The Ordained Ministry of Teaching and the Sacraments

We celebrate the Lord’s Supper every Lord’s Day in our congregation. Though weekly observance is not commanded in the Scriptures, it seems evident this was the practice of the early church (Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1Cor. 11:17-34; cf. 16:1-2) and that frequent observance is desirable even if not required (Luke 22:19-20; 1Cor. 11:26, 33). The frequency of communion is not mandated by the OPC, so different intervals (including weekly observance) are found in different congregations within the denomination. But so long as circumstances permit, our local church will continue to observe the Lord’s Supper weekly in one of our Lord’s Day services.

In 2015 when our elders began studying the Westminster Confession together, one of the issues that had to be considered was the proper administration of the sacraments. Many of us had been in churches before where the Lord’s Supper and baptism were observed very casually. In modern times it is common for non-ordained persons to administer both sacraments and even for them to be observed privately away from the gathered Church. This is largely a modern practice and result of individualism in western culture. The Reformed tradition in general and the Westminster Confession of Faith in particular take a very different, far more historical view of the sacraments.

There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained. (WCF 27.4, emp. added)

The OPC’s Book of Church Order describes the proper administration of the sacraments:

4. The Sacraments

a. The sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper, as visible signs and seals of the Word of the covenant, are important elements of public worship. They represent Christ and his benefits, confirm his people's participation in him, visibly mark off from the world those who belong to his church, and solemnly bind them to covenant faith and loyalty.

b. Because the sacraments are ordinances of Christ for the benefit of the visible church, they are to be administered only under the oversight of the government of the church. Moreover, in ordinary circumstances they are properly administered only in a gathering of the congregation for the public worship of God, baptism being a sacrament whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and the Lord's Supper signifying and sealing the communion of believers with Christ and with each other as members of his mystical body. Nevertheless, if a session judges that circumstances require otherwise, the sacraments may be administered elsewhere; but, in any event, the church must be represented in the service.

c. Although the efficacy of the sacraments does not depend upon the piety or intention of the person administering them, they are not to be administered by any private person, but only by a minister of the Word. (Directory of Public Worship II.a.4)

Why have the Church in general and Reformed Christians in particular only allowed ordained teachers to administer the sacraments? It is not because of a misguided tradition left-over from Roman Catholicism, nor is it because we believe the effectiveness of the sacraments depends upon the person administering them. As a general rule, we regard a person who is baptized in a Trinitarian context whether by an ordained minister or not as truly baptized. We would regard baptisms by a non-ordained person as irregular, though not invalid, because we believe it is not only historical but biblical under ordinary circumstances to limit administration of the sacraments to ordained ministers. What follows are four reasons for this conviction.

1) Ministers of the Word are stewards of the mysteries of God (1Cor. 4:1). A steward is a servant, but much more than a servant. A steward has special responsibility (cf. Luke 16:1-2) and thus a higher degree of accountability to his master (1Cor. 4:2; cf. Jas. 3:1). Every Christian is a servant of Jesus Christ, but not every believer is a steward of the mysteries of God. Teaching ministers are. What is this mystery committed to their care? It is the gospel of Jesus Christ, the message which brings life and death to those in the world (2Cor. 2:15-16). Ministers are specially “commissioned by God” to administer this mystery of grace (2Cor. 2:17); the sacraments are an intrinsic part of it.

2) The gospel and the sacraments belong together (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 2:36-42). The sacraments are only valid when coupled with the gospel message. There is no spiritual power or value in getting a person wet or eating bread and wine, but when these rituals are combined with the gospel message, the water becomes a sign of the “washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Tit. 3:4-5; cf. John 3:3, 5). The bread becomes Christ’s body and the wine becomes His blood, not literally and metaphysically but spiritually and symbolically (1Cor. 11:23-25). When the Church celebrates the sacraments it confesses its faith in Christ (1Cor. 11:26). The gospel, the sacraments, and the gathered Church belong together (Acts 2:41-42; 20:7; 1Cor. 11:33). Though some may be baptized outside of the gathered Church in unusual circumstances, there is no biblical evidence of the Supper ever being eaten apart from the assembled local church. The unity of the gospel, sacraments, and local church strongly support the administration of those sacraments by an ordained minister of the word (cf. Heb. 13:7, 17).

3) Pastors and teachers are given by God to the church to edify it (Eph. 4:11-12). This is a special function, ordained by God. How is the Church edified? By meeting Christ in the Word and sacraments (Acts 2:42; 20:28; 1Pet. 5:1-5). The local church is not a democratically determined association. Shepherds and teachers are given by God to the Church for its up-building and welfare. Since the sacraments are central to the local church’s faith, worship, and practice, it makes sense their administration would belong to the stewards given to them by the Lord.

4) The administration of the sacraments has historically been limited to teaching ministers and elders since the earliest days of the Church. Evidence from Justin Martyr and Tertullian demonstrates this as well as the later, codified instructions in The Apostolic Constitutions. In fact, it is hard to imagine this issue even being debated—unless among some heretical sect—until the Reformation during the revolutionary movement led by the Anabaptists. In western culture we take individual liberties to such an extreme that we almost imagine any distinction of functions to be unchristian, but we should recognize that there are different roles in the Church without any difference in personal value (e.g. 1Tim. 2:11-3:13). Though we are all equal in Christ, not all Christians are elders, and not all who are elders are devoted or appointed by God for the ministry of the Word (1Tim. 5:17). The sacerdotal errors of the Roman Catholic Church with an exaggerated clergy-laity distinction and a diminishing or denying of the priesthood of all believers is clearly wrong, but denying this error does not mean opening the sacraments and pulpit to anyone and everyone who professes the name of Christ. There is a biblical and historical balance to be found between those two extremes.

This is why we agree with the Westminster Confession that baptism and the Lord’s Supper should only be administered by a lawfully ordained minister, one recognized, called, and confirmed by the Church, not one who made himself a minister by starting a church in his living room. The sacraments belong with the teaching ministry of the Church, the preached Word, and that ministry belongs to those whom God has gifted, called, and set apart for that work and purpose.

There are consequences of this conviction. On the rare occasions when our congregation is without an ordained teaching minister on the Lord’s Day, the Lord’s Supper will not be celebrated. For example, the elders might invite a licentiate to preach on those days, but because he has only been licensed to preach and not formally ordained, the congregation would not observe the Lord’s Supper on those Sundays. This is unusual when a church has become accustomed to weekly observance, but it is important that we understand why we abstain on those Lord’s Days. Eating the Lord’s Supper is a privilege of God’s people, but when circumstances do not permit its proper observance, there is no fault in abstaining from its celebration. Just as we would not permit private observance of the Supper if a family simply decided to stay at home on the Lord’s Day, neither should we provide the Supper without the proper context for its celebration under the ordained ministry of the Word. –JME (September 2016)

Simple Strategies for Devotional Bible Reading

Our primary study and intensive learning of the Bible should come in the context of the Church’s teaching ministry. After all Christ gave the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers to equip the saints and edify the body (Eph. 4:11-12). But this does not mean you should never read or study the Bible outside of church gatherings or organized Bible studies. Every Christian can benefit from regular time set aside to read and meditate on God’s Word. As you do so, here are some helpful ways for getting more out of what you read.

1) Keep a Bible Reading Journal

This can be a simple notebook, journal, or even an app or program on your laptop, tablet, or smartphone. Record the date, the passage(s) read, and any of the following observations you choose to make. This journal will help you assess the consistency of your Bible reading and will preserve a record of what God has been teaching you through it.

2) Look for Three Things Each Time You Read

Whenever you sit down to read, look for three things to help you pay attention and actively learn as you read. First, look for something new that you don’t remember seeing before. We should expect to learn when we read the Bible. Second, identify your favorite part. Bible reading should be enjoyable; it is a delight, not merely a duty (cf. Psa. 1:2). Third, note at least one practical application from your reading. We aspire to be doers of the Word, not merely hearers of it (cf. Jas. 1:22).

3) Take a T.R.I.P. through Your Bible as You Read

T.R.I.P. is a simple acronym that suggests four issues to be mindful of as we read. Pay attention to passages that should prompt thanksgiving, repentance, intercession, and praise. If you keep a detailed journal, these passages can be noted for later review or added to a weekly prayer list. These four points can be especially helpful in identifying practical applications. Giving thanks, repenting, interceding in prayer, and praising God are all appropriate ways of applying Scripture.

4) Pray About What You Read

Pray for God’s blessing before your read (Psa. 119:18), then take a few minutes to pray about what you have read when you finish. Give thanks to God for his Word and for what you have learned, pray for others to enjoy the blessings promised, and seek his grace to be obedient.

5) Choose a Portion To Memorize and Meditate on Each Week

Some verses you encounter may stay with you the rest of the day, but consider a disciplined habit of identifying at least one verse to commit to memory each week. This will help you meditate on the Word of God, and whether you retain the verse or not, you will benefit from repeating it often to yourself during the week. Soli Deo Gloria! –JME

Rejoice! There are Churches in Corinth and Rome

I try very deliberately to be careful about what I say in public regarding specific political leaders, candidates, and elections. This is not because I believe in an arena of moral neutrality or that the concerns of Church and State should never overlap. It is not because I choose not to engage with substantive issues online. And it is not because I do not have strong opinions about politics. It is because as a Minister of the Gospel I not only represent myself and my family; I also represent Christ and his Church, and I never want to appear to misrepresent them in unbiblical or undiscerning ways. So I do not publicly endorse candidates as a minister—though I might sometimes be willing to do so as a private citizen—and generally I am careful about how I discuss political footballs in the public square. But readers should not infer from this that I do not think politics matter. Politics do matter, and the political leadership and policies of a nation are important issues. They are just not always important in the way or for the reasons or to the degree many people think.

It appears that barring an unforeseen (but much hoped for) change to the ballot, our next President will be an arrogant, godless, immoral, and violent human being, a vile and impenitent person without the fear of God who is foolish, incompetent, and completely disqualified for the office of dog catcher, much less higher office. If you think I am describing a particular candidate, you are mistaken. The above description fits both of the major party candidates, and to think otherwise is naïve, at best, and dangerously undiscerning, at worst. Of course, once elected to office, she or he will be worthy of the respect that corresponds to that office (Rom. 13:1-7) and rightly the subject of public prayers in pulpits across the nation every Lord’s Day (1Tim. 2:1-7). Until then, we can hope and pray that God may yet save us from the miserable choices he has given to us, the moral and political disaster which we have created for ourselves. God rules over the nations. He raises up rulers and brings judgment upon them (Exod. 9:13-17; Prov. 21:1; Dan. 4:17, 34-37). It cannot be denied by anyone with a biblically informed worldview that the present state of our Presidential election is proof of God’s wrath against our nation’s sin. He has given us the leaders we desired, and we can expect that we will continue to reap what we have sown.

Our next President will almost certainly not be a God-fearing person. But neither is our current President. The faith of the 43^rd President of the United States might be debated—I accept his profession prima facia but would quibble with his Methodist theology more than a little. But the simple fact is that God-fearing Presidents have been few and far between in this American experiment, and even those that might have been often governed much as they might have if they were not. We did not live in a “Christian nation” prior to the ascendancy of Barak Obama, and there is no candidate or future election that could make us one. We are governed largely by secularists and have been for a long time. Those who think otherwise would do well to put down David Barton and start reading legitimate history.

Having said all of that, I come to the point of today’s post, that there is good news. There were faithful churches of the Lord Jesus Christ in both Corinth and Rome in the first century. Think about that for a moment before you lightly dismiss it. Both cities were cesspools of immorality and vice. The Roman emperors were pedophiles and profligates. Nero’s perversity makes today’s transgendered, pansexual, (im)moral revolution look almost tame. Going to worship in first century Corinth sometimes involved fornicating with a temple worker appointed for that purpose. (I wonder how long it will be until the evangelical-ish Church Growth Movement packages and markets that one.) Yet in the midst of rampant depravity and perversity, the Gospel was being preached, received, believed, and obeyed. Yes, there were problems in those churches. Yes, Paul had to correct the Corinthians for adopting carnality learned from their culture. But in the same letter he expresses confidence in their faith and fellowship with the Lord (1Cor. 1:2-9) and leaves them with a benediction of grace and love (1Cor. 16:23-24).

What is the Church to do in these terrible times for our nation? Take a moment, step back, obtain some historical objectivity, repent of trusting in a “Christian heritage” more imagined than real, repent of trusting in politicians and policies more than the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and accept that we are and have been in a situation much like the global Church throughout her history. We are strangers in a strange land. We are pilgrims and sojourners. We do not truly belong here. Our citizenship is in heaven. Presidents come and go, and so will the United States of America. But Christ’s kingdom will stand forever. Soli Deo Gloria! –JME

Proclaiming the Kingdom, Not Building Castles

The Church belongs to Jesus Christ. It is not mine; it is not yours; it is not even ours. The Church is the Body of Jesus Christ. He purchased it with his own blood (Acts 20:28). He rules it (1Cor. 14:37), protects it (Rom. 16:20), provides for it (Eph. 4:11-12), guides it (Heb. 12:1-2), and will one day return to be reunited it (1Thess. 4:13-18). The Church is both visible (1Cor. 1:2) and invisible (Heb. 12:22-24). It is organically related by brotherhood (Eph. 2:19-22) and institutionally connected by its doctrine and officers (Acts 15:1-32). The one Church holds in common a confession of faith, sacraments of grace, and hope in the Lord’s return (Eph. 4:4-6).

Sadly today many churches and Christians seem more interested in building castles than the Lord’s kingdom. There is a sense, of course, in which we cannot build the Lord’s kingdom. That is God’s work, not ours. We are looking for a city whose builder and maker is God (Heb. 11:10). We are not constructing the eschatological city or ushering it in with the works of our own hands. But we are called to proclaim Christ’s kingdom, that he is Lord of all (Acts 2:36; 17:30-31). The Church is commissioned to preach the Gospel under the authority and direction of Christ (Matt. 28:18-20), and the Gospel is God’s means of regenerating hearts (1Pet. 1:23), imparting faith (Rom. 10:17), and transferring men from the power of Satan to the kingdom of Christ (Col. 1:13).

In a culture full of mega-churches, church growth strategies, and celebrity-driven ministries, the confessing Church must think seriously and biblically about our true purpose, strategic aims, and ministry methods. Are we promoting Christ or ourselves? Are we proclaiming his kingship or protecting our own fiefdom? Are we taking the message of our King’s victory into enemy territory, seeking to free captive souls held under the power of the Devil, or are we enlarging towers, digging deeper moats, and contenting ourselves with merely beautifying and maintaining our own castle? Brothers and sisters, we need a larger vision for Christ’s Church and not only our own local congregation. We need think in terms of the kingdom and not only in terms of our own castle. We need to see ourselves in terms of the larger mission and not simply pass the time. We are waiting, praying, and longing for the return of the King. There is work to be done in the meantime. –JME

Member Interviews, Intimidation, and Well-Being

By the time most of you read this, the OPC membership interviews will have already begun. Over the next several months members of our congregation will meet with a committee appointed by the Presbytery of Southern California in preparation for reception of our entire congregation into the Orthodox Presbyterian Church later this year. A number of you have expressed some anxiety about the interview process, and I am happy to discuss the process, help you “prepare,” and do what I can to put your mind at ease.

Most of you who feel intimidated are imagining this interview as being more than it really is. It is not an interrogation. It is not a theological examination. It is simply a conversation. The OPC does not require members to be Presbyterian in their convictions. You do not have to believe in Calvinism, covenant theology, or infant baptism. You do have to be a Christian. The membership vows are intended to ensure we believe in the God of the Bible, trust in Christ, are repentant, and will endeavor to serve the Lord faithfully. You do not need to be concerned about having the “right answers” to the committee’s questions; you simply need to give them honest answers.

This process is unfamiliar and a little frightening because so few have ever been in a well-ordered, biblically shepherded church. Many of us have come from churches that did not have formal membership or whose membership standards were so low they basically amounted to saying, “I believe in Jesus.” Of course, a Mormon or Muslim or Jehovah’s Witness could make that claim, so it is important to ask what people actually believe about Jesus, who he is, and whether they trust in him alone for their salvation.

Think of these membership interviews like going to the doctor for an annual check-up. (Don’t worry. There will not be any bloodwork or invasive exams.) It can be a little intimidating to go into an interview like this, but you are not there because there is a problem. You do not have to be afraid of what the committee may say. Our elders have already done their due diligence with regard to the membership of this local congregation. These conversations are to demonstrate to the OPC that we belong and to satisfy their duty to be diligent. The committee is there to welcome and get to know us, not to terrorize or judge us. These are brothers in Christ and friends.

How important are processes like these? I would argue they are very important. We have seen in this congregation’s own history the problems that develop when people are received into membership (or leadership) without a credible profession of faith. The committee is simply doing what the elders of this local church already do and will continue to do in the future: ensure that to the best of our knowledge the people we receive as communicant members are believers in Christ and endeavoring to be faithful to him. None of us can know perfectly what is in another’s heart, and each of us is responsible to God for our own salvation. But as shepherds of the flock, our elders are responsible to know, feed, guide, and protect the sheep (Acts 20:28; 1Pet. 5:1-4). Not every true church is well-ordered, healthy, and faithfully shepherded, but being part of such a church is truly a blessing and a joy. –JME

A Life Centered on Torah

Most who study biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek in seminary, like most who study Spanish in high school, do not retain the skills they are exposed to in those classes. It is unfortunate so many who invest time, energy, and money in learning the biblical languages would not continue using them and growing in the understanding of them, but it is particularly lamentable that ministers fail to do so. Knowledge of the biblical languages should be a prerequisite, in most cases, to ordained Christian ministry, and maintenance of them should be an important part of the minister’s work.

Ezra’s example as a scribe who “set his heart to study the Law of the LORD, and to do it and to teach his statutes and rules” (Ezra 7:10) ought to be a model for all who aspire to be teachers in the church (cf. Jas. 3:1). How are we to teach what we do not understand? How are we to understand what we cannot read? How are we to know what is written if the language in which it was first revealed remains a mystery to us?

Psalm 119 powerfully and prayerfully describes the righteous man’s devotion to God as he has revealed himself in the Scriptures. It is not merely God’s person or God’s truth that the psalmist treasures; it is the very words God has spoken. The psalm uses many different terms to describe the written word of Yahweh. God’s Word is communicated in words, and while those words can be translated and their essential meaning communicated in other languages, the servant of God who aspires to teach God’s Word ought to treasure and pursue the very words which God spoke by the Holy Spirit through holy men of old.

Unfortunately, the demands of ministry and the modern, American context of it often leads ministers to focus more time and energy on programs and pleasing people than on pursuing serious study of God’s Word. Some ministers and pastors are content simply to pass the required language classes (or never take them at all) and then move on to more pragmatic pastoral practices; others might desire to sustain a working knowledge of the biblical languages but find themselves unable to do so because of the significant demands placed upon them. Yet Scripture itself indicates the minister’s first priority must be on the faithful handling of the Word of God (cf. 2Tim. 3:14-4:5). Paul exhorts Timothy:

Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.…  Practice these things, immerse yourself in them, so that all may see your progress. Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers. (1Tim. 4:13, 15-16)

Pastoral needs are certainly important, and no minister should be commended for attending to the Word to the neglect of the flock under his care. But every minister ought to recognize the greatest need of his flock is to hear the Word of God in purity and with clarity, and in order for this to be done their shepherd must devote himself to the careful study of it.

Many people today seek a local church where their felt-needs will be met, a church where they will feel welcome, where the worship is a satisfying experience, where their children can enjoy entertaining programs, and where they can feel more encouraged than convicted. No doubt, many are led to Christ in churches just like these, and we can rejoice that the gospel is proclaimed, even if we sometimes regret the context (cf. Php. 1:15-18). But many are liable to attend such churches for most of their lives and end up in Hell because they never knew Christ (Matt. 7:21-23). What people need is not entertainment but enlightenment, not to be satisfied with themselves but to be satisfied with Christ, not to be happy but to be holy. In order for this to be so, we must hear God’s Word. The church needs ministers who can stand up and faithfully proclaim, “Thus says the Lord.” This requires more than reading the Bible in its original languages, but it should not require less. –JME

John 3:18 - An Excerpt of Exposition

This is an excerpt from a sermon manuscript on John 3:17-21. It is not as polished as an essay would normally be, and it is written for oral delivery. Nevertheless, it is my hope it will be of some value, even on this platform. This portion is concerned with expounding verse 18. -JME

Faith and Eschatological Judgment (John 3:18)

Verse 18 extends this idea of eschatological judgment which is so important in John’s Gospel. The salvation or condemnation which every person will experience is not something merely at the end of our earthly lives or at the end of time. These are spiritual realities which begin now. Whoever believes in him is not condemned (or, is not under judgment), but whoever does not believe is condemned already. Let that sink into your mind for a moment. Put it in the crockpot and turn it on slow-cook. This is a verse worthy of much meditation.

Those who believe in Christ will be saved because they are saved, right now. They have eschatological life in the present. The new creation has already begun for them; it has begun in their hearts. This theme we have already been introduced to here in chapter three, and we will have many more opportunities to reflect on and give thanks for it before our survey of this Gospel is complete.

But this is not only true of those who are saved. Eternal damnation also begins in the present age. Those who will be condemned on the Last Day already are; they are condemned because they do not believe in the Son of God. This comes up again in 3:36, but this text has much to say about it as well.

No one is lost because he or she has not heard the Gospel. They are lost because of sin. We are all born in sin; we come into this world under its power (Rom. 3:9), and because of this original sin, we also commit ourselves to the practice of it, renewing in our lives every day God’s just judgment against us. If we read v. 18 as saying men are only lost because they do not believe in Christ, we are not reading it properly in its context. Men are already lost. We were lost before Christ ever came into this world. Believing in the name of God’s Son is the only hope we have of redemption and salvation. So obviously anyone who does not believe in his name is lost and will be lost because they already were lost and because they have rejected the only means of being saved.

Unbelief is a particularly egregious sin, and so it is associated here in v. 18 with the judgment of the lost. Imagine for a moment a terrible virus infected the human race and rapidly spread across our nation. This virus turned men, women, and children into a kind of zombies, crazed and vicious and absolutely out of control but retaining basic cognitive functions. They can see and hear and think and speak. They can even discern certain categories of right and wrong and feel guilt and shame when they commit some wicked act. But they continue to do wicked things anyway. They are driven to it. It is their passion. It is what they live for. You might almost feel pity for them except you know that they know, deep down inside, that what they are doing is wrong. Yet they do it anyway. They are violent and hateful because they want to be; they want it more than they want anything else. You don’t have to imagine it, because that is very much how the Bible describes the human condition. We sin because we are sinners, but before you feel bad for us or think it somehow is not our fault, remember that our wickedness is willful and is exercised in the face of a definite awareness of right and wrong. We are sin’s victims, but we are not only its victim, we are its perpetrators.

Now imagine someone who is not sick, someone from outside, comes to our nation. He is exposed to the virus, but amazingly he is not infected by it. He walks among the dead and dying but is not contaminated by their condition. Instead, he works to help the dead among whom he dwells. Finally he takes decisive action. Only by sacrificing himself, by pouring out all of his blood, can a medicine be created that will destroy the virus and end the plague forever. The savior gives his life, and his blood is given to save the human race. But as the cure begins to be administered, something remarkable happens. No one wants it. Indeed, they become angry and violent and even seek to kill those who offer the medicine to heal them. They want to destroy the cure, and they do everything in their power to do so. They would rather remain in their wretchedness than receive the medicine which can cure them of it.

Here is, by way of a vulgar analogy, a description of the human condition. This is who we are. Those who are infected by the virus are dead men walking around, but they are willing participants in their condition, and they will violently refuse aid whenever it is offered. Why are they dead? We could answer that in two ways, and to some extent, Scripture does so. They are dead because of their original condition. Men are condemned because they are in sin, under sin, and continue to sin (Rom. 3:9-20). But they are also dead because they refused the one way that they could have received healing and life. They are under judgment because they do not believe in the name of the Son of God.

Make no mistake. Anyone and everyone who believes in Jesus will be saved. The Gospel is that simple. It is that beautiful. But if you do not believe in Christ, if you are not trusting in Him alone, and if you love your sin more than you long for freedom from it, then you are already under judgment and you are headed straight for Hell. While there is life, there is opportunity. If you will repent and turn to Christ in faith, even now, you can be saved. But if you do not turn and trust him, there is nothing that can save you, and no one will, because you have condemned yourself. -JME

Context and Semantic Range

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, 

that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)

“Do not love the world or the things in the world.

If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” (1 John 2:15)

Have you noticed the seeming conflict in the two verses above? Both are written by the same inspired author. Both use the same Greek words for the relevant terms (love and world). Yet what God does in the first, believers are forbidden to do in the second. Are Christians not to love what God loves? How do we reconcile this apparent contradiction?

Bible study is a very important discipline. We are not only to read Scripture but to meditate upon it, to seek understanding from it, in other words, to study it (Psa. 1:2; 119:97-105; Eph. 3:4; 2Tim. 3:14-17). First and foremost this deeper study ought to be facilitated and directed by the teachers God has given to the Church (Eph. 4:11-16; 1Tim. 4:16; 2Tim. 4:1-2). It is not that pastors and teachers study instead of us, but their study helps direct our study so that the Church is built and nourished by the sound doctrine delivered by Christ (cf. 1Tim. 1:5-11; 2Tim. 2:14-18). But there is also a place for personal and private Bible study, particularly in reflecting further upon the teaching delivered in our corporate assemblies and classes. This is why it important for every Christian to know basic principles of Bible study.

One of the most important principles of Bible study is context, i.e. the text that is “with” the text you are studying. This includes the verses immediately before and after, the chapter in which a verse appears, the section of the Bible book, the entire book, the rest of the author’s works, and even the entire Bible itself! We interpret Scripture with Scripture because the Bible is inspired and inerrant and teaches a coherent system of doctrine. Every verse of Scripture must be read and understood in light of its context, i.e. the rest of Scripture, not interpreted in a manner that contradicts it because such an interpretation is not of God.

Another important aspect of Bible study is recognizing semantic range, i.e. the various possible meanings of a given word. The same word does not mean the same thing in every place. The two verses above are a perfect example. Does God love the same world in the same way that we are forbidden to? No! How do we know the words carry a subtly but significantly different meaning? We know because of context.

In John 3:16 the writer is emphasizing God’s love for the ungodly in every nation, not just the covenant nation of Israel. God loves the ungodly by giving his Son so that they might be saved. In 1 John 2:15 the world which the writer has in mind is that which is characteristic of ungodliness, the lusts of the flesh and eyes and pride (v.16). Loving the world in this case is not a redemptive act of sacrifice but an idolatrous attachment to that which is anti-God. To love the world in this sense is to defy the love God has shown to the world in the former sense.

Most people intuitively understand the difference between these two verses but fail to apply the same principles of context and semantic range when interpreting other passages. Words do not always mean the same things in every use, and the best determiner of what a word means is not the dictionary or lexicon but the biblical context. Remembering this will not only help us understand the Bible but will help us recognize many misguided interpretations of it. –JME

Sober Joy, Reverent Celebration

“Make a joyful noise to the LORD, all the earth! Serve the LORD with gladness! Come into his presence with singing!” (Psa. 100:1-2)

Biblical worship is an active expression of sober joy. It is an exercise of reverent celebration. It is easy to forget this in the midst of set liturgy. We can simply show up, go through the motions, follow along in the worship order and hymnal, and then return to our homes. But worship is to engage the hearts and minds of the worshippers. The New Testament assumes the gathered church will participate in the songs and prayers and teaching of the Word (1Cor. 14:6-40). There are some inappropriate ways Christians are not to act in the worship assemblies, but the reason the gathering is to be conducted “decently and in order” is so that “all may learn and all be encouraged.” Every person is to benefit. The service is not a show, but a gathered family, and the elements of worship are to be led in a way that permits all to profit from the service.

The NT assumes that if we understand and affirm the prayers led in the assembly, the congregation will say, “Amen!” (1Cor. 14:16-17) Our singing is an act of “addressing one another” (Eph. 5:19) as a way of “teaching and admonishing one another” (Col. 3:16) in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. We are speaking the words of these songs to each other, reminding one another of precious truths. The NT describes the church singing, not merely listening or observing. We should sing out for the encouragement and edification of the Body. We are to be “singing and making melody to the Lord” with sincere hearts. When we hear God’s Word proclaimed, His promise of absolution declared, or receive His benediction, we lift up our heads and hearts to behold the glory and the beauty of God’s mercy and truth (Psa. 119:148; 121:1-2; 123:1).

Our corporate worship is to be just that, corporate. It is not a time to draw attention to the individual. The focus of our attention in worship is God. We sing psalms and hymns, say “Amen,” confess our faith and sin, and receive God’s Word and blessing together. But this does not mean we sit or stand blankly, coldly completing the liturgy before us. We engage in worship together with hearts full of gratitude and joy. Worship is an act of sober joy. Every Lord’s Day should be a reverent celebration. –JME

An Open Letter to Family, Friends, & Interested Followers

I am writing today to update you on the latest developments in our family, to share the joy of what God has been doing in our lives, and to provide some context for news that will become increasingly public over the next several months. Some of you are well aware of what I am about to describe. You have remained in close contact with us and know very well the theological and spiritual journey the Lord has led us on since 2009. Others will be surprised, even dismayed, and will likely be confused as to how I could go from being a well-respected minister in the non-institutional Churches of Christ to having the theological commitments and ecclesiastical connections I do today. For those who are surprised, I can only say I would have enjoyed sharing more of this journey with you, and to whatever extent your ignorance of these changes is my fault, I sincerely apologize. Some of you have been unaware of these developments simply because time and distance have prevented our being more frequently in contact. But none of these things have happened in a corner, and anyone who has paid attention to the teaching ministry at RBC over the last two years, our public statements, or my social media engagement could certainly predict that something like this was coming. Some of you have remained ignorant of my theological evolution by choice, and I respect your decision to disengage. But I am happy to provide explanation and context for what God has been doing in our lives, particularly over the last year and a half, and it is my hope and prayer some of you will be interested in corresponding privately and examining these issues more thoroughly, personally, and biblically. I welcome such engagement.

As of this writing I have spent the last 17.5 years of my life engaged in full-time preaching ministry in the local church. I did not intend to make ministry a career. Indeed, the Lord knows I tried diligently, more than once, to discard this calling and to do something else with my life. But God did not allow it. I have made many mistakes over almost two decades of public ministry. I have written many articles, preached many sermons, counseled many individuals, and led several churches in ways I deeply regret. I am grateful for many, many things related to my upbringing in the Churches of Christ. It was there a strong foundation of Bible knowledge was laid. I have been loved, supported, helped, and encouraged by family and friends in those congregations, and I will always thank God for the godly influences I received there. But I did not learn the gospel from the Churches of Christ. On the contrary, I actively and aggressively taught a false gospel, a gospel-less system of salvation by works that encouraged self-righteousness in my own life and in the lives of those I taught. I repented of those errors years ago and have sought both by personal and public confessions to demonstrate my godly sorrow for the errors I affirmed and helped promulgate. But this does not change the damage that was done, and though I repudiate many things I thought and taught at that time, the pernicious influence of that ministry remains to this day.

I thank God that early on he placed godly men in my life who encouraged a more diligent and disciplined practice of Bible study and a more faithful, systematic approach to Scripture in my teaching ministry. Those men may be dismayed at the path I have taken, but they pointed me consistently to Scripture rather than our shared tradition. God used that influence to challenge my theological system and, eventually, to lovingly break, re-make, and shape me into the man and minister I am today. I spent years of my life reading Scripture aloud, memorizing it, outlining it, teaching it, and seeking to live in and learn from it. After years of doing so, I began to realize there were many things I believed that I could not find in Scripture, and many things taught in Scripture that I did not believe. I had no idea how deep the rabbit hole actually would go. But the best analogy I have found for the experience is like pulling a loose thread on a sweater and finding the whole garment suddenly unraveling before your eyes.

In 2009 I made a serious mistake, one I regret to this day. After several months of intense, personal study and several more months of private study with several friends, I disclosed to the church I was serving a radical change in my views of divorce and remarriage. My thinking had not become more liberal; on the contrary, my new position was much stricter than before. I insisted from the outset that I did not wish my new views to ever become a boundary for fellowship, but that disclosure rocked the very narrow, theologically inbred community in which I had lived all my life. I know now that I was wrong, very wrong, and in more ways than one. My handling of that disclosure was atrocious. I made many statements both in person and in writing that were confusing and hurtful to those who heard them. But more fundamentally, my new thinking about the issue was simply wrong. I had become convinced of a particular point of view that was an error, but God used that error—as serious and as divisive as it proved to be—to begin opening my eyes to a much larger issue.

I was not removed by my congregation, though they were disturbed by my new views on divorce and remarriage, but I chose to resign due to the strife I had caused. I moved my family to a new position in Georgia, but my heart was heavy with grief and full of questions over what had transpired. I had made serious mistakes, but I had also seen dear friends and several former mentors and heroes turn against me quickly and aggressively. The diligence of some in branding me as a false teacher seemed to far outpace attempts to reprove, correct, or restore me. I entered my new work wondering how things could go so wrong, so quickly. I began to wonder why a theological disagreement over a secondary issue produced such division and animosity in so short a period of time. I pulled on the thread, and the theological sweater I had been wearing all my life suddenly unraveled at my feet. Years spent in careful study and meditation of the Word suddenly began tormenting me, shining a light on my errors, exposing my pride, self-righteousness, and sin. I realized I had done the very same things, and far worse, to others that were now being done to me. I began writing letters to as many people as I could think of whom I had harmed or wronged over the last decade. I asked their forgiveness. I acknowledged how ignorant and ungracious my actions had been. Not everyone chose to respond, but most that did so were very gracious. I realized I had been the Pharisee, boasting of my own righteousness before God, but I still had no relief. Like the tax collector standing afar off, I beat my breast and cried to God for mercy with tears, but I had no peace in my heart. By December of 2010 my theological deconstruction was complete. God had broken me, and the security of my theological system was gone forever. I was still a minister serving a Church of Christ, but I only knew three things: there is a God, Jesus is his Son, and the Bible is his Word. Beyond that, I was starting over.

My closest friends know that I strongly considered converting to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy during that time. I had been told my entire life to seek the “one, true church,” and of course, the Church of Rome claimed to be just that. I was communicating with members of the RCC and EOC that had grown up in the Churches of Christ and left that tradition to enter their current communion. My wife was terrified, but I did not care where the truth led me or what the cost might have been. I only wanted to be confident that I was doing God’s will. I continued to preach every week and teach more than a dozen Bible studies. I focused on working through books of the Bible, the same practice I had maintained for a number of years prior and that had helped me discover the problems in my own heritage and paradigm. Then something unexpected happened. The Bible convinced me—actually, the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures did so—the Lord showed me as I continued to read, study, meditate on, and teach his word that justification is not by grace plus faith and our works. Indeed, it cannot be (cf. Rom. 3:28; 4:4-5; Eph. 2:1-9). Works are important, without question, and even necessary as the fruit and evidence of true faith and a regenerate heart. But they could not contribute in any way to man’s justification before God. I did not yet express the doctrine clearly or well, but I had become convinced that justification is by faith alone. That ruled out Rome and Constantinople. It changed my trajectory immediately, and it set me on the course that eventually led me where I am today.

Growing up in the Churches of Christ I heard a lot about “Calvinism” and the error of “denominationalism” (a catch-all category for anything Protestant and outside the Churches of Christ). Looking back I realize much of what I thought I knew about both categories was actually a straw man constructed from ignorance. When I became convinced of the Reformation principle of sola fide, I knew that Rome was no longer an option, and I was compelled to repent of my semi-Pelagian presuppositions and recognize the biblical reality of original sin. Nevertheless, it was impossible for me to even consider that something like Calvinism could be true. I rejected it without a second thought and soon joined the Society of Evangelical Arminians. I thought for sure that my theological questions and confusion would soon be tidily answered and that my future lay within conservative, evangelical Arminianism. But a new problem quickly emerged. I had long heard (and often said) that Calvinism was a philosophical and logical construct based not on the Bible but human thought and reason. But in fact, as I began to develop new friendships within the Arminian world, I discovered that most of the Arminian arguments I was hearing were not biblical, exegetical arguments at all; they were, in fact, philosophical arguments against the doctrines of grace. The Calvinists, on the other hand, were consistently working from Scripture and resolving tensions between divine sovereignty and human responsibility by appealing to the inspired and inerrant Word of God. I began corresponding with Arminian scholars, reading significant Arminian theological works, and dialoguing with other Arminian friends. I was teaching several classes through Genesis and Revelation in the church at that time, and over and over I was seeing clear affirmations of divine sovereignty and God’s effectual grace. As I poured over the text of Scripture, it became clear that Arminianism was still a perversion of what the Scriptures clearly taught, that unregenerate man is dead in sin (Eph. 2:1-3),unable to do anything good in God’s sight (Rom. 8:8), and unable even to understand the things of God (1Cor. 2:14). Man’s decision could not be the decisive factor in salvation, nor could election unto salvation be satisfactorily explained by appeal to a primarily corporate model or in terms of God foreseeing man’s faith (2Tim. 1:9). Oddly enough, it was not Calvinist writers or works that convinced me of the doctrines of grace; it was studying with Arminian scholars and being overwhelmed by the realization I could not reconcile what I was reading in Scripture with what those men were saying. I finally called a friend and admitted defeat in a battle I had never anticipated. “Either Calvinism is true,” I said, “or the Bible is not.” Jesus meant what he said in John 6:37: “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.”

After 3.5 years in Georgia, I finally accepted a pastoral call out of the Churches of Christ to serve a broadly evangelical community church in Arizona. I had declined the opportunity to move to this congregation twice before accepting the call the third time. I knew the transition for my family and for that church would be extraordinary. How little I really knew about the situation. I have told the church more than once in the years since that had I known what would transpire after moving to Arizona, I never would have agreed to come. But God is faithful, and he led us according to his perfect wisdom, not our own imperfect vision. The congregation experienced tremendous pains in the transition, due in part to exchanging a beloved pastor of 25 years for a young man in his mid-thirties with a passion for expository preaching and a heart full of the glories of divine grace. Many of the elders who called me as the Senior Pastor had changed their minds after 53 weeks of my teaching and preaching, but the Lord led us through those challenges as well, and despite my expectation that I would once again be labelled a false teacher and, perhaps this time, finally be removed as a minister, God preserved us and brought the church through a momentous reformation and change. What had been a socially focused, doctrinally superficial community church became a spiritually focused and doctrinally substantial congregation with a strong and clear witness to the inspiration and sufficiency of Scripture and to the gospel of God’s grace.

After I moved to Arizona, I continued to pursue intensive theological study, and during that time I became interested in the history of Reformed Baptists, assuming my own journey was taking me along somewhat similar lines. But as I dug into the particular nuances of 17^th century Baptist covenant theology, an unexpected thing happened. I became convinced that redemptive history was, indeed, organized covenantally and that covenant theology is the appropriate hermeneutical grid for understanding the Scriptures. But rather than finding myself in agreement with the 17^th century Baptists, their arguments convinced me the Presbyterians largely had it right! Just as the Arminians helped convince me of Calvinism, so my Reformed Baptist brothers and forebears helped persuade me of a classical, reformed understanding of covenant theology. I knew immediately this would likely lead to questions about baptism, and it was not many months later that my convictions began to shift in favor of covenantal, household baptism. I knew this would be an especially inconvenient point of view to become persuaded of, and though I did not find many books written by Presbyterians on the subject particularly convincing, I began to find the Scriptures so compelling in favor of that position that I began largely limiting my reading to baptistic arguments against paedo-baptism. Ultimately, it was to no avail. Our associate pastor, who had originally been ordained as a Southern Baptist, had also become convinced of Reformed infant baptism, so we approached the elders privately to disclose our new convictions and to offer our resignations. But rather than accept our resignations, the elders asked to study the issue so they could understand why we had changed our minds. Not many months later, our elders were largely in agreement. The baptismal sign of God’s New Covenant promises belong to believers… and to their children.

Early in 2015 the elders of our congregation began discussing and praying about the possibility of aligning with a conservative, Reformed denomination. We had discussions with ministers from the PCA and URC, but the Orthodox Presbyterian Church was our early and obvious choice. While still in Georgia our family had been encouraged by worshipping occasionally at the local OPC congregation, and the sincere faith, strong commitment to Scripture, and clear presentation of the gospel among those brothers and sisters was refreshing to our hearts during that time. Now it seemed the Lord might be leading not only our family but the entire congregation in that direction. After six or seven months of prayer, conversation, research, and meetings, the elders opened a dialogue with the congregation about the possibility of entering the OPC. Several more months of study, discussion, informational meetings, and prayer followed. On February 14, 2016 Reformation Bible Church voted overwhelmingly to petition the Presbytery of Southern California for reception as a congregation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

 

Over the last several months, immediately prior to and since the congregational vote, I underwent ordination trials for reception as a minister in the OPC. The denomination takes the Bible, the gospel, and the qualification of her ministers very seriously. So even though I have been in full-time pastoral ministry for 17.5 years, I had to sustain their entire battery of ministerial exams. This included proctored, timed exams in English Bible, Church History, Apologetics, Church Government, Greek, and Hebrew. I had to submit two academic papers. Then I had two oral examinations in theology, one before the Credentials Committee and another before the entire Presbytery. On Friday May 6th I completed the final step in my exam process. I preached at the Presbytery meeting and then was examined on the floor by the ministers and elders there. It was an incredible experience, and I enjoyed it very much. It was challenging, and that Friday was the single most important day of my “ministerial” life. The entire process was a big step, and a fairly arduous one. But I am very humbled by and thankful for the opportunity and privilege to serve. Indeed, I am simply overwhelmed. I know how unworthy I am, and I cannot thank God enough for the kindness and mercy he has shown to me.

I could never have imagined when I first began preaching in late 1998 that one day I would be a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The possibility never even crossed my mind when the only theological system I had ever known and had always loved began coming apart. Me, become a Calvinist, and baptize infants?!?! Impossible! That’s what I would have said if anyone tried to warn me. But as Luther reportedly said at the Diet of Worms:

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason… my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.

The final reception of our congregation and my installation as a Minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church will not be complete until October, our Lord willing. But I thought it appropriate to provide information, context, and explanation for the transition now.

This event is the culmination of years of study, repentance, theological evolution, and spiritual renewal, and it is a journey that has been painful, confusing, sorrowful, humbling, and joyful. Though I regret many things said and done over the years before and throughout, I do not regret what the Lord has done in and through it. I do not regret where he has led us. It seems an unlikely destination for someone with such strong roots in the Churches of Christ. Like Paul I can say that I have “lived my life before God in all good conscience up to this day” (Acts 23:1). But oh how many sins I committed in my pride and ignorance! I was a legalist of Legalists, a Pharisee of Pharisees, sincerely professing my love for Christ even while denying the sufficiency of his grace. But God had mercy on me. I am not the man that I ought to be, and I still sin and fall short of his glory every day, in more ways than I even know. But I thank God I am not the man I used to be and that he did not abandon me to my arrogance and error but that he loved me by breaking me, humiliating me, exposing me, and then teaching me.

“This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.” (1 Timothy 1:15)

Soli Deo Gloria!

-JME

Subjective Definitions of Personhood and Growing Evangelical Compromise

Western society is in the throes of debate over identity and personhood. Our nation denies personal rights to the unborn, allowing babies at an early stage of development in the womb to be killed, dissected, and discarded. At the same time we allow men with male sexual organs to “self-identify” as women and to join natural-born, biological females in gender-specific restrooms, changing rooms, and showers. If it were not simultaneously terrifying and deeply troubling, this juxtaposition between such contradictory notions of personhood would be truly fascinating. We might think a person insane who cannot distinguish a person’s gender based on unmistakable body-parts but who is absolutely certain a developing fetus in utero is not a human person entitled to legal rights and protections, but in this case it is not an isolated individual but a significant segment of western society, including many in the halls of government, who have fallen into such disordered thinking.

If you are tempted to shake your head sadly and pity the wicked confusion of all those lost people in the world, let me discomfit you with the assurance a similarly disordered mindset is rapidly making headway in the evangelical community. There is a significant debate over how to think about and identify Christians who have same-sex attractions but choose a celibate lifestyle in obedience to Christ. This seems a simple question with a straightforward, biblical answer. Every believer struggles with the temptations of a lingering sinful nature. I do not refer to myself by those temptations or struggles, nor do I embrace those temptations as if they constitute an orientation that, in part, defines my personhood. But an increasing number of otherwise conservative evangelicals are favoring defining an entire category as same-sex attracted or gay Christians. These brethren affirm that such believers must abstain from the practice of homosexual behavior, but they concede that such attraction is an aspect of personal identity and may even be otherwise morally neutral.

Do not misunderstand the issue. There certainly are believers who truly trust in Christ who are attracted to persons of their same sex. But this temptation is disordered, not creational (Rom. 1:24-28). It is sinful, not fundamental (1Cor. 6:9-11). And not only the behavior but the desire itself must be mortified, daily (Luke 9:23; Col. 3:5-8). Being a Christian does not mean never again feeling the temptation of lusts which are contrary to the will of God and the teaching of Christ, but it does mean a fundamental rejection of those desires as good, wholesome, or defining in terms of our personal identity. We are not defined by our sins or our temptations; we are defined by the image of God bestowed upon us at creation, the image which is created anew in Jesus Christ (Gen. 1:26-27; Rom. 8:29; Col. 3:9-11). We are defined by grace, not the sinful and disordered temptations which the world tries to re-categorize as neutral orientations fundamental to individual identity. Homosexual attraction is disordered, whether a person ever acts upon it or not. We are to repent of and mortify it, not make peace with it in ourselves.

Make no mistake. Once Christians embrace deviant sexual desire as a category for defining personhood, the practice of corresponding sexual behavior will not be far behind. You cannot consistently maintain the position that same-sex attraction is central to your personal identity and permanently suppress or reject the expression of that personal attribute. A Christian may struggle with same-sex attraction his or her entire life. It may always be a temptation, and it may make heterosexual relationships impossible or unattractive. But our sinful desires are not who we are in Christ. A Christian is not defined by disordered attraction. Our identity is in Christ, with whom our life is hidden in God as we await glory. –JME

Bathrooms, Blame, and Bad Theology

The Federal Government acting under the direction of the President through the Department of Justice has taken legal action against the State of North Carolina, charging the state’s recent law defining access to gender-specific bathrooms on the basis of biological sex is a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And if that was not sufficiently troubling and egregious, the President issued a letter through the Department of Education instructing all public schools to provide equal access to transgendered students to the bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers of their choice regardless of biological sex or parental objections. Such actions by the federal government would have been unthinkable less than a decade ago. We now live in a nation that regards abortion and same sex marriage as constitutional rights and that regards transgenderism as a protected class with civil rights.

No doubt some Christians think this has happened due to the indifference, lack of involvement, and political timidity of religious conservatives. But this is a misdiagnosis. There are no political solutions to spiritual problems, and while a reformation-minded leader like Hezekiah or Josiah can encourage national repentance and forestall moral deterioration, these are but minor and meager victories in the context of the larger culture war. “The whole world lies in the power of the evil one” (1Jn. 5:19), and no political policy will make it otherwise. We are seeing Romans 1:18-32 played out in the halls of our government and universities and on our city streets. Progressive politicians have only hastened the inevitable, and were they replaced with consistent conservatives (if such politicians even exist), they would be powerless to deal with the root issue: the problem of the human heart.

If you think America’s problems are primarily political in nature or can be resolved by political means, you are part of the problem. Sincere but profoundly misguided Christians have sought political remedies for decades even as the visible church has been gradually destroyed by theological liberalism, grace-less legalism, morally corrupt cheap grace, and mega-ministry models that prioritize numerical success over spiritual faithfulness and focus on programs built around felt-needs rather than preaching that proclaims Christ as the only solution to man’s true need. America must repent, but the Church needs to do so first. –JME