How a Judgmental Spirit Impairs Listening to Preaching

In my studies last week for the Lord’s prohibition about judgment (“Judge not,” Matt. 7:1), I came across these comments by the “Father of the Puritans,” William Perkins. As I read this, it grieved me to consider the fact that such a heart actually impairs the means of salvation (both in the narrow sense of justification and in the broader sense of sanctification). The reason is because hearing the Word wrongly means that you become or remain dull to the things that Lord may be saying to you simply because you’ve focused on the man through whom the Lord is speaking. I’ll make some more comments at the end:

When in hearing the Word preached, and sins reproved in the congregation, some hearers misapply it, such as, for example, when the minister reproves the sin of swearing, of drunkenness, or any such sin. Then someone guilty of the sin does not only surmise but also breaks forth into this speech: “now the preacher means me;” “he speaks this of me;” “he censures my acts and speeches.” Hereupon follows spite and malice against the person of the minister, and also rash censuring and condemning of his ministry. They also sin this way: by applying the reproofs of sin to the person of others, such as when they say, “now such a one is touched”; “there is a good lesson for such a one if he would learn it.” Yea, others go further and say, “now the preacher means such a man;” “now he speaks against such a man.” But this is also rash judgment in hearing of the Word. They misconceive of the purpose of the minister, for his manner is not when he stands in the room of God to rip up the secrets and lives of some particular hearers, but to deliver the will of God concerning such and such sins unto all. It is the power of the Word, not the mind of the preacher, that causes it to touch your conscience. Therefore, everyone ought to apply the Word to his own heart, and not to lay it upon others, or else take it to be spoken of himself for his disgrace. For it is to misapply the Word, and to judge amiss of the preacher. And this is a common sin which is the reason why many men reap so little profit by the Word preached as they do.

William Perkins, 1.590 (RHB Edition; modified for readability)

There are three things to consider in this.

First, if you are a listener, do not expect that the preacher is speaking about you. Have you told him about your particular struggle, complained about some particular item, confessed some particular sin? Is he now preaching about that item? Do not assume he is personally attacking you. There are two things to remember that may help you not to judge rashly. First, you aren’t the only one to struggle with that item. Many Christians struggle with the same items and share those things with their pastors. If you have ever been a teacher, you know that students struggle with the same items in your course, and your addressing of those things is not a personal attack on the student. Second, remember that the Bible is written in such a way that it addresses the same issues over and over and over again. Complaining, parenting, finances, traditionalism, insubordination, anxiety, sexual immorality, division, gossip, and other such things come up over and over again for the same reason as my previous point: they are common struggles. If the pastor is speaking about something in your life, don’t assume he has you personally in mind. You may be “one of” those whom he knows is struggling with something, but that doesn’t equate to him “coming after” you.

Second, and more briefly, don’t be overly concerned with how you can make someone else aware of the issue confronted in the sermon. That matters, but consider first how it applies to you. If you get in the habit of thinking, “This only applies to my neighbor,” you’ll be even more prone to think “Now he’s coming after me!” when he gets to a particular issue. Think regularly, “How has my faith weakened in this area, my knowledge become fuzzy, my actions become rote or absent?”

Third, pastors, be sure to approach the work of preaching in a way that it is true that you are not making your sermons personal inappropriately. While it would be very difficult to preach without thinking of particular conversations and issues you have come across in private, do not make the sermon about a response to one particular person or conversation. Your manner when you stand in the room of God must not be to rip up the secrets and lives of some particular hearers, but to deliver the will of God concerning such and such sins unto all. Like my counsel to listeners above, if some particular conversation comes to mind, consider similar conversations, similar issues and think through how to open up the Word more generally about common issues. Leave God to deal with the particulars.

Benjamin Keach on the Covenants

While doing some reading for a couple of items, I came across this passage on the covenants in Keach’s Gold Refin’d, a work in which he argues for believer’s baptism. I thought it may be helpful for some.

Object. But it is still objected, that as the Jews and their Children were broken off, so the Gentiles and their Children are ingrafted in their room, as Rom. 11:20. because of Unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by Faith, &c.

Answ. We answer, that the Reason why the Jews and their Children were broken off, was not because they had not believing Parents, for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were still the Parents of them all, they were Abraham’s Seed, according to the Flesh, when they were broken off as well as before; but the true reason was, because the terms of standing in the Church were now altered: For before the Gospel-Dispensation came, they stood Members of the old Jewish Church, though as much unbelieving for many Generations, as they were when they were broken off; but now Abraham’s Church-state is at an end, and all the Priviledges and Immunities cease, the Jewish Church must give way to the Gospel-Church, the Messiah being come, and about to build him up a new and more glorious and spiritual House, into which none are of right to enter but such as are profest Believers; for the old House or Jewish Church-state was not intended to abide for ever, but only until the time of Reformation, and then the Law must be changed, yea the Covenant changed, which they not believing, nor closing in with, were broken off, they being willing to abide in the old House still, and to remain Church-Members upon the account of a meer fleshly and natural Birth, crying out, Abraham is our Father, and we are his Seed, and are free, and never were in Bondage, wherefore they were broken off, and that whether they would or not, by reason of their Unbelief; that is, because they would not believe Christ was the true Messiah, and that the old Covenant and all the Priviledges thereof were flying away, the Substance and true Antitype of all those Shadows being come, viz. the Lord Jesus Christ.

So that thus they were broken off by Unbelief, and thou and thine, O Gentile Believer, stand by Faith, mark it, thou standest by Faith; not by virtue of any Birth-Priviledg whatsoever, but by Faith, thy standing is by Faith; yet not thy Seed by thy Faith, but thou thy self by thine, and they by their own; Faith is that by which (thou standing and not thy Seed) hast right to stand in the Church, and not they; but if thy Seed have Faith, and thou hast none, they have right in the Church, and thou shalt be excluded.

Most certain it is, that under the Law the natural Seed or Progeny of Abraham, were all holy with an External, Ceremonial, or Typical Holiness, and consequently they were then all admitted to an external Participation of Church Privileges. But remarkable to this purpose is that Passage of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 5:16. Wherefore henceforth know we no Man after the Flesh; it seems then, that heretofore there had been a knowledg taken of Persons after the Flesh; and ’tis as plain there was, that because the Jews were of the natural or fleshly Seed of Abraham, they were therefore all of them admitted to the Priviledg of an external Church-membership, while others were exempted. But we see the Apostle resolves henceforth to disclaim any such cognizance of them, or any others upon the account of a meer fleshly Descent: And to this very purpose immediately subjoyns in the following Verse, Therefore if any Man be in Christ, he is a new Creature: old things are past away, all things are become new; the old Church, and old Church-membership, Rites, Ordinances and Priviledges, and a new Church-state, new Ordinances, a new Seed, and new way of Introduction unto the Participation of the Priviledge of Church-membership now under this new and more glorious Dispensation, viz. the Gospel: Nothing but a new Creature will serve the turn; for God expects that they that worship him, do now worship him in Spirit and in Truth; the Priviledg of being admitted into God’s House, and to stand before his Presence in the actual Celebration of Gospel-Ordinances, being now entailed only upon the Spiritual Seed, even such who as lively Stones are built up a spiritual House, a holy Priesthood to offer up spiritual Sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ; 1 Pet. 2:3, 4, 5. or such at least as make a visible Profession thereof.

And therefore, when this new and more spiritual Dispensation was about to be actually introduced and established, John who was the Harbinger of it gives sufficient notice thereof; and to this purpose deals plainly with the Jews, i. e. the Pharisees and Sadduces that came to be baptized of him, and tells them upon this account, Mat. 3:9, 10. Think not to say within your selves, We have Abraham to our Father: For I say unto you, that God is able of these Stones to raise up Children to Abraham. And now also is the Ax laid unto the root of the Trees: Therefore every Tree that bringeth not forth good Fruit, is hewn down, and cast into the Fire. It cannot be denied but that they had Abraham to their Father as much now as before, only the terms of their standing in that Church was now changed; so that every Tree now of whatsoever natural Stock or external Production, that bringeth not forth good Fruit, must be hewn down; and the reason is rendred for that, Now the Ax is laid to the root of the Trees, mark it, now ’tis so; it was not so before, the Ax was never till now laid thus unto the root of the Trees: which must needs be understood in reference to that Birth and Fleshly Priviledg spoken of before, which they had so long boasted of, as the whole Context shews. But now God is resolved to make other manner of work of it under the Gospel-Dispensation than he did before. Now the root of the Trees are struck at, a Bar put, natural Descent or Extraction from a Religious Root, (i. e. Godly Parents) will not now serve turn, as in time past it did, to give any true Right or Title to Church-Priviledges. Moreover, if God now will not suffer any of the natural Branches to abide on their own natural Stock, viz. Abraham, be sure he will not admit any Gentiles, that are not natural Branches of Abraham, to be grafted into the good Olive, without Faith and Regeneration.

Benjamin Keach, Gold Refin’d, Or, Baptism in Its Primitive Purity (London: Printed for the author, 1689), 115–119.

How to Pray: A Short Guide for Godly Prayer

People struggle to know how to pray. While most people have a sense of shame or skittishness about it, they won’t ask for instruction. But here’s the thing: even the Disciples (those disciples, the ones who followed Jesus everywhere and became the foundation of the church) asked how to pray. Our Lord provided the Lord’s Prayer as a perfect concentration of the types of petitions we ought to ask for in prayer.

Still, in modern days, there has arisen an acronym to help people know how to move through prayer: “ACTS.” You may have heard of it. It stands for “Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, and Supplication.” As you move through prayer, you can work through this acronym as a way to structure your thoughts and express your desires to God.

I was (and am) unsure of where this acronym came from. I thought it might be a contemporary invention, similar to the “A.B.C.’s” of conversion (Accept, Believe, and Confess). It seemed pious enough, but I wasn’t sure if it had any precedent.

As I found out during my studies for preaching the Lord’s Prayer, while the acronym itself may be contemporary (again, I don’t know where it came from), the structure itself has roots early in the church. I was reading some works by the church fathers and came across what is essentially a version of the “ACTS” model in the works of Origen, which means that what I’ll provide below could be an explanation of that practice. (Caveat: Origen was later condemned for some doctrines he taught, but his teaching in many areas has still been accepted by Christians through the centuries). He does not follow the same pattern exactly since he places “thanksgiving” before “confession” but the content is the same.

Adoration

At the beginning of prayer, in a preface, glory should be ascribed to God according to one’s ability, through Christ who is glorified with him, in the Holy Spirit who is to be hymned with him.

Thanksgiving

After this we should each place thanksgiving, both general, enumerating all the benefits that are extended to so many, and for which thanks are given, and those particular blessings which each has personally received from God.

Confession

After thanksgiving, it seems to me that we should become a pungent accuser of our own sins before God, first so that we can ask healing, to be delivered from the disposition that instigates sin and second to gain forgiveness for past actions.

Supplication (Petitions/Requests)

After confession, it seems to me that we should add in the fourth place petition for what is great and heavenly, for ourselves and for people in general, and also for our family and friends.

Moving from the adoration of God to thanksgiving for his benefits to confession of our own unworthiness and faults to requests for holiness is a simple, yet profound, movement of the soul as we draw near to God. In following this pattern, one need not feel the “skittishness” that often creeps in as you approach the Lord. It is good for you to praise him, good for you to give thanks to him, good for you to thereby recognize your own sins against him, and, finally, good to ask things from his hand.

I hope this “short guide” to prayer is helpful to you as you seek the things that are above.

You can see his (and others’) treatments of prayer (and the Lord’s Prayer in particular) here.

Resurrection Hope Study Guide by Mitch Chase

A few months ago, a group of ladies and I went through Mitch Chase’s Resurrection Hope. For that study, I developed study questions that were to be read before and after each chapter. Two things commend the book. First, and most obvious, the book gives an introduction to the doctrine of the resurrection in a biblical theological manner. Second, though, it helps you understand how to read the Bible better. I’m sharing these study questions because I think they will help you as you read his book, and together with the book, they will help you learn how to read the Bible. The study guide can be used in a group (as we did) or they can just be used individually. I found the book helpful enough to include as our church’s current “featured book” (our church has a book table that we put a new book on every month and a half or so; the books are half off the purchase price).

Resurrection Hope Study Guide.pdfDownload

10 Things to Do in 2023

Everyone is thinking about the New Year, starting to put together resolutions or reading plans. These are ten things that you should do in 2023. In honesty, these are things you should commit to at any time in life (as with most “New Year’s” commitments), but why not take these ten items and commit to pursuing them during the new year? Admittedly, these are things where I need to grow as well, and things that require renewed resolve regularly (how’s that for alliteration?).

1. Be in a Church. I don’t mean “be a member” if you think “be a member” permits non-attendance. I don’t mean “be a member” if you’re not a believer. I mean “go to church.” Be there twice on Sundays. Be at the “extra” thing the church does, whether a prayer meeting or time of teaching or whatever it is they do during the week. If you claim to be a Christian, this should be a no-brainer, but for a lot of people it’s not. If you’re not a Christian, and need to know “what church should I go to” and “what does it look like to ‘go to church,’?” feel free to reach out to me and I can help you out.
2. Be in the Bible as a Family. If you are married and have children, you ought to be regularly reading the Bible together. This should be common, but it isn’t. People are often surprised when their children leave the church, or when they begin attending somewhere of very different convictions. This isn’t always because they didn’t instill things in them as a family, but it is often the case. Promote the doctrines of your church, point at the law and point to the gospel.
3. Pass on and Receive What’s Important. If you’re an older person, look for someone young to hand over what you value (and if it’s something actually handed over, let go of it when it’s time). Sometimes these are principles, but it should also be practices, activities, organizations, etc. Older people expect the young to look for them, but there’s often a sense among younger people of “If they’ve got it covered, there’s no need there for me to fill.” Further, if you don’t pass things on purposefully, the next generation might not understand the value of something. If you think it’s good, do the work to say “Here’s why this was started,” and then do the work to teach the next generation how to do it. Voting? Church activities? Community services? All of these are things where there’s recognizable disengagement by rising generations. Tied to this, if the “passing on” of things is done on a personal level, be ready to hear the next generation discuss different ways of doing the same sort of thing. If the practice is important, and if the values it demonstrates are important, then it may be that the particulars are different from one generation to the next. If you’re a younger person, look at the things that are done by older people and seek to come alongside them (and under them). Remember, they used to be young and full of passion, and the thing they do is something that they believed (and still believe) is important for expression of good things. While it might look different in various ways from how you would do it or will do it in the future, learn what it is and why it is.
4. Go to Funerals. You’re going to die. Going to a funeral reminds you of that and forces you to consider how you’re living life now in view of that fact. Further, it comforts people to see people they care about attending a funeral for someone else they cared about. I try to make it to funerals when I can. I haven’t been able to make it to all of those that would have been good for me to go to, but I do try. If you’re a younger person, don’t wait for your parents to tell you to attend a funeral; decide for yourself that you’re going to go.
5. Spend Time in Meditation and Prayer. We live in a noisy world, and contrary to the way a lot people mention that, it’s not a bad thing. Words are good, conversation is good, time with others is good. (Of course, these are often bad too). But we have largely begun to fill times that were designed for quiet contemplation (what Christian meditation is) and prayer with more noise. Go for a walk, sit in silence, go to the woods, journal if you need too, but have regular time in your day and life without noise (audible or otherwise, e.g., social media).
6. Get Coffee/Lunch. In our time, it’s easier for those who are physically close to you to be more relationally distant (which is one reason I really dislike Zoom). Make it a practice to meet with people regularly for breakfast/coffee/lunch. It can be the same person all the time or different people every time, but make it a habit in some way to spend time talking to people face-to-face.
7. Have People Over. Like the item above, make it a practice of having people over to your home. You can be formal, but you don’t have to be (I actually prefer it to be really informal). Have dinner, hang out, talk. (Note: If you’re single, it’s unwise to do this with someone of the opposite sex by themselves).
8. Watch Your Intake. We are a gluttonous age, and this applies to food as well as other things. Everyone is overweight; everyone overindulges in social media; everyone overindulges in some particular form of consumption. (Every time someone says we’re “consumeristic,” translate that in your mind to “gluttonous”). Make it a point to monitor what you take in. Since we are quite prosperous, we can’t depend on the lack of something to create a natural limitation on things. Thus, we must create those limitations for ourselves.
9. Enjoy Good Things. While this may seem like a contradiction to the previous item, they actually go hand in hand. If you always eat a good steak, you soon lose your appreciation for good steak. Enjoy wine, cigars, steak, chocolate, beer, art, videos, humor, etc. Don’t live your life in overindulgence, but also don’t deprive yourself of the enjoyment of that which is pleasing and good.
10. Stop Complaining. It is a hard world, and there are things we don’t like about all sorts of things, particularly about the “way things are run,” and it is extremely easy to spend days complaining about things to friends, leaders, neighbors, etc. In other words, there are good reasons to complain, and it’s easy to complain, but the better thing to do is not complain. This will bring about greater submission, greater camaraderie, greater innovation, and greater enjoyment. Why? It brings greater submission because the decision not to complain to or about leaders leaves you with a disposition to follow them or at least to allow them to lead. It brings greater camaraderie because the things discussed are edifying and enjoyable. It brings greater innovation because, if you can’t complain, you must come up with a way to pursue things within the structure. It brings greater enjoyment because in leaving off complaints, you are forced to discuss things that are more enjoyable.

These ten things are good practices for all of life. If you are given to using natural changes in life as a means to focus or refocus on various things, and if the change of a calendar year is one of those things you use, use this list as a help in your pursuit of “the good life.” Go to church, bring the faith into your home, pass on and receive what’s important, spend time learning at funerals and in meditation and prayer, meet with people in various settings and without complaining, and enjoy the gifts of life in a way that is appropriate.

Guest Preaching: Some Advice

I’ve done a bit of guest preaching in the past and I find these are a few questions to ask those for whom you preach (i.e., the pastor you’re filling in for). The reason for these questions is that you are serving someone else. It is an honor and privilege for someone else to trust their pulpit to you, but it is really a gift you’re giving to them, so you should act in a way that best serves them. If you have any others, feel free to leave a comment. I’ll include reasons/response after the question.

1. What translation do you typically use? You should use the same translation they do because that’s likely what many of the people use. It’s good to know with enough time to incorporate it in your study so you’re comfortable with the structure of the sentences if it’s a translation that’s different than you normally use.
2. How long do you typically preach? If it’s shorter than you’re used to, go shorter. If it’s too long for your ability, feel free to let the brother know that you’re not quite there yet and tell him how long you can preach.
3. What are you preaching? I don’t think it’s a good idea to preach a text close to the same as the pastor you’re filling in for. We all know that most of our study could have turned into multiple sermons, so it’s not an issue of, “Did he really say all that can be said?” Instead, imagine what sort of issues you might cause if you take a different interpretation on a passage than the congregation’s pastor?
4. Is there a topic you would like me to address? This could be a topic the pastor hasn’t been able to study in depth yet because of time, or it may be a little far from any of the texts that he’s working through to be able to comfortably put into the series he’s already in. This could be a time where you could serve him by addressing it.
5. What do you typically wear to preach in? If he typically wears a suit and you typically wear a polo (or the other way around), the church may be put off by your attire. This is a “no stumbling block” issue. It’s not your “teaching moment” issue. You usually don’t need to match exactly. If he normally wears a suit and you wear a sport coat (or vice versa), you’ll likely be fine. If he normally wears a polo and you wear a button up without a tie, you’ll likely be fine.
6. Are there any components of the liturgy that I’ll be conducting? There may be items that you choose or things that you do, and it’s good to know beforehand. Let the brother know if there’s anything you’re uncomfortable doing. I had to let a brother know I was uncomfortable administering the Supper since I wasn’t an elder there. Others have made sure I was ordained so that they could ask me to say the benediction. It’s good to know these things beforehand if possible.
7. What time should I arrive? Many pastors have a time of prayer, either with the deacons or with the other elders (or both) a few minutes before the service, and you want to be on time for that. Don’t just ask what time the service is.
8. Is there anywhere you’d like me during or after the service? This is a question to ask when you arrive rather than in an email. Sometimes churches have elders’ chairs near the pulpit that the preacher (even a visiting preacher) will sit in. Also, sometimes the preacher stands at the back door after the service to shake hands and greet people as they leave.

It’s What We Believe!

This past Lord’s Day, I introduced the sermon with a quotation from the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith 16.2. When I did so, I also made some “rabbit trail” remarks about our Confession. I said, “We confess that…” and then explained why I was saying “we confess.” It’s because a confession of faith, whether small or large, is both an objective and subjective statement. Objectively, it can be pointed to by those outside a congregation as defining the things that body of Christians believe. It’s further objective in that a confession of faith is a summary statement of the main headings taught in Scripture, and thus, insofar as it is faithful to Scripture, it is not something that can be discarded out of hand.

Nevertheless, for a confession of faith to be a “confession,” it must be the objective truth to which a group of people individually and corporately hold. Since it’s a confession of faith, it must be believed. Since it’s a confession of faith, it must be believed alongside others. It is the objective statement of what is held in the hearts of the believers who confess it. It is good practice, and many churches find some way in their life together—such as a worship service or a business meeting or some other venue—to actually say the things documented in the confession (whatever confession that church holds) out loud, together. It’s this “subjective” aspect that leads to the question, “have you read the Confession and do you agree with it” in membership interviews. It’s not that we’re simply being curmudgeonly. We believe these things and we would love for everyone to believe them with us because they’re true, and we want to know if you believe them too? We want to know, “When we say ‘WE’ believe these things, will you be included in the ‘We’?”

I’m not going to offer the caveats here (e.g., what if someone is unsure about this or that particular point) simply because this is meant to be a short post. Those things matter too. Nevertheless, the thrust of confessional adherence is the idea that a body of believers can state clearly and somewhat succinctly those things they know the Bible to teach, those things “most surely believed among us.”

Let’s Change the Lord’s Supper!

If the headline to this blog post encourages you to become tense and immediately check out what I have to say with skepticism, that’s good. Along with the preaching of the Word, singing, prayers, and baptism, the Lord’s Supper is an essential element of worship. As such, we should be quite skeptical of any calls to change the Lord’s Supper, as we would be toward calls to change the preaching or baptism. Further, since we believe the elements of worship should be regulated according to the Word of God, we should be ready for any proposed changes to be due to something said in Scripture, and not otherwise.

However, there were some changes that took place over the last few hundred years, and especially in the last hundred or so, that churches did not work hard enough to resist. The result? We now have a Lord’s Supper practice in evangelicalism that is quite… different (to put it mildly) from what the apostles handed down from the Lord (1 Cor. 11:23). As one of my fellow-pastors, Luke Mace, has begun to preach through the section in 1 Corinthians that addresses the Supper (chs. 10–11), I’ve been reflecting again on the ways we (evangelicals as a whole) observe the Lord’s Supper. There are some “dispositional” issues that I could address, such as our tendency away from seeing it as a means of grace, our tendency to only take it somberly, etc., but my goal in this post is to name three practical alterations to the Lord’s Supper that we should change back to something more consistent with apostolic practice.

Frequency

It seems the New Testament practice was to take the Lord’s Supper every Lord’s Day (Acts 20:7). Unfortunately, it had become common for the ‘laity’ to only take the Supper once a year in the Middle Ages, so it was a big deal when people started to take it quarterly or even monthly. Nevertheless, it seems most pastors from Calvin to today have desired fervently to have the Supper every Lord’s Day (I might speculate on why pastors have been fearful of fixing this, but I won’t do that here). I have not heard any arguments against this that are convincing; rather, my experience has been just the opposite of people’s concerns. When it is taken weekly, people grow. People love to have that reminder of their covenant union with Christ week by week. It seems odd that something we call a “means of grace” would be something we would limit ourselves to receiving but once a month or quarter. (NB: If you live in a place with limited access to the material resources, such as the Middle East where it’s hard to get alcohol, it makes complete sense that you may be forced to a less frequent observance). (For a fairly technical argument for weekly observance, see Thomas Goodwin, vol. 11, pp. 388–409; without contending strongly for it, Spurgeon makes some passing comments that “If there be any rule as to the time for the observance of this ordinance, it surely is every Lord’s day.”)

Material

This almost seems the least consequential, but it’s also the most absurd invasion of social justice into the worship of the church that I know of. The temperance movement of the nineteenth century gave way to the widespread adoption of using grape juice in the Lord’s Supper. Though the Corinthians were clearly drinking something that one could get drunk on (1 Cor. 11:21), Christians of the twentieth century made absurd arguments that changed the material content of the Supper. We should have never ceased to use wine, so the change to juice was an unbiblical imposition on the practice of the church. While one might scoff at the notion of people using soda and crackers, we’ve already weakened our claim to “just do what Jesus said” when we said, “but in this area, we know a better way.” (Spurgeon made some remarks of warning about the zeal of the temperance movement in this vein, Sword & Trowel, 1877, p. 437; see also Keith Mathison’s argument here, here, here, and here)

Form

Of the three practical items I’m listing in this post, this one is probably the most foreign and the most theologically important. I think taking the Supper weekly is a beautiful and good thing. I think changing the substance of one of the elements was a bad thing. However, the item I list here is the one that actually carries a theological argument in Scripture, and yet we have changed it. In our changing it, not only do we disobey the Lord (since we’re not doing what he delivered by him through the apostles [1 Cor. 11:23]), but we actually distance ourselves from being able to make sense of the theological points Paul makes in Scripture. Prior to the twentieth century, it was common for Christians to use a single cup and loaf in the Supper. Due to various things, such as epidemics, the use of a common cup was abandoned. Now? Well, now evangelical Christians use thimbles, sometimes even prepackaged. What is the symbol of the one cup? We are all partaking in the one Christ as one people of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16–17; cf. Calvin’s comments on these verses, or Matthew Poole). What’s the symbol of our thimbles? Often it symbolizes an extreme individualism in our spirituality. It astonished Paul that the Corinthians weren’t taking the Supper together (1 Cor. 11:33). While we may take it in the same room and at the same time, we also tend to close ourselves off in our minds to those around us. (Calvin considers the precise manner it gets from the singular loaf/cup to the individual communicant a thing indifferent, whether by the elder/deacon distributing it to each or by congregants passing it from one to the next, Institutes, 4.17.43. Haykin points out in his book, Amidst Us Our Beloved Stands, that eighteenth-century Baptist Anne Dutton’s explanation of the Supper assumes a “single cup that was passed around the congregation”).

I have ministered in a church that took communion weekly (Kosmosdale Baptist in Louisville), and I have taken communion at a church that had reformed their Lord’s Supper observance according to the Word of God (Tucson Reformed Baptist Church). The latter used wine (as is proper), took the Supper weekly, and had a way of maintaining the biblical form that I found wise. They use a pitcher of wine (poured in cups for distribution) and the minister very visibly breaks the bread before the congregation as he recites the words of institution. This practice of the unity of the elements at the table while recognizing the distribution could include the smaller cups (though much larger than thimbles) and the pieces of bread has seemed to me the best recovery of a biblical form, matter, and frequency of the Supper.

So, should we change the Supper? Yes. Does it create a sense of “consternation” or “tension” for me to say that? Good. We should not alter the elements of worship without biblical warrant, and the problem is that earlier generations did so. Now we have the hard work of fixing things because it’s harder to fix something than to break it.

On the SBC

I have a lot of thoughts about the SBC, and I think you should too (if you live in the USA). Why? It is the largest group of Protestants in the country and the direction it takes will both reflect and influence evangelicalism in general. It is responsible for educating a massive portion of theological students and the impact on missions is likewise great. But I’m not a Southern Baptist. Why? Quite simply it’s because I’m not in a Southern Baptist church, and the fact that I don’t live in the South means I don’t particularly feel compelled to encourage our congregation to join it. In other words, I think the regional identity of the Convention should matter (even if they have not maintained it themselves). In other words, the reason I’m not Southern Baptist right now is both convictional (I think it should be regionally identified) and non-convictional (there’s nothing I have against the SBC doctrinally and I could—and do in my work at SBTS—still affirm the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, as I did in my book Still Confessing).

What are my thoughts on the SBC? Well, there are a lot, but as one who is concerned for healthy Baptist life, I have several that I think would help to reinvigorate it. This doesn’t solve all the problems we all know about right now (sin’s the problem; repentance, diligence, and the return of Christ are the solution). However, consider these as suggestions for how the SBC could be better in terms of the structure it ought to have.

First, associationalism. Baptists have been an associating people since our beginning. By “associating,” I mean formal communion among churches. Formal means there’s an entrance and a mutual concern and at times a removal. The SBC is generally structured in three “tiers” of fellowship: local, state, and regional (though the latter has become national, and indeed international). The SBC really is designed to direct resources for common ends (education, missions). It is the local associational level at which the theological and fidelity conversations should be had. The reality? Many churches are never involved in the local association or the state associations, and the reason is that they don’t find them valuable. Ways forward? 1) Remove churches that are inactive. This had been a very common practice among Baptists. 2) Assess the agreed upon doctrinal commitments (BFM and various other confessions) and be willing to have the hard conversations that lead to some congregations being removed from the associations. 3) Make associational meetings more robust (they are generally a-theological because of the huge spectrum of SBC theology today; local associations don’t need to be as broad as the SBC). Ask for reports from the churches and engage in the older forms of mutual support in theological and practical decision making within the churches. (Often, local association meetings are basically just reports of some evangelistic outreach—e.g., a block party or ESL classes—that a church is doing). Pastors, you’re in charge of the associations, not the DOMs, so speak.

Second, reform the SBC’s missionary practices. The North American Mission Board (NAMB, pronounced like “lamb”) had originally focused on reaching the Indians and immigrants. Now, NAMB is seeking to plant churches all over the country. It’s an unfortunately common experience for me to hear of local ministers complaining about the way NAMB seeks to overwhelm an area where there are already local associations and local church plants. NAMB still does try to help with reaching immigrants and they are involved in things like disaster relief and caring for those who are rescued out of sex slavery. Great! But if our (Baptists’) polity is to emphasize the local church and local associations, then NAMB should not be operating on its own in local areas. The other missionary organization, the International Mission Board (IMB), is one that has favorable positions on paper, but I’ve heard very disturbing stories from the mission field. While officially opposed to the “Insider Movement,” the IMB has not actually resisted it among missionaries on the ground (I’ve heard multiple stories of IMB missionaries having to leave the field because of their concerns with the IMB’s on-the-ground permissive stance toward the IM). While the goal ought to be to see Baptist churches planted and self-sustaining (at which point I would think the IMB would see their task as complete), very often the reports are that IMB workers don’t have that goal as clear in their minds.

Third, be willing to let go. This goes to things that were implied in the former two items. Early Baptist associations planted churches in other areas, which then grew into self-sustaining associations. There was communication between the associations by way of reports, but it wasn’t a way of just expanding the reach of one of the associations. The Baptist Union and the various conventions (such as the Triennial and Southern Baptist Conventions) extended the communion of churches in ways that Baptists were concerned about very early on. The SBC should, it would seem, probably be willing to resist the urge to have churches in New England and New Zealand. Plant churches? Sure. But then allow those churches to form their own associations etc. Be willing to be smaller for the sake of the health that comes from more localized politics (politics in the sense of people working together). The reality (regardless of whether it must or ought to be this way) is that by having a robust Southern Baptist Convention, energy is sapped from the hard work that goes into local efforts. Serve the churches and the local associations. That’s baptist. Note when the task you desire to do or have already engaged in is beyond the purview of what you should do and cut it off to allow it to grow by itself.

The SBC is the largest group of Protestants in the US, and the result is that their health affects the health of us all. We should be seeking the good of the SBC and urging them to continue to reform according to the Scriptures, which are best expressed in Baptist principles. This means more focus on the local churches, more focus on the local associations, more desire to serve as a conduit only insofar as it is proper, and less seeking to be a “global” movement. I praise God for the SBC because it was the commitments of that communion of Baptists to the gospel that edified me and trained me for the ministry. I never “left the SBC” but only the area where the SBC is (and I think ought to be) functional, and my desire is for Southern Baptists to continue to uphold Baptist principles and take the gospel to the lost.

A Forced Pastorate?

This past Sunday, I referenced an event in Augustine’s life in the introduction to my sermon (the details may have been a little off, but the substance was correct). Just because it’s such a fascinating event, I share it here from Peter Brown’s biography. Augustine tells how, because his reputation had grown, he wouldn’t go anywhere that didn’t already have a bishop so that he wouldn’t be made to become a bishop. Thus, when he went to Hippo, he was not seeking the pastorate (in fact, he was hoping to set up a monastery). Here’s how Brown tells of how things unfolded:

The incident was a common one in the Later [Roman] Empire. It passed over quickly: in a sermon, the bishop, Valerius, spoke pointedly of the urgent needs of his church; the congregation turned to find, as they expected, Augustine standing among them in the nave; with the persistent shouting required for such a procedure, they pushed him forward to the raised throne of the bishop and the benches of the [presbyters], which ran around the curved apse at the far end of the basilica. The leading [c]atholic [(as opposed to Donatist)] citizens of Hippo would have gathered around Augustine, as the bishop accepted his forced agreement to become a [presbyter] in the town. What was happening seemed perfectly natural to them: twenty years later they would try, without success, to kidnap in this way another passing ‘star’. They merely assumed that Augustine had burst into tears because he had wanted to be a bishop, but now found himself condemned to the inferior rank of [presbyter].

Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo, Forty-Fifth Anniversary Edition, 131–32

While unfamiliar to us today, it would likely be too much to say this was forced, as seen in the fact that the man they tried the same with twenty years later was able to refuse. Nevertheless, it is an interesting account not uncommon in church history.