calvary Chapels don’t practice church membership and I really didn’t question it at the time nor ever since until recently. Is the idea even Biblical?

My family and I are becoming members of our church….and this is the first time in my life, even though I have been in ministry, where we are actually becoming formal members. It isn’t because we object to the idea of membership, but I have been in fellowships where the congregational has a functional status of membership by means of active involvement and participation. If someone was out of line or fell into sin, they were approached one way or another and dealt with irregardless of membership status. Basically, such a view sees the participating flock as the local church and community of God. Sure there are unbelievers among such gatherings, but they are considered just that: non-believers. So to sum it up, there are only two types of people that gather in a church with such polity: believers and non-believers.

Now when one considers the ecclesiology behind formal church membership, there are various distinctions made in a Sunday morning worship service: active members (who may or may not be believers), inactive members (who may or may not be believers), probationary members (individuals under church discipline), believing non-members, and unbelieving non-members and then a distinction is made between children of members (baptized uncommunicant covenant members) and children of non-members (essentially viewed as unbaptized, non-covenant children). You can see how difficult it may be for one to grasp all of these distinctions.

Now when surveying the basic premises of these 2 different views on membership, there is no wonder why many opt for the simple 2 category model. It is simpler to understand and to minister within. The other view has very good intentions, but get pretty ridiculous at times in its implementation. Let me cite one example from the Reformed Church of America’s view of active membership. To maintain active membership, one only needs to attend at least 1 service per year. On the other hand, we have committed believers who love the church and are not formal members. According to the RCA, the “active” member is in good standing, while the non-member should seek membership. Now, explain to me what good the vibrant believer sees in membership when one looks at the rolls and sees hundreds of people who are designated as active members though they have only been to church a dozen times in the last decade. The elders are handicapped by this policy and can’t remove such “active” members from the rolls, even though we have to pay classis fees for each member, which was around an annual payment of $60 for each “active” member in our church. We can ask if they would like to be removed, but if they say no, then there is nothing we can do because after all, they did come to the Easter service every year.

Another example of angst I have: Let’s say we have an elder in our church sleeping around with other women. It tears his family apart. He is approached, but refuses to stop his actions. On these grounds, he will be removed from eldership and membership….but according to the words of a local Reformed Presbyterian Pastor, “this man would be strongly encouraged to continue to gather on Sunday morning worship”. Having heard this, I was in awe. In my background, unbelievers are more than welcome to join us, even those living in sin….but if a professing believer falls in an unrepentant state, we would disassociate ourselves from such an individual and they would not be welcome in our gatherings until repentance was seen. In the other view of my friend….being stripped of membership is the only jurisdiction the church has…and that sitting under the public preaching of the word is encouraged because it may bring them back to repentance.

Now when you liken this previous example to the incestuous relationship at Corinth. Paul wants the man removed. I doubt that he was welcome in the public gatherings until repentance had been seen. In fact one can infer that based on Paul’s rebuke that the church had not welcomed him back after repentance and I would certainly not have in view that he was welcome in their gatherings, but formal membership was the only thing withheld. Basically, you are either in or out. Outsiders are welcome because they are not to be held accountable to discipline since they are not professing believers. Discipline and accountability are targeted towards those who are in by means of their profession of faith and active involvement.

Another sadly comical example of church membership gone crazy is the implementation of a scholarship fund in a church that restricts the benefits to members only. Again, remember what it takes to remain an active member….not much. However, there may be a vibrant believer who could very desperately use the scholarship, but does not qualify unless they become a member. You know who gets the scholarship at the end of the story and it’s laughable. Now you may say: what good reason is keeping the so-called vibrant Christian from seeking membership? I would say, a lack of understanding of its benefits, a lack of seeing such a title ultimately affecting their faith walk, and sadly a disdain for the apparent hypocrisy that exists in maintaining “active” membership.

Having said this, I think the well intended polity of the Reformed tradition that creates subcategories for the worshipping community actually hinders the apparent value of membership to the community of believers. While it would be very simple to just disregard membership, as many of the newer church models are: I would say that such a trend can be dangerous in the other extreme.

Elders are to care for the flock. There is to be an understanding among the worshiping community that there exists accountability to the elders. Instead, we have Christians who come and go as they please and reject such accountability.

Sittema is right in his book when he says that we need to make membership mean something to protect the integrity of such a title. He suggests a celebration of sorts in receiving new members and is definitely all for the pastoral care of the elders in making certain that the professing members of the body are growing and maturing in their faith. It is here, where I shout a loud amen!!! May the church employ, as she is mandated, the gift of the elder body to care for and lead the flock of God. It is here where “membership” means something in such a polity. Even in the church models that reject formal membership, may there be a greater distinction of the people of God as a maturing body under proper leadership in the church. This is really the heart of the issue.

In the name of seeker-sensitivity, many churches have unfortunately blurred the line for what it means to be “in” the worshipping community. In some churches where there are small groups tailored for the sports enthusiast and breakfasts featuring former athletes who speak about a vague conversion experience really focused on portraying Jesus as the ultimate self-help guru during one’s career, the enthusiastic attendee may very well consider himself part of the sponsoring church…to the church’s delight. Now, where is the discipleship?….well it is relegated to a class that is “offered”, but of course not mandatory for ongoing fellowship. Does this person consider themselves accountable to the leaders in the church (that’s assuming the church even has a plurality of leaders or elders)? Probably not, because their Christian experience is much like eating at a restaurant and picking your favorite dish. The church has catered to this mentality by allowing the conscience of such a person to go unchecked. They are encouraged to come to more of the offerings…certainly there is more on the menu. “I’ll stick with the small group that watches football games and has a short testimony from someone about how Jesus helped them through a bad day”. This is the other extreme that needs to be fought in American Evangelicalism. I am all for being relevant and contextualizing our message to reach hardened seekers. Ultimately, though, in order for one to count the cost….they must know what the cost is. American Evangelicalism is uncomfortable telling people to count the cost. We would rather suggest that they consider the cost and are somewhat content if they choose dessert only.

Ultimately, the church is the body of believers. The tares will be among us, but they are truly not the body. The best thing the church can do for the tares is by shining brightly as strong growing wheat. The distinction needs to be made so evident that the tare is made aware that they are not wheat and should be drawn to the strength and beauty exhibited in being wheat. If there are certain members who attend infrequently, show no zeal, etc…then their membership means nothing. Ultimately, our association with Christ is in the BEING the people of God, which looks like something.

Thoughts on Sabbath

This picture does not necessarily represent my view of the sabbath, just found it on the web and it shows how strongly some people (ummmm, 7th Day Adventists) view proper sabbath observance.

I just recently attended a Reformation Society meeting near Rochester, NY. The society is connected with ACE (Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals). There are pastors from various traditions, but mostly confined to Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists. At this particular meeting, the topic on the floor was Sabbath. John Reisinger (http://www.soundofgrace.com), who is dubbed the father of New Covenant Theology presented his understanding of the sabbath, along with several others who fall into the non-sabbatarian position. Their were responses from a couple pastors coming from the Reformed Presbyterian and the Orthodox Presbyterian position and it made for very interesting discussion.

Basically, coming out of the meeting, I had more questions than answers and here are some thoughts for people to offer feedback on.

- Is the idea of time and seasons inherent in ones understanding of sabbath? meaning, is a non-sabbatarian essentially holding a position that would not view the 7 day week as sacred and that we could basically define the calendar however we would like because God is no longer a respector of time in the sacred sense?

- Is the non-Sabbatarian church binding people's conscience to attend church once a week? Meaning, if time is not sacred, then Sunday observance is merely a pragmatic practice based somewhat on the practice of the early church but with no warrant or explicit imperative, other than "do not forsake the assembling..." Basically, if one is totally unable or does not like the idea of coming to church every Sunday, on what grounds would a non-Sabbatarian church have for discipline towards the non-attender. The non-attender could say that he/she assembles with Christians for coffee, etc and is thus fulfilling the mandate to assemble.

Having been a non-Sabbatarian, I wish to dig into some of these questions. I have read Paul Jewett, some of D.A. Carson and others on this topic and have theologically arrived at a loose (I guess I shouldn't use the word non- anymore) sabbatarian position....but did not think through the ecclesiological implications on the polity of a church based on ones understanding of the sabbath. It is here where I am digging for some answers.

Theoretically a person from my church can say that they don't want to attend church on Sunday anymore but wish to retain their membership and the only grounds in which we would revoke their membership is that they fail to assemble when our elders open the door for worship, which happens to be Sunday morning. Our only authority would be that the decision of the elders is binding on the practice of the member. Is this more in line with Scripture than my good Sabbatarians which would say that their sabbath observance carries with it Biblical warrant and would say that they are implementing God's will in the manner.

Also, if we (loose, non-Sabbatarians) are going to discipline a non-attender on the grounds that they should worship when the assembly gathers under the direction of the elders, then should we not discipline non-attenders to Sunday School, mid-week studies, etc. After all, the day doesn't matter, the principle is that the elders define when we should worship in such a view. One might say that, well once a week seems reasonable....but based on what. Theoretically, one could live in a society with a 15 day work week, and the non-Sabbatarian could not theologically object to such a view of the week.

Anyhow, look forward to any thoughts you folks may have.