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

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

Tradition, Not Traditionalism

“Tradition is the living faith of the dead;
Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.” –Jaroslav Pelikan

There have been a lot of changes to the worship service at RBC over the last two and half years. The choir and special music have been replaced by congregational singing from a hymnal. Jokes in the opening remarks have been replaced by a Call to Worship and the reading of God’s Word. Corporate confession of sin and of the blessed good news of Jesus Christ were introduced to remind us all of our need for God’s grace and of the glorious truth that we stand in and by it.

Our service is dominated by the reading, confession, and summary of Scripture. We come to hear God’s Word, and we repeat it back in humble recognition that it is true. The Call to Worship, Scripture Reading, Confession of Sin, Absolution, Sermon, Meditation before the Lord’s Supper, and Benediction are all taken directly from the biblical text each week. Many of the songs we sing are directly from the Book of Psalms or depend strongly on the language of the Bible. Even the ancient creeds and catechism we recite morning and evening are but summaries of what the Scriptures teach.

You will not find many services like ours in the Valley today, but that is not because what we are doing in innovative. On the contrary, it is quite old. The basic structure of our worship has been shared by Christians for centuries stretching back to the earliest days of the Church. What we are doing is so old many have forgotten that it was important and moved on. Some may be dismayed at such traditionalism, but traditionalism refers to dead formality, doing things in a certain way simply for the sake of doing it that way. That is not what we seek. What we seek is a living expression of an ancient faith, a continuing participation in those things which God’s people have always believed.

How will you see and experience worship today? Will it be mindless repetition and empty traditionalism, or will it be a dynamic, heartfelt expression of a living yet ancient faith? As we sing, will you casually or quietly follow along, or will you sing out with hearts full of joy and the Holy Spirit? When we pray, will you say “Amen!” and truly mean “Let it be so, Lord!” or will you simply listen while someone else prays? –JME

The End of an Era, the Dawn of a New Day

Next Sunday, December 13, 2015, is the last Lord’s Day our congregation will be meeting on this campus. Community Christian Church moved onto this property on November 18, 1973. The church began meeting in Building A (our current worship center) in January 1977. Community Christian Church met and ministered here a long time. But much has changed. The vast majority of those worshipping with us today were not part of the church two years ago. In the last 27 months our congregation has gone through extraordinary transition, including significant changes in our doctrinal and ministerial focus, strategy, and leadership. We experienced great division; many long-time and part-time members left, while many new believers have come and made this church their home. Our new name is quite fitting since we truly have gone through a period of reformation catalyzed by the teaching of the Bible.

It is appropriate for there to be mixed feelings about leaving this campus. There always are in situations like this. We are excited about the future but somewhat anxious. None of us had any idea what God had in store for us two years ago, and none of us know for sure what lies ahead. This church has seen good times and bad times in forty-two years on this property. Long-time members will take away good memories, and all of us should look forward to the open doors for ministry that lie ahead.

Transitions are always a little scary. Even Israel second-guessed the exodus and wished they were still slaves in Egypt. How silly we are as human beings, preferring the misery of the familiar for the blessing of the future. It is okay to be a little scared or uncertain about what lies ahead. But let’s not allow the Adversary to rob us of our joy and convince us the best years are behind us. That is never the case for a Christian.

This is a time to be thankful. We should be thankful for past blessings. We should be thankful for God’s faithfulness in the last two years. We should be thankful for the provision He has made for our future, not only temporally as a congregation on earth, but eternally as part of the Body of Christ. There may be some tears; there may be some heaviness in our hearts, but there should also be hope as we look ahead. All things in this life change, but we trust One who never changes. He holds our future in His hands. –JME

Teaching, Transparency, and Touchy Subjects

Almost everyone who is a member or attends Reformation Bible Church does so for one reason: the teaching of God’s Word. I hope the relationships, the corporate worship, and the opportunities for service are also enjoyable and edifying, but let’s be honest, the reason most of us are here is because we take God’s word seriously. Before I was called and since the day I arrived, I have done my best to be transparent and to communicate regularly about my teaching strategy and plans. The church grows through the teaching of the Word (Rom. 10:17; 16:25-27), and the minister’s task is to present the whole counsel of God for the edification of the Body (Acts 20:26-27, 32; Eph. 4:11-12). There is never a week where I ask, “What do I feel like preaching?” Every lesson, every series, is planned well in advance as part of a prayer-full strategy for growing a healthy, faithful church.

It would be much easier to do a series on How To Be A Good Neighbor right now. After spending almost two years in Romans and going through such tremendous upheaval during that time, you could argue what the church needs right now is something… easy, soft, fuzzy, cuddly. Instead, we are tackling the doctrine of baptism and beginning to work through the Westminster Confession of Faith. Not the most ecumenical themes on the Christian menu. It may seem like a poorly planned poke in the eye, but actually, it is part of the larger strategy we hung out front on day one.

We don’t agree on all of these topics. We have differences on baptism, the covenants, predestination, election, and the atonement. The way I see it we have three options, only one of which is biblical. The elders could simply take a position on each of these issues and require every member to agree with it or leave. There are a number of churches that handle doctrinal disagreement on secondary issues that way, but it is divisive and wrong. We could confine our teaching to general topics on which everyone agrees and just pretend the differences do not exist. A lot of churches do this, but it is unhealthy and unbiblical. Or we can acknowledge our differences, love and respect one another, and open our Bibles to seek better understanding of one another and of God’s Word. At the end of the day, some of us will continue to disagree, but we will be better informed, and we will love each other in spite of it. I think that is the only reasonable, biblical, and faithful option and is the only way to build and grow a faithful church. So that’s what we’re doing, at least, as best we can, and it is what we will continue doing. Thanks for being part of the journey. –JME

Why RBC Will Begin Offering Communion Wine

Recently the elders in our congregation decided to make a few adjustments to our practice of communion. Starting next week there will be a few differences in our celebration of the sacrament. First, we will be using freshly baked unleavened bread, and the loaf will be blessed and broken in front of the church before being distributed (Matt. 26:26; 1Cor. 10:16-17). Second, the elders will carry the trays containing the bread and the fruit of the vine to the congregation, emphasizing in a symbolic way their responsibility to feed the flock. Third, cups of wine will be added to the trays so those partaking may choose either the traditional communion wine or grape juice as we used before. We recognize this third change, the offering of wine in addition to grape juice, is likely to be the most surprising or potentially offensive to some members, so we thought it wise to briefly explain why we decided to begin doing so.

            There is absolutely no doubt the Church used (fermented) wine in communion for almost two thousand years after Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper. The process for pasteurizing grape juice was only invented in the late 1800’s (by a man named Welch). The widespread use of grape juice in communion is almost entirely a modern, American phenomenon. So how did it get started, and why? It largely began as part of the Temperance Movement in the 19^th century. Some Christians and advocates of social change responded to the frequent abuse of alcohol by campaigning for complete abstinence. Prohibition was one, temporary, result of this social movement. The use of grape juice in communion was another, one which endures to present day.

            Contrary to what many American Christians believe (and some denominations affirm), the Bible does not universally forbid drinking alcohol. Scripture does strongly condemn drunkenness (Prov. 20:1; 23:20, 29-35; Gal. 5:19-22), but wine is a symbol of God’s grace and abundant blessing on His people (Deut. 7:13; Psa. 104:15; Joel 3:18). Wine is to be enjoyed by God’s people, in moderation and not to drunkenness, as a celebration of His goodness in our lives (Deut. 14:26; Isa. 55:1; John 2:1-10). It is perfectly lawful for a Christian to choose to completely abstain from alcohol, and some probably should do so for reasons of health. But drinking alcohol moderately is a matter of Christian liberty, and its use in communion is a fact of biblical and Christian history.

            Some may object that using wine in communion may cause a brother or sister to stumble, but practicing biblical ordinances with biblical elements and using them in a biblical way is never a cause for stumbling. Furthermore, grape juice will continue to be provided in the same trays for those who wish to abstain, so no one will ever be asked to do something which violates their conscience or might lead them into sin. Brothers in Christ must be careful not to exercise their liberty or scruples in a way that causes another to stumble (Rom. 14:1-23), but this is just as true for the “weaker brother” who refuses to drink wine as it is for the “stronger brother” who does so. Both are instructed to follow their own convictions without forcing the other to comply.

            Starting next Sunday the trays containing the fruit of the vine will have two options. In the center of the trays will be cups containing grape juice. The outer two rings will contain cups of wine. We will use white grape juice and red wine each week to make the distinction more obvious. Each participant can choose for themselves which emblem to drink. Either will satisfy the biblical requirement of using the “fruit of the vine” (Matt. 26:29). No one is made better or worse by using one or the other. The point of communion is Christ, not the presence or absence of fermentation.

            One final question ought to be answered. If grape juice will suffice for communion and the Bible does not specifically command wine, why make any change at all? The reason is simple. We are interested in pursuing biblical reformation. We do not make changes capriciously or according to personal preferences. We do not endeavor to design church according to the spirit of this age or what is fashionable in this moment. Rather we are committed to practicing historic, biblical Christianity. The practice of using grape juice for communion is very new, very modern, even if it is the only tradition many of us are accustomed to. We see value in returning to the ancient, historic, biblical tradition of the Church. We are not looking for new ways of doing church but ancient paths, the original teaching handed down by Christ and the apostles (Jer. 6:16). Yes, grape juice will suffice, but the Church has used wine for almost two thousand years. We are happy and content to do the same. –JME

The Five Solas: January 2015 Teaching Series

Handouts and Study Notes

Should Local Churches Have Membership Criteria?

When the elders at RBC decided to implement a formal Membership Covenant, we knew some people would question or challenge its validity. After all, the New Testament never speaks of a formal membership covenant. Where in the Bible did anyone have to sign a pledge or affirm certain vows to be part of a local congregation?

If we believe formal membership in a local church is biblical, then it is necessary for some criteria to be established for fellowship. When Saul tried to “join” the saints in Jerusalem, they rejected him because “they did not believe he was a disciple” (Acts 9:26-27). Being a disciple of Jesus was a prerequisite for identifying with the saints in Jerusalem. When Paul instructed the Corinthians to excommunicate an immoral member of their fellowship (1Cor. 5), he did so because participation in the church presupposes a certain standard of conduct which that man no longer met (cf. vv.11-13; 2Thess. 3:6, 10-15). Jesus said the impenitent should be put out of the church (Matt. 18:15-17). Paul warned that false teachers and the divisive were to be excommunicated also (Rom. 16:17-18; Tit. 3:10-11). Such statements are incomprehensible unless we believe there is some sense in which a formal relationship (membership) in the local church exists and that relationship is dependent on specific qualifications of faith and life.

Elders must decide how a person’s qualification for fellowship in the local church is to be evaluated. There is a limit to how much can be investigated or known. But is it appropriate to ask a candidate for membership questions about his life and faith? Not only is it appropriate, it is necessary! Should we admit a person as a member who likes our music but does not believe in Jesus? Should we receive into fellowship someone who professes to believe in Jesus but lives in open, unrepentant immorality? Now consider our Membership Covenant. What does it ask that anyone can reasonably object to? What does it require that is not explicitly required of every Christian in the New Testament? In a perfect world no such questions would be necessary, but we live in a fallen world and one where Christianity is regularly redefined to include impenitent, disobedient unbelief. The Membership Covenant says this church takes our faith seriously.

Every congregation that recognizes those in spiritual fellowship (i.e. those attendees who are presumed to be in Christ and regenerate), whether such recognition is explicit or implicit, formal or informal, has membership criteria. The church is not charged with disciplining outsiders, only insiders (1Cor. 5:9-13). Unless a church is in the habit of calling on anyone and everyone who walks through their doors to lead the congregation in prayer, teach a Bible class, or preach the word, they have criteria by which they assess those in their midst. Every church must examine the Scriptures and determine who are accepted as brothers and sisters in Christ and who they must reject.

RBC’s Membership Covenant makes explicit what virtually every church practices explicitly or implicitly (and reflects what the majority of churches have practiced historically). In fact, while the New Testament does not specify the way in which current or prospective members are assessed, it does require such assessment and specifies the criteria by which that assessment is to be made. Thus the elders at RBC have deemed it expedient to have members affirm and sign a formal commitment as members. In doing so, we recognize the authority of the Scriptures in determining the necessary faith and life of the church’s membership.-JME

 Reformation Bible Church Covenants

Back to the Future...Or, Our New Old Pulpit

You may have noticed something different last week: there is a new pulpit on-stage. Actually it is not a new pulpit at all. It is an old one, our old one, in fact. When it was replaced I do not know, but it has been out of service for many years. It was in a storage room in Building B when we decided to make a change. We brought it to the Worship Center, removed the wheels from the bottom, and set it in its place facing the auditorium seats.

The new pulpit is a little old. It is not as trendy as the glass one we had been using. It is simple and traditional. Its solid wood and straight lines resemble the rampart of a fort more than a stand for the speaker’s notes. It is the kind of pulpit you might have seen in 1915 or 1615 rather than 2015.

The new pulpit is a little beat up. There are some scratches and scrapes on it. It is a pulpit made to be used, not admired. It is a pulpit for preaching sermons, not telling stories. It is the kind of pulpit from which a preacher might contend and defend, and the scars are reminders of those Christ’s Church carries.

The new pulpit is solid, despite its age and blemishes. It is made of wood, not glass. It is strong, the kind of pulpit a preacher can smack with an open hand or fist to emphasize his point. It can support the preacher’s Bible and the significant doctrines it contains. It is the kind of pulpit for weighty preaching and can withstand use and abuse.

The new pulpit has been around awhile and is a little beat up, but it is solid, just like our congregation. We have seen difficult days, but we are still standing. In fact, we are stronger than ever. The pulpit is a symbol of who we are today, the changes that have been made, and the future that lies ahead. We seek an old way forward, an ancient way, the way announced by prophets, apostles, and preachers since the time of Abraham. The pulpit represents what we are building on: the preaching of God’s word. Scripture is primary, the teaching of it is central, and its place is permanent. The new pulpit does not have wheels, because preaching should not be pushed aside. This is who we are. This is what we do. And this is what we will continue to do, by God’s grace, so long as the Lord wills. Soli Deo Gloria! -JME

Why CCC is Becoming Reformation Bible Church

The Biblical, Historical, and Practical Reasons We Decided to Change the Name of Our Church

Why Community Christian Church is becoming Reformation Bible Church in 2015

December 14, 2014

Brothers and sisters,

Last week the elders decided unanimously to change the name of our congregation to Reformation Bible Church at the beginning of 2015. This decision was not made hastily. It was preceded by extensive conversations, research, and prayer over more than a year and a half. Reasons for and against changing the name were carefully considered. The history, legacy, and emotion attached to the name Community Christian Church were carefully weighed. With the addition of the 4 new Elders, the topic was discussed and they were given the opportunity to ask questions, provide input, and express any concerns. After much internal dialogue, all of the elders agreed now is the appropriate time for the name change. We want you to understand the reasons we came to this decision and to join us in prayer for God’s blessing on this transition.

           

Our congregation has been through tremendous transformation in the last two years. Jack Martin’s resignation after twenty-five years as the Senior Pastor was only the first in a series of events that led to considerable changes. The church we have today is not the church we had when Jack left. It is not the same congregation that called Joel to serve as the Senior Pastor. It is not even the same congregation with which we started 2014. God has done amazing things over the last year. There has been reformation and revival in our congregation, and though many have left, many others have come and united with us as we work and worship together to the glory of God. There are many reasons for changing the name of the church at this time, but we want to share the three most important ones with you.

           

First, there is a biblical reason. Our current name identifies us with a religious movement we no longer belong to and with a theology we do not accept or support. Some have been confused by discussion of the name change, thinking we are ashamed of the name Christian or that we no longer wish to be identified simply as followers of Christ. Nothing could be further from the truth. This church was originally started as an Independent Christian Church, part of the Restoration Movement which began in the 19^th century and the undenominational sect often referred to as Churches of Christ. We are happy to be called Christians, but we do not want to be confused with the Christian Church Churches. Those churches teach a form of baptismal regeneration, that a person is not saved unless and until they are immersed in water as a believer. We do not believe the Scriptures teach this. The New Testament is clear we are saved by “faith apart from works” (Rom. 3:28), not by faith plus works. Our beliefs, practice, and trajectory are not consistent with the Restoration Movement and the Christian Church/Churches of Christ; therefore, our name should reflect the distinction between us and that movement.

Second, there is a historical reason. We want a name identifying our commitment to the history, theology, and philosophy of the Reformation. Theoretically all Protestants have in common a commitment to the five solas of the Reformation, but the reality is often otherwise. Many churches today have abandoned commitment to scripture alone or to the doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Our new name, Reformation Bible Church, identifies us as a congregation committed to the authority of Scripture and to the history and theology of the Reformation. We agree with men like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli that the Church must continually be reminded of its need to examine its practices in the light of Scripture and to be called to reformation and repentance.

           

Third, there are practical reasons. Changing our name reflects the significant changes that have occurred in the last year and a half. This is a new era for our congregation. The church that once existed is no more. Our community needs to be aware of the transition that has taken place. Though some are displeased by the new teaching and direction, many others rejoice in the revival that is occurring. Changing the name at the beginning of the year signals to the community the end of an old era and the birth of a new Church, a church that is not yours or his or hers or even theirs, but a church that belongs to the Lord.

           

We know many of you will have questions, and we would be happy to discuss this decision and the reasons for it with you further. All of us as elders are responsible for the leadership of this church, and we made this decision together after much prayer and study. We are available for questions and conversation, and we look forward to moving through this next stage of transition and growth together. On Wednesday, December 17^th, we will have an open forum for questions and answers from our members in the Fellowship Hall at 5:45pm. We are committed to open, transparent leadership, so we want to provide plenty of opportunities both privately and publicly for your questions and further discussion.

           

We are thankful for what God has done and for what He continues to do in our congregation, and we are excited about what lies ahead. May the Lord bless you. We are praying for you, and we thank God for your prayers on our behalf. May the grace of our Lord, the love of Christ, and the comfort of the Holy Spirit be with us all.

Signed, The Elders