In A 2004 Article by Jeff Robinson...

Robinson quotes Gary Knapp, and although the circumstances of such a quote saddens me, the quote itself I find encouraging and worthy of reflection in light of postmodernism and the churches taken captive by the waves of culture and individual subjectivism as the basis of reality and truth. The Resurgence website supplied Robinson's article. I would encourage you to read the whole article, for it concerns the compromise of a popular megachurch.

In the article Knapp says (though the italics belong to me),

"Despite how [some] might define and understand postmodernism and the church, I think the classic definitions apply to Mars Hill and churches like it..."

"Truth for them seems to be more subjective and experiential than a product of a worldview developed by means of an interaction with God's Word, an interaction that often requires rigorous exegetical study and a measured reflection upon the results of that study."

From "IX Marks: Church Matters"

A help on church leadership and congregationalism. Go here...

John Piper on Returning to Doctrinally Focused Local Church Planting

This quote comes from his 2002 book "Counted Righteous in Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness?" Here (pg. 33-34) he considers the centrality of doctrine in local church planting in contrast with the contemporary marketing schemes of many plants. He sets the righteousness that comes through faith in Christ as the doctrinal cornerstone of fervently biblical church planting -

"If I want to see churches planted out from our church and others, why invest so much time and energy in defending and explaining the historic Protestant vision of justification as the imputation of Christ's righteousness? I have answered this already but will say again, I think we have enough churches being planted by means of music, drama, creative scheduling, sprightly narrative, and marketing savvy. And there are too few that are God-centered, truth-treasuring, Bible-saturated, Christ-exalting, cross-focused, Spirit-dependent, prayer-soaked, soul-winning, justice-pursuing congregations with a wartime mindset ready to lay down their lives for the salvation of the nations and the neighborhoods. There is a blood-earnest joy that sustains a church like this, and it comes only by embracing Christ-crucified as our righteousness."

Paul Washer Confronts American Christianity

A reality check for the American church culture. Shocking, dramatic, needed - sharing the truth in love - at a youth conference!

RADICAL or just REAL?

I have been a proponent of what I now would like to write against. It may seem as something small and inconsequential, but it is nevertheless an inaccuracy. The aim is honest, and I honestly portrayed such an aim, but it can serve to deceive. It is the idea of the "radical Christian." I have used the phrase in preaching, and I see it alot now concerning things like "radical womanhood" and "radical manhood", by which is meant a biblical portrayal of manhood and womanhood, and an aim at striving to model that as one pursues the likeness of our Lord.

But in the usage of such a phrase certain problems arise.

1. It is like the polarity of the philosophy of the "carnal Christian." That is that there are those people who are Christians - there just carnal or more fleshly than others. Think what you want about Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 3 - there is no such thing as a "carnal Christian." It becomes an excuse to those who taking the name of Christ continue to live like devils. Those who are not carnal are dubbed as being further advanced - they actually strive for holiness, but they are no more Christian than those that deny Christ by their fruit.

The phraseology of the "radical Christian", though it is the polarity of the "carnal Christian", has much of the same danger for people who actually are Christians, and a deceptive quality for those who have been deceived by someone telling them that if they have prayed a prayer, walked the aisle, been baptized, danced and shouted, etc. that they are saved. Although it is well-meaning, it inevitably - in the human mind - creates two kinds of Christians: radical Christians and regular Christians; and although it is meant to engage people and set a passionate goal for them to take aim at, it also has the potential to backlash in the minds of saints (sinners saved by grace) thereby bringing about complacency instead; for they look at Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, Peter, John, Paul, Timothy, Epaphroditus, or Sarah, Miriam, Ruth, Esther, Mary, Lydia, Phoebe, or contemporarily, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Owen, Spurgeon, Tozer, Jones, MacArthur, Piper, Mohler, Driscoll, or any missionary, pastor, evangelist, or really passionate lay member of their home church, as the exception rather than the rule. "These," they may begin to think, "are just more radical than I am!" This reinvents the idea of the "super-spiritual."

2. Before long, the "radical Christian" will become an excuse rather than the aim. For many, after they discover that they continue to struggle with sin after conversion (who knew?) will settle in and play it off by saying, "well, I'm just not a radical Christian - just a regular 'ole Christian here!"

3. Those poor souls that have been deceived into thinking that they are a Christian when they are not, will be further deceived by the notion of the "radical Christian" - the one who does all of the evangelism, bears all the fruit, attends all the prayer meetings, disciples the whole congregation, talks about and lives out a passion for Jesus Christ incessantly and irritatingly - for then the testing of their faith (2 Corinthians 13:5) which stands to awaken such people from deception, to show them that they are not in fact saved if their lives have never been changed, if they have never borne any fruit, if they have never had one iota of affection for Jesus and His Gospel, will no longer have the same effect, because those who bear fruit are "radical Christians" and those who do not are just "regular Christians", and if I'm not radically reflecting and pursuing Jesus its not because I was never saved, it is just because I'm not radical! Thus, we lose the basis of witnessing to those in the church who were never of the church.

Shall we attribute the advanced nature of some Christians to the grace of God? Most certainly! And what of the obedience of the Christian themselves? Yes, that is greatly involved too! But is not the distinction we see between "regular Christians" and "radical Christians" something a bit more involved, more serious? Could it be that the "regular Christians" face two important scenario's - that they are either Christians in need of repentance and restoration or that they have never been Christians at all? I think this is the case! Could it also be that those who we might "dub" as "radical" are just really Christians? I think this is also true!

In other words, when we initially read of Paul's accounts of Timothy and Epaphroditus in Philippians 2:19-30, we are met with a record of two men who serve in the Gospel, love Jesus Christ, love the apostle, and would readily and with great passion die for the sake of Christ. Are we to teach that these men were "radical Christians" and that we ought to endeavor by all means to heed their radical example - and in so doing make a clear distinction between them and the ones in our home pews? I do not think that Timothy and Epaphroditus would call themselves radical Christians, I do not think that we ought to call them that either, but rather, it should suffice us to say that they were real Christians!

Real Christians bear the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ; real Christians seek the interests of Jesus Christ and not their own self-confined interests; real Christians love Jesus Christ, pursue Jesus Christ, are passionate for Jesus Christ, are weary with holding in the Gospel of Christ; real Christians partner in the Gospel for its advancement to all nations; real Christians count real suffering for the sake of Christ as a grace of God, not a complaint to Him; real Christians strain towards the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus; real Christians are heavenly minded in contrast to the world; real Christians live for Christ and consider death to usher them to their greatest delight; real Christians fight from victory and not for victory; real Christians obey the word of God, exalt the name of Christ, take everything captive and subject it to Jesus Christ; real Christians pray for one another and for the suffering Church and for the lost; real Christians actually read their Bible and talk with others about Jesus; real Christians bear fruit, because real Christians actually know God in Christ and you cannot not be changed if this is true in the biblical sense of the term "salvation"!

No, beloved, these two men were not radicals, they were REAL! These men were sinners, humans, like you and me, who by God's grace came to know Him in Christ, and by the power that exists in that salvation, they lost their life for the surpassing worth of this knowledge. Real Christians do this! The reality is that most of us who do not look a thing like these men, do not resemble them precisely because we have never been born of God, or if we have, we are in a great need for repentance and restoration Godwards! I guess that if I must use the term "radical" I would now use it in this way - that all REAL Christians are "radical" Christians, and if you are not a "radical" Christian, then in all probability you are not a REAL Christian!

At least test yourselves to see whether you are in the faith, examine yourselves, or do you not realize this about yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you - unless you fail to meet the test (2 Corinthians 13:5)! My follow up to Paul's admonition would be - how can you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you - unless He's not! You see, we need to spend less time honoring such men as radical Christians, and more time honoring them as real Christians - and before and in between and after that let us give glory and praise to God in Jesus' name.

I suppose it best to end with a question, setting radical-ness aside, and simply asking:
ARE YOU REAL?

"Love Is Not Always Lenient"

This phrase and the one that came after it ("love does not always let") come from the Nine Marks website, specifically in the section concerning the biblical understanding of church discipline, or mark #7 of a healthy church.

I found the information there quite helpful due to a circumstance of discipline currently in my own church by the providence of God. The truths related on this topic at the Nine Marks website served to reveal my own insobriety and carelessness in consideration of my disciplinary tactics. To this end, I highly recommend to all in the Christian vocation and laity to check out the site. You can read the "marks" by clicking on them at the top of the page.

As to the phrase that called my reflection to attention, that "love is not always lenient - love does not always let", I see uncovered an intolerable tolerance in the contemporary church, the allowance of a little leaven which leavens the whole lump, a disconnect and common sloth in the biblical injunction that the Church be a pure bride, and that we ought to endeavor by all means to carry out the multiplication of personal holiness within its members. Moreover, the disservice done to the identity of Christianity, the mindset of the many in the pews on Sunday mornings is that sin is not serious, that it is rather tolerable, that one may call himself a Christian and yet be the most miserable and wretched sinner without conviction or hesitation or repentance.

But God disciplines - and His discipline is deemed as love (Hebrews 12:5-11), the love of a Father towards a child, but when the discipline of sinning church members comes upon them, they deem it (and the disciplinary - God and the man/men of God/the Church) as unloving. As if a parent, seeing their child enjoying something that places them in grave danger and in the clutches of death, like playing in heavy traffic or being an amateur pyrotechnic, is unloving when they discipline their child not to do those things; but it is rather the opposite, that the discipline of the parent is the most loving thing that they could do in that instance and it serves to restore and save the child from certain destruction and to train them to love the obedience that brings them safely into the parents arms. This kind of discipline with this kind of intention is hardly unloving. If we are not experiencing the discipline of God, then we ought to begin to be fearful, wondering whether or not we are in fact His children, for God disciplines those whom He loves, namely, His children. But God does not let us continue in sin without correction. As Dever writes, "love is not always lenient - love does not always let."

It is a cultural ideal that love is that strict emotion by which we let others do their own thing without consideration of consequence, either temporal or eternal. This idea must not be that which drives the life of the Church. We are not to stand idly by while "brothers and sisters" in Christ "continue in sin" thinking that "grace will abound". The apostle says that this type of thinking ought not to exist in the affection of him who is rightly called "Christ-ian". "How can we who died to sin still live in it? (Romans 6:2)" And how should we be tolerant of such things as the body of Christ - unless we are not truly in Jesus Christ!? Impenitence is not the mark of an authentic believer in Christ, no, bearing fruit in keeping with repentance is (Matt. 3:8)!

But the intention of the disciplinarian cannot be anger or control or condemnation, but rather restoration, and salvation (See James 1:20 cf. 1 Corinthians 5:5b). That is, Christ is not interested in the kind of discipline exercised by the world to bring about behavioral change, where physical force is used and abused along with various other methods of violent mental technique. And Christ is no more interested in the church's adaptation to the culture and its reflecting the values of the culture with respect to the tolerance of sin than what was previously mentioned. Christ is interested in the kind of discipline that confronts the sin of a person with an attitude of humility, gentleness, compassion, and love, but intolerance, with the intention of seeing that person restored to Christ through repentance or saved through Christ by grace through faith in Him. Severity to the body and self-made religion are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh though they may have the appearance of wisdom; rather, being made alive in Christ whereby one is clothed with His righteousness and equipped with His Holy Spirit is one empowered to overcome the indulgence of that mighty evil within us called "the flesh" (See Colossians 2:20-23).

In all church discipline, truly, in everything we undertake, this is to be the aim - that sinners put on Jesus Christ; if he be a Christian, then let him repent of his sin and be restored to Christ; if he be a sinner, then let him repent as well of his personal sin and believe in Christ for righteousness that he may be saved in the last day. Therefore, let us love one another rightly - with encouragement and rebuke - knowing that loving is not always synonymous with letting, with the earnest intention of bringing each other to our Lord Jesus Christ, for He alone is able to keep us from stumbling and to present us before the presence of His glory blamelessly and with great joy (Jude 24). God be glorified in Jesus' name. Amen.

No Groom? No Bride!: Emphatic About the Name!

What would the union between a man and a woman be without the bridegroom? This is a ridiculous question, is it not? Obviously, it would not be a union at all, and the woman not a bride. There is no stand alone marriage where a woman may marry herself or a man himself and it rightly be called "marriage". This is not a relationship - or if it is, it is not a sane one or a logical one, no it is insane and illogical. It is a stupid and senseless thought!

But what of a Christless church? A church without Christ is no church! We are the church because we have believed in Christ by the grace of God, and we have thereby been united to God. Christ has wed us, sinners saved by grace, and therefore, we are not our own but His. Christ died for the church; His love demonstrated towards us as particular, separate from any other love - a love with the intentionality of God's purpose preeminent over the generic love with which God upholds a sinful world. And so we husbands understand that the love that we have for our brides is a particular love juxtaposed against our love for any other woman in the world - we chose her out of the mass, and so Christ called His bride out of the world.

It is a thing burdensome and alarming to me that many who would clothe themselves with the name of Christ are so quick to remain destitute of Him in their language, thoughts, actions, and opportunities. There was a time when we were much concerned over the ignorance of the Holy Spirit. But it seems now that we are oft to speak of God in general, and of the Spirit of God (albeit with much abuse), while being silent with the name of Jesus Christ. I wonder if many of us who would claim the name of Christ for our own have not fallen under the heading of Titus 1:16, "They profess to know God, but they deny Him by their works." Nevertheless -

Christian musical groups are inclined these days to sing of many things, including the greatness and vastness and wonder of God, and of amazing grace, and the renewal of the Spirit of God, while these same albums are devoid of the mention of the name of Christ.

Christian pastors, counselors, and chaplains who are given public opportunities to bear witness to the name of Jesus Christ have dropped the proverbial ball and settled (compromised) to speak of God, and of spirituality, but not of Jesus Christ and Him crucified, lest by that name they might actually offend someone.

Christian family members are more and more adamant that their relative be silent about Christ; and they excuse it by means of danger; and when the relative holds true to the Scriptures and actually loves Christ preeminently to the exclusion of their families wishes, they are dubbed hard-headed, uncompromising, insane, and "different" - titles I would gladly wear for Christ.

And the Church - well, three out of one hundred share the name of Jesus Christ in a given day! Is this the church? What would the state of a marriage be if we only spoke passionately or kindly of our spouse three percent of the time? The fact of the matter is that this is not only a bad marriage in need of much repair, but hardly a marriage at all, and if it is a marriage, it is certainly not expected to be a very romantic covenant.

It is a terribly damning thing for we who comprise the church to be silent about our bridegroom, who loved us and chose us and redeemed us from sin and utter ruin! We would be worse than the whorish wife of the prophet Hosea, for at least, though she slept around, yet she bore him children, but we are childless - we not only whore against God, but we are silent about Him, about the name of Christ - that name wherein is embedded the salvific mission and purpose of God, that name by which we were called into His glorious light and love. Will we bear the children of another "god", speaking and living in such a way that bears the fruit of sinful adolescence and Christian immaturity? The fact of the matter is that if there is no Groom, then there is no bride!

The name of Christ concerning which we have grown seemingly silent is the only name in heaven or on earth by which a man may be saved. Only by being grafted into that name are we safe from God's holy fury against our sin. John the Baptist knew this name quite well and rejoiced in the bridegroom - "The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears Him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice. Therefore this joy of mine is now complete," John 3:29.

John's joy was complete because the bridegroom had come to claim His bride - and he was part of her (the Church). Moreover, John, rejoicing in Him, did not conceal the name of Jesus Christ from the world - "He must increase but I must decrease," John 3:30.

Let us speak of God - Father, SON, and Holy Spirit! Let us rejoice in our bridegroom, being overwhelmed by the salvation in His name that we may overflow with the truth and praises of His name that every sinner may be overcome for the sake of His name. Let us not conceal the name of Jesus Christ, but like the Baptist cry out, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" In JESUS' NAME. Amen.