Friday, June 24, 2016

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

Friday, June 17, 2016

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

Friday, June 10, 2016

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

Friday, June 3, 2016

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

Friday, May 27, 2016

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

Friday, May 20, 2016

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 17th 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 17th 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

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

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