Multi-Site Church? Why I Recommend You Rethink Your Strategy

A Megachurch Dilema

It’s a practical problem right? As a church gets sufficiently large, it starts running short on parking spaces and seating. You already have two or three morning services, one or two night services, a Wednesday night, and a Saturday night. At a certain point the church must decide between building a bigger building or adopting multiple campuses strategically located throughout the city.

It’s also hard for a pastor to tend to the actual needs of the individuals within his congregation once the population exceeds about 100. He might be able to remember your name and ask about your family, but he won’t be able to apply the gospel individually to the sin in your life, counsel you through a marriage difficulty, or train you for your own ministry.

I understand the legitimacy of these needs, but I think that the multi-site church can be short-sighted and miss out on some of the biggest ministry opportunities for these growing churches.

Opening disclaimer: Although many (but not all!) megachurches have deeply rooted theological, moral, and practice problems, for the sake of this post I would like to assume that these problems are not present and that the growth is a result of genuine ministry and the beckoning of the Holy Spirit. It will help this post to keep some focus.

The Unconvincing Reasons Against Mutli-Site Churches

Before I really get going, I’d like to mention some reasons against the Multi-Site church that I don’t agree with

1. The Lonesome Prophet Reason: It wouldn’t be that large if it were faithful. False. Acts 2:41. Three thousand people were saved by gospel preaching at once. They joined the church. The Spirit blows where it wishes and causes people to be born again. If the Holy Spirit decides to cause radical fruitfulness in one area and not another, this is not evidence of a counterfeit gospel.

2. The Hipster Reason: I stop feeling important when everyone is into the thing that I’m into. Examine your heart.

For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous. Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you. We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death. (1 John 3:11-14 ESV)

3. The Ego Reason: The only reason pastors create multiple campuses is because their ego is too large for one building. Sure, their are certainly egotistical pastors out there who find their self worth in the number of people they can count at their church, and this is most certainly a horrible reason to open a church campus. Yet, the problems for a large church still exist. There is just not enough room for all of the members. The church leadership has to do something, and creating a new campus is as reasonable as any.

4. The Judas Reason: The money for buildings would be better spent on the poor. Yep, I went there.

So they gave a dinner for him there. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining with him at table. Mary therefore took a pound of expensive ointment made from pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said, “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?”

He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it.

(John 12:2-6)”

Yes, we should care for the poor and tend to their needs. Yet, churches also have a responsibility to shepherd the flock of God and that is done in actual locations. You have to solve the location problem or you neglect the ministry that God has called your church to. Churches ought to have a mission and budget to mercy ministry, but we still have to address the location.

The Birth of A Multi-Site Church

A gifted church planter and team of believers begin a church. They start meeting in a house, a theater, a school, a rented space, or in the facility of another gracious church. As time goes on this church outgrows their space and they buy a building based on their anticipated needs. At this point they perhaps make another facility change, until finally they have to pick between an absurdly large building or just a second campus. The bigger building still has some logistical problems, and the second campus has the advantage of covering a different region of the city and it could be effective in reaching people who would otherwise be unwilling to make the commute. In reality, the second campus sounds like a completely reasonable decision.

Growth is a Legitimate Goal

Christians have the message of good news. We have experienced the joy of salvation and adoption as sons. We have gloried in the cross of Christ, we have experienced change in our character, and long to serve others and worship God more deeply. In its purest form, Church growth is just “this” happening in more peoples’ lives. Naturally, church leaders and average Christians should desire church growth.

My Solution: The Church Planting Church

If we are so eager to promote this “good growth,” we should really pause to question if either the absurdly large building or the second campus gets us closer to this kind of good growth than planting a new church. While it’s true that the spacing problem can be solved in various ways, we still haven’t solved the bigger issue: how does a pastor shepherd people who he can’t spend his time with? Sure he can preach, but so can someone else. When his marriage is hurting, or he wants advice for reaching his coworkers with the gospel, how will he be supported? The normal multi-site church answer is “small groups.” In reality, that often means untrained volunteers with good intentions pooling their ignorance. I don’t trust my zealous friend and dear brother in Christ who is new to the faith and to help me through my spiritual doubts or relational problems. He isn’t my shepherds, doesn’t need the responsibility of shepherding.

Note that there is a very significant difference between a church plant and a second campus. A church planting church trains up leaders from within, cosponsors theological/ministry education, oversees the establishment of a new fellowship of elders, sacrificially generates support revenue for the church plant’s infancy, and creates a sense of unity among all Christians in the city by showing that they care more about the spread of the gospel than their own church’s name. In contrast, a second campus reacts to a space problem by adding a building, and the decision is deemed successful because the second campus grows.

Closing Remarks

It isn’t sinful to have a second campus. I know of several churches that I generally support and agree with who have made this decision, such as Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis or Mars Hill Church in Seattle. But in this opinion I stand firm. The church needs strong Christians who have been shepherded by qualified pastors who know them personally and care for them. The world needs Christians who are in line with the mission of Christ in proclaiming the message of reconciliation and being servants of all. For this reason, urge your large, faithful, church to plant and be a blessing to others.

A (Late) Maundy Thursday Meditation: Guest post from Brendon Schumate

Today is Maundy Thursday, the day that the Christian church commemorates the Last Supper of Christ with His disciples; the institution of the sacrament of the Eucharist; and the Lord’s betrayal to the Temple authorities by Judas Iscariot. I was asked to share my thougts on the Eucharist/Communion/the Lord’s Supper with my church community group tonight, so I wrote this to collect my thoughts. One of the beauties of the meal our Lord has given us is how multifaceted it is. No matter what state you’re in when you come to the Table, there’s something there to come and meet you exactly where you are. Following are just the first few interpretations of the Eucharist that occur to me: The most obvious thing, I suppose, is the symbol our Lord Himself gave us when He said “Take, eat; this is my body,” and “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood[.]” The reality it pictures is the Lord’s sacrificial death on our behalf, and it gives us the chance to reflect on the gravity of our sins and sinfulness. As we tear from the loaf, we’re reminded of His flesh torn from Him as He was scourged, and when we see the wine dripping from the bread, we’re reminded of His blood, shed painfully on the cross. It’s a reminder of the horror of the murder of God, for which we are responsible, and a chance to repent, and to gratefully praise Him for the lengths to which He was willing to go to redeem us, who were His hateful enemies. The Lord’s Supper, at the same time, is an extremely accessible symbol, in that the mode that it takes is common to all human experience — just eating, simply. We can and do talk a lot about terms like substitutionary atonement and reconciliation and redemption — and we do well to do so, because they’re real and they’re life-giving and they build us up — but because those terms are disconnected by a degree from our daily experience, there is always the danger that they will pass, insubstantial, through our heads, without really touching anything. But it’s impossible to misunderstand a meal. It calls to our minds kindness, warmth, hospitality, and generosity. Jesus has given us a meal. We were like people starving to death in a wasteland, and since there was no other food that could possibly have saved us, Jesus broke His own body to give us food. And not just food, but a feast — because He didn’t say that His blood was water, which will do for thirst, but wine, indicating ease and enjoyment. (I miss, by the way, the loss of this last concept in taking juice instead of wine, but I understand that love for the Family in the culture of the American South demands it, unless we are well enough acquainted with everyone involved in the practice to know that there is no possibility of offense.) Finally, in being invited to the Lord’s Table, there is a reminder for us as the Church that we are a family. We are all brothers and sisters, adopted by the same Father, made heirs with His own natural Son, joining each other for a simple, unpretentious meal, graciously provided for us by Him. And just like a natural family, there are differences between us, because we are joined together not by our own preferences but by Someone greater than us; so there may be people at the Table that annoy us, or that we don’t understand, or even that we prefer not to be around. But ultimately, we are joined together by the fact that we share one Father, who calls us to one Table to eat together. Communion is a reminder to “love the brothers,” and to enjoy the unity that we share with them, and to be reconciled not only to God, but also to one another. Time would fail, let alone my limited intellect, to exhaust the meaning of the Eucharist, but those are the things that come most readily to my mind.

H/T: http://301cranston.tumblr.com/

How to Know When Jesus Will Return

I Can Hear it Now

“So… Ben, you know when Jesus is retuning? That’s pretty impressive considering that not even Jesus knows the day or the hour of his return according to Matthew 24:36.”

Ok, I’ll call uncle on this one. I don’t know the day or the hour when Jesus will return. However, I do know the main factor that is keeping Jesus from returning right now. Look at 2 Peter 3.

2 Peter 3

1 This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, 3 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4 They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, 12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! 13 But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Ha! Calvinism Defeated! …Right?

See, verse 9, “…not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” Calvinism teaches that God predestines some to be saved and the rest will perish, but if God doesn’t wish that any should perish then Calvinism must not be true, right? Not so fast. We need to put this verse into context. Let’s break down verses 1-13 into an outline.

1. Scoffers will claim that Jesus is not going to return because it has taken so long (v. 4).
2. They deliberately overlook the great flood where God destroyed the earth with water (v. 5-6).
3. Similarly, the world will be destroyed again, but this time with fire instead of water (v. 7)
4. God’s time is not man’s time (v. 8a).
5. God’s apparent slowness is actually patience towards “you” (v. 8b).
6. When Jesus returns, the fire of God will consume the earth and everyone on it whose works are evil (v. 10).
7. Therefore wait with patience and holiness (v 11-13).

So the overall effect of this passage is to state that the delay in Jesus returning is not due to God’s slowness in fulfilling his promises, but rather due to his unwillingness to allow certain people to perish (namely, his elect). I can easily see someone objecting to me inserting the idea of the elect into this passage, but I think that it is truly a necessary implication. If Jesus is truly not wishing that any should perish (not a single person), then why is this tied into Jesus’ second coming? Whenever Jesus returns, we know for certain from the Bible that many will perish. If Jesus is delaying the second coming to prevent any people from perishing, he will have to simply never return. Therefore the “you” of verse 9 must refer not to the entire human race but to a select group whom God refuses to destroy. We know biblically that this must be the elect.

Why Has it Taken 2000 Years?

The answer is simple: the elect are not gathered yet. If Jesus were to return right now multiplied millions of those who were destined to eventually repent and trust in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins would be destroyed by the fires of judgment before they reach repentance. God is faithful and does not wish that his elect should perish and therefore Jesus still waits to this day. In Biblical end-times prophesy, Jesus is portrayed as a bridegroom and the church as his bride. We can look ahead to the great wedding feast that will occur immediately after Jesus returns, but at our point in history, Jesus is not a husband to the church but a fiancé. I remember the days of my own engagement to my wife, and how difficult and painful the wait for our wedding day was. Jesus however has been waiting for 2000 years. Thank God for his patience! If he had returned a year of two after he ascended to heaven, imagine how many would have perished in smoke! Don’t scoff at the return of Jesus or consider it to be indefinitely far off. One glorious day, the fullness of the elect will be gathered and Jesus will not hesitate to return in glory and set everything right. He will destroy his enemies and marry his church.

4 Arguments Against the Resurrection (And Why They Are Wrong)

All the Experts Agree

It seems like the supposed experts agree: Jesus did not rise from the dead. If you’re looking for some scholarly or academic ways to deny the resurrection, just Google it, and you will have plenty of choices. That’s the problem. Among resurrection deniers, there is consensus that Jesus did not rise from the dead, but no consensus about what actually happened.

Around Easter and Christmas every year, someone who wants to sell books or make documentaries will create a cutting edge explanation of the historical Jesus, or the historical Bible, or the historical crucifixion. Sadly, these explanations are rarely historical or cutting edge. They tend to be recycled, dated arguments that make significant factual errors or expose unfair biases held by the purveyors of these ideas.

As a result, it would be worthwhile to take some of these ideas to task and examine the holes in the various theories against the resurrection.

1. The Man “Jesus” Was Made Up
Idea held by: the ignorant, atheist children

Of all the theories against the resurrection, this is the most foolish because the wealth of data is overwhelming.

Consider the historical testimonies of two contemporary non-Christians historians.

Tacitus, a Roman governor lived from 56-117 AD, wrote about the Emperor Nero’s treatment of the early Christians:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

Josephus, a early Jewish historian, wrote about Christians as a Pharisee, whom typically hated Jesus:

Antiquities 18.3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

The apostles wrote their works with minimal interactions making many of them semi-independent, and they line up exactly as you would expect eyewitness testimonies to line up. Additionally, we have smooth historical foundations along the timeline. For example, Polycarp was a disciple of John, the last living apostle, and we still have his writings today.

2. Jesus Didn’t Actually Die, He Just Went Into a Coma and Three Days Later he Woke Up and Claimed to Resurrect.
Idea held by: Apostate Christians, some Atheists and Agnostics

If you’re into fanciful explanations of things, you should be able to do better than this. Paul testified to getting “the 40 lashes minus one” 5 times at the hand of the Jews. Why didn’t he just say 39? Because the cultural idiom at the time claimed that 40 lashes will kill a person. So when someone is given 39 lashes it’s saying you’re taking them as far as you can get without killing them. Jesus got these before his crucifixion even began. In other words, Jesus was near death before he was even nailed to the cross.

Then, you put him on a cross and pierce him in the wrists and the head, where he will bleed the most. Simultaneously, his body weight is causing suffocation and the extreme blood loss is keeping oxygen levels to his brain low. He is lifting himself up to take breaths while near death for hours. Keep in mind that the night before he was sweating blood, meaning his blood vessels were bursting due to his immense stress.  He was in bad shape before he was even whipped.

At the end of his crucifixion, after he was already declared dead, a Roman soldier pierced his heart open with a spear, just in case.

In order for this theory to work, Jesus had to have survived this whole process. Then, he apparently chilled in a tomb for 3 days without food or water, with incredible blood loss, just to make sure he could fake this prophetic fulfillment. Then, he pushes away a 2-ton stone, fights off the armed guards from the most experienced army in the known world using karate, then jogs seven miles down the road to Emmaus to catch up with his disciples (Luke 24), gives them a Bible lesson of the entire Old Testament, and only then eats with them.

That, or the Bible was right.

3. Jesus Did Die, But He Didn’t Rise From the Dead.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead after dying, his body would be in the tomb until it had been decomposed. The Pharisees (such as Saul, who became Paul) persecuted Christians, traveling around killing them. If Jesus was still dead, then they could just go to the tomb, get the remains and parade them around the city. Then Christianity would have been instantly and reliably debunked. Yet, they couldn’t do that because the remains weren’t there.

Well suppose the disciples stole the body. Keep in mind the guard would have been executed if he accepted a bribe, so these fishermen would have needed to plan a pretty awesome ambush.

Ok. Suppose they pulled that off. Really. Now explain why all of the thirteen apostles suffered insane persecution repeatedly for their whole lives and lived in poverty and generosity their whole lives. Twelve were killed as martyrs on account of the resurrection and the remaining one died in exile after an escaped attempt at murdering him. These guys would have known if they stole the body, and there is simply no motive to propagate the lie.

But, now bear with me, suppose for some reason they did. Well, look at 1 Corinthians 15:6. Paul appeals to what is supposedly a shared fact among them that Jesus appeared to over 500 people at a time of whom there were living witnesses.

There is just no chance the disciples stole the body.

4. There was a decoy Jesus (Jebus?), He Died, Then Whamo-Blamo Real Jesus Pops Out Resurrected
Idea held by: Orthodox Muslims (a similar argument is actually in the Koran)

He wasn’t crucified in the dark. People knew what he looked like. They sat there and watched him die, and the Sunday before (Palm Sunday) they welcomed him hailing him as the Messiah. Thousands of people watched him teach for hours and crowds of people watched his crucifixion. If there was an impostor, someone would have known.

Bonus: Jesus Rose From the Dead Metaphorically/Allegorically/Spiritually

If this were true, then his physical body would have still been in the tomb and all the arguments from number 3 would still stand. Additionally, in the Grecco-Roman world, the only people with a theology/philosophy/worldview in which resurrection could occur were the Jews (See N. T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God). Hence it makes perfect sense that those in the Areopagus of Athens who heard Paul preach the resurrection of Jesus scoffed at the very notion of resurrection. Finally, in Luke’s gospel, Jesus shows his scarred hands and eats broiled fish purely to prove that he is not a disembodied spirit.

“Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

About the Experts

Yes, the experts go to incredible lengths to discredit the resurrection because they have an agenda. Scholars feel silly claiming that miracles happened and that Jonah was in a whale, so out of a desire to look smart they argue against the Bible’s claims. Many others have been radically hurt by legalistic religion and people who held to the inerrancy of the Bible and so they are really wanting to discredit the resurrection out of bitterness. A lot of people perceive Christians as bigots and want to spite Christianity in the name of gay rights or other issues that produce tension with Christianity. As a result, many academics propagate these myths with a lot of dishonest techniques.

1. Appeals to scholarly consensus that just isn’t there (but most people wouldn’t know)
2. Appeals to archeology that likewise isn’t there (but most people wouldn’t know)
3. Claiming (without citing) the presence of innumerable contradictions in the gospels
4. Pretending to discover something in the original languages (assuming that most people can’t read them)
5. Presupposing their arguments (“Since we know that resurrection is impossible, we need to read this narrative in light of…”)
6. Using academic condescension (“Surely you don’t believe that these are literal stories…”)
7. Making personal attacks (“All thinking men are atheists.”)

The real trick is to find a way to be kind and loving while absolutely demolishing the content of these arguments. It’s just like Romans 1 says. When you exchange the truth for a lie, God will give you over to a debased mind. Yet God is even merciful enough to pluck people out and bring them to trust in Jesus. As the saying goes, “There but for the grace of God, go I.”

Top 10 Reasons Pope Benedict XVI’s Apology is Worthless

Evidence that the Pope Skips Confession

If you haven’t been hearing about the child and teenage sexual abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church, it is about time that you know about it. It has come to light that the Roman Catholic Church has been suppressing information, in some cases by vows of silence, about sexual abuse in their celibate priesthood. In one such case, the offending priest continued to abuse children for 18 years after being caught. Unbelievable. Although there have been cases that go back to 1975, probably with many before that, the Pope has been reluctant to even speak about the sex abuse problems for fear of them being perceived as a connected scandal rather than isolated incidents associated with individual priests.

Finally, the current Pope, Benedict XVI, has issued an apology about the Irish child sex-abuse scandal.

Read the Pope’s letter, and see if you agree with the top ten reasons Pope Benedict XVI’s apology is worthless.

10. It is not an apology

The Pope admits to shame and guilt but never actually says what his personal involvement was or why it was a scandal. A victim of the abuse, Paddy Doyle, rightly called it, “same old dribble that’s been coming out for years.” An apology is hardly an apology if the offending party won’t even state in clear terms the crime he is personally responsible for, which brings us to the next point.

9. He is sympathetic rather than repentant

The whole letter has an attitude that says, “I feel your pain,” rather than, “I am sorry for the pain that I am responsible for.”

8. He doesn’t disclose action he will take

He lists a bunch of problems that need to be addressed, but does not mention how they will be addressed. On top of that, he doesn’t even mention if the priests will be excommunicated, or even defrocked. Considering that some of the priests involved in the sexual abuse had already been subjected to their peers for some form of restoration, this is a very empty way to regain the trust of abuse victims.

7. He asks other people to fix his problem

Beyond the fact that he doesn’t propose concrete solutions that he will take besides merely visiting the dioceses in Ireland, he does give the worlds’ Roman Catholics some tasks like fasting and works of mercy during Lent in order to, essentially, buy the grace needed for the restoration of the [Roman] Church in Ireland. Wait, I thought this was an apology letter, not a letter to get the faithful to try to fix a church under your oversight. It reminds me of the words of Jesus.

Matthew 23:2-5a
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you—but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by others.”

Besides all of this, his solutions are entirely sacramental. More on that later.

6. He blames it on secular society

One of the more ridiculous and outright offensive parts of this letter is when he blames the fall of the dioceses on secular culture, when there is no organization in secular culture that comes close to the scope of the abuses of the Roman priests, especially considering how systematic they were. Besides this, it is utterly hypocritical that the Roman Church would portray themselves as holy and holding the keys to dispense grace, but yet when such rampant, sickening, widespread, and secretive sin comes to light they would blame the secular culture. If they truly held the keys to grace, you would think that they could at least get enough grace to not abuse children and teenagers.

5. He is hypocritical about who can receive the sacraments

Speaking of hypocrisy, the Pope scolds the offending priests briefly, but then proceeds to offer them sacraments by which they can (supposedly) atone for their sins, yet the excommunicated can not even receive the sacraments. A few generations ago, you could get excommunicated for divorce, but now when priests abuse children they are not even defrocked.

4. He treats the scandal as if it were an isolated event

The Pope doesn’t address why this is happening everywhere, not just in Ireland. There have been over 400 legal cases in the United States alone, and over 2000 cases of child abuse in the Dublin diocese alone, which have been intentionally covered up by the church, according to a reading of the Murphy Report.

3. He says nothing about celibacy

The elephant in the room that none of the clergy including the Pope want to talk about is celibacy. Celibacy in Roman Catholic priesthood, did not become a requirement until 1123 AD. That’s right, there are more years of history in which celibacy was not a requirement than when it was one. Furthermore, mandatory celibacy is repeatedly denied in the Bible. In their justification, the clergy quote Matthew 19, which is not talking about clergy, yet they must ignore 1 Timothy 3 that mentions the behavior of the wives in the qualifications for the clergy. Later in the letter, Paul says something even more startling. Excuse my [interruptions].

1 Timothy 4
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times [1123AD?] some [context: clergy] will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons [harsh, Paul], through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage [forbid what?] and require abstinence from foods [meat during Lent?] that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

Finally, the apostle Peter and other apostles had a wife.

1 Corinthians 9:5
Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

It is truly ironic that the man who claims his authority based on Peter (known as Cephas in other places of the Bible), would insist on a doctrine that Peter himself would have broken.

2. He is not the head of the universal Church

The Pope may claim to be the pastor of the universal church but he is not. The word “catholic” means universal (hence it is recited in the Apostles’ Creed by non-Catholics), but there is a funny thing about names. Baptists aren’t the only ones who baptize, Presbyterians aren’t the only ones with elders, Episcopalians aren’t the only ones with bishops, Pentecostals aren’t the only ones with the Holy Spirit, the Church of England is not the only church in England or limited to England, and the Eastern Orthodox church is not the only orthodox church. So the Catholic church is not the universal Church merely because it thinks so. Secondly, Jesus is the pastor of the universal Church, not Peter, nor Benedict XVI, nor any other man who has ever walked the planet.

1. He promotes a different gospel

When viewed in light of sacramentalism, the best thing the Roman Church could do for you is excommunication. Sacramentalism is the false belief that your sins are only forgiven when the grace required is merited through works or sacraments. In other words, the Roman Church and the foolish Pope Benedict XVI add works to salvation in order that you may atone for yourself. The scriptural basis against this claim is overwhelming, so endure with me while I overwhelm you.

Romans 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

Romans 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Galatians 2:15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Galatians 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

John 6:28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God

Ephesians 1:13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

Genesis 15:6 And [Abraham] believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

The reason these priests are not bearing fruit in keeping with repentance is because they do not believe the true gospel and are insisting on works-righteousness. The Pope’s gospel is quite different.

“I ask you to offer up your fasting, your prayer, your reading of Scripture and your works of mercy in order to obtain the grace of healing and renewal for the Church in Ireland.”

Grace that is earned by fasting, prayer, reading scripture, and works is simply not grace. Webster’s dictionary has a better theology of grace than the Pope when it defines grace as, “unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification.”

Conclusion

The Apostle Paul said in Galatians 1,

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

Paul literally invokes the anathema on anyone who would preach a contrary gospel regardless of his or her status, placing it above not only his apostleship (apostleship being the basis to the authority the Pope claims to have), but beyond even the declarations of heavenly angels. If you get the gospel wrong, it doesn’t matter if you’re a Pope or Protestant, an Archbishop or an Atheist, a Catholic Monk or a Buddhist Monk, if anyone should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you let him be accursed.

The tragic fact about this apology letter is that it reinforces the false gospel of the Pope, and places people on a road to atone for their own sins and to sanctify themselves. It is no wonder that the Roman Catholic Church can’t rid itself of pedophilia when Jesus’ death on the cross for their sins hinges on works rather than God’s grace.

If you are in a church, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, or otherwise, and you are hearing a false gospel, leave that church immediately and find a different one. Let the leaders declare any powerless curses that they desire on you and know that Jesus’ death on the cross for your sins is free and for you and received by grace through faith alone.

What You Need to Know About Tiger Woods’ Affairs

Nothing.

Book Giveaway!

Do yourself and check out this book giveaway!

http://sbcvoices.com/kicking-off-2010-right-100-book-giveaway

There are three books available and all three are books that I plan on buying if I don’t win. These books are:

Institutes of the Christian Religion

A Christian classic that is nearly 500 years old.

The Meaning of the Pentateuch

Recommended by John Piper as one of the best books ever written on the subject.

The Trellis and the Vine

Received rave reviews from nearly ever source that reviewed it. It seems to be contributing something new and insightful to the discussion of Christian ministry.

The Pain of Temptation

Learn or Burn
Sin is a serious thing. Sin damns people to Hell. The scariest thing about Hell is not the pain, but the length of the sentence. Five minutes in Hell would, by far, outdo any pains you have ever felt, yet the true pain could never be fully understood because it does not come coupled with the utter hopelessness of knowing that there is not a chance in Hell that you will ever get out. Literally, a billion years in, you will not be one minute closer to the end.

Yes, sin is a serious, serious thing. Naturally, forgiveness must be more serious. As agonizing as Hell is, the promise of eternal life in the New Heavens and the New Earth will far surpass it in pleasures forevermore.

A Missionary’s Fear
The truest of missionaries have always felt the weight of the wrath with which God will righteously impose on sinners, and have been informed by their Bibles that the words contained within have the power to rescue sinners on account of Jesus’ own suffering.

With God in their hearts and on their lips, they have proclaimed the law of God in order to convict people of their sins, and the gospel of Jesus Christ that they may find forgiveness and reconciliation. Tragically, multitudes feel unaffected by the law, with no desire to repent, while others will be on the verge of despair in utter self-hatred. We poor souls under despair need the comforting words of Jesus to announce to us, “Brothers, your sins are forgiven.”

Learning Suffering
There is a subtle legalism in the Church that has implicitly exchanged the condemnation of actual sins for the condemnation of those tempted to sin. A quick-worded preacher may miss this nuance and unwittingly preach against temptation, bringing more pain to the law-beaten man.

Hebrews 2
17 Therefore [Jesus] had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

Temptation yields suffering―even to Jesus. Jesus did not come to thunder in anger against your temptation, but he experienced the full weight of it so that he could help us in temptation joining them in pilgrimage to Jesus who is able to help us. Therefore, we ought all become a lot more sensitive to those suffering under temptation.

How many insensitive, blunt remarks have been lobbed at the porn addicted teenager searching for help? As a Church, sometimes we forget that sin takes the form of a disease, in that it not only kills, but it also hurts. Certainly, sin must be preached against in order for the gospel to be of any tangible value, but not to the exclusion of empathy and compassion. A doctor with any sense of decency would not announce his patient’s positive cancer results without some measure of pain in his voice.

If you have no compassion for those who are being tempted, you probably have not suffered enough under temptation, meaning that you yield to it before it is strong enough to drive you to suffer. To you who cannot sympathize, gain some new resolve. Let the law cut you, let your excuses, justifications, and explanations be severed from you, and just let yourself bleed for long enough to drive you to Jesus. Fight your own sins, and find your temptations to be harder than you ever knew, and sympathize with your brothers.

May we all pray, “And lead us not into temptation,” with as much burden as we petition, “but deliver us from evil.” Join with me in suffering under temptation in the arms of Jesus who is able to sympathize with our suffering, and to help us in the midst of it.

Matthew 2, Part 2: Herod’s Damned Faith

Matthew 2
13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” 14 And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt 15 and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

16 Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. 17 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah:

18 “A voice was heard in Ramah,
weeping and loud lamentation,
Rachel weeping for her children;
she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.”

19 But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, 20 saying, “Rise, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child’s life are dead.” 21 And he rose and took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there, and being warned in a dream he withdrew to the district of Galilee. 23 And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: “He shall be called a Nazarene.”

A Faithless King

King Herod is technically king of the Jews, but the Jews are a conquered people, under the possession of the Romans. King Herod had real power, but he was still under Caesar. He is analogous to King Saul, the faithless King of Israel, ready to be replaced by King David, except in this case, Jesus is the God-king on the throne of David. Just like Saul, Herod gets violent when his power is threatened. By the end of his life, Saul was in direct rebellion against God, not just David. So also, we see by his actions that Herod is in rebellion against God as well. He is not merely concerned that a man take his place in power, he is concerned that the Messiah of God is going to take away his power, which is why he consults the chief priests and the scribes about him. Herod is in a weird position. He believes the prophecy is reliable enough to find the Messiah, yet he hates him and somehow he believes that he can thwart God’s plan. We must approach Herod soberly by discovering that there is a kind of faith that does not save. Namely the faith that believes facts about God to be true, but hates and suppresses them rather than marveling and submitting to them.

Kingdom Showdown

Despite the fact that the chief priests and the scribes would be seeking to put Jesus to death in about thirty years, they are not ignorant of who Jesus is. The scribes and priests are experts with the scriptures and we see upon Herod’s inquiry that they have correctly interpreted the prophecies concerning Jesus. They knew that the Christ was to come from Bethlehem in Judea, the city of king David, yet because of their jealousy, the grand majority of them will never repent and believe in him. Likewise, Herod is terrified of Jesus, since he considers him a threat to his power. He is so arrogant, rebellious, and cowardly that he is willing to commit mass infanticide just to ensure that God’s kingdom would not come. Yet we see that God was sovereign even over Herod’s sin. What Herod did in efforts to undermine the power of God, God ordained to confirm it. Through Herod’s sin of infanticide the purpose of God was vindicated, fulfilling three more prophecies. First, because Herod sought to kill the children, God told Joseph in a dream to flee to Egypt to fulfill Hosea 11:1, “Out of Egypt I called my son.” Secondly, the infanticide itself fulfilled Jeremiah 31:15. Rachel, as wife of Jacob, a.k.a. Israel, represents the mother of the nation of Israel, who is Abraham’s son. The death of young Israeli children by the sword of Herod occurred to fulfill Jeremiah’s prophecy. Finally, the ongoing threat of Herod’s son, Archelaus, confirmed a third prophecy concerning the Messiah, that he would be called a Nazarene. Therefore, we need not be afraid of tyrants, human rights criminals, or any people in the world because we know that God’s purposes will come to fruition, and that no human kingdom can prevent the kingdom of God coming to earth.

Providence, Part 2

Even though God worked in spite of Herod’s sin to confirm Jesus’ kingdom, Herod was still held guilty and died in rebellion. God ordained his death just right to fulfill the third prophecy about Jesus being a Nazarene. Conversely, divine providence served for the deliverance of God’s faithful. God gave Joseph dreams as guidance to deliver not only Jesus, but also his family. The magi likewise were saved by believing God according to the same kinds of dreams. This runs parallel to our understanding of salvation by faith. Those who believe in Jesus are delivered from their sins and the devil’s slavery. We want to have faith in Jesus Christ, but yet again we must test the stripe of our faith in him. Do we believe the facts and prophecies about Jesus are true but consider it bad news? If so we will have Herod-like faith, we will believe the facts about Jesus bit be disturbed and threatened, and actually try in vain to quench the kingdom of God. But if we have faith like Joseph or the magi, the facts we believe about God will lead us to joy.

Matthew 2, Part 1: Who Are the Magi?

Matthew 2
1 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, 2 saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” 3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; 4 and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 They told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet:6 “‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.’”

7 Then Herod summoned the wise men secretly and ascertained from them what time the star had appeared. 8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, “Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found him, bring me word, that I too may come and worship him.” 9 After listening to the king, they went on their way. And behold, the star that they had seen when it rose went before them until it came to rest over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. 11 And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh. 12 And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their own country by another way.

The Intentional Evangelists

Some time after Jesus’ birth we see wise men, literally, magi, showing up to worship Jesus. We don’t know much about them since they show up only in Matthew’s gospel, but since Matthew bothered to mention them, we know that they must be significant. There are trillions of things that the gospel authors could have written concerning Jesus, but they were extremely selective about which details they recount. They did not record Jesus’ first haircut, the way that he learned to read, his first words, or how old he was when he began to walk. In fact, only in Luke’s gospel do we hear anything about Jesus’ childhood at all, and in that case, just a single event when he was 12. John ends his gospel saying that were everything about Jesus recorded, the whole world could not contain all of the books. Therefore, whatever details the evangelists do record are recorded intentionally and hold significance. The gospel authors are not merely telling you what you should believe, but they are arguing their points, and therefore they omit details that are not important and narrate details that are. Therefore, despite what we do not know about the magi, we know that they are significant to the point that Matthew wants to make, and we should ask, “Why?”

Why Magi?

To build off of the study of chapter 1, we remember that we saw a few of Matthew’s goals: that you would see Jesus as the God-king on David’s throne, to see Jesus as the nation-blessing offspring of Abraham, to see Jesus as the savior from sins, and to see God’s plan throughout history come to fruition in Jesus Christ. As it turns out, the appearance of the magi are consistent with Matthew’s goals from chapter 1. For most of us, our knowledge of the magi comes from nativity scenes or Christmas carols, rather than the Bible. For example, we do not know that there were three magi, nor are we told that they are kings. Furthermore, the magi probably didn’t even show up the night that Jesus was born, for one, since the passage does not say that, but also we see in verse 10 the wise men visited Jesus at a house, though Jesus was born in a manger. The magi are not just another cute addition to a nativity scene, but rather they reinforce Matthew’s previous points. First, we see that the magi believe that Jesus is the God-king, just as was prophesied to come in the line of David. For the magi to march up to king Herod and ask for a king baby to worship is a gutsy move. They know that men are to worship and serve God alone, so they must believe that Jesus is God. Second, we know that the opinions of the magi concerning Jesus were from God, because they were drawn to Jerusalem, and then Bethlehem, by a supernatural astrological event given by God as a sign. Third, the magi are from another country, and have come to worship the king of the Jews. Certainly Matthew must be connecting God’s covenant with Abraham to bless all of the nations to Jesus’ birth, because Jesus was first recognized as king of the Jews not by the Jews, but by gentiles from the east.