Author Archives: Svigel

About Svigel

Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary, author, husband, father.

Church Membership as a Covenant Commitment?

Posted on by
In our culture of competing churches, lackluster commitments, and consumer-driven spirituality, the idea of local church membership has suffered greatly. The classic biblical concept of a family’s covenant commitment to a definable body of believers under ordained leadership with a common calling and mutual concern has consequently been treated with skepticism, disbelief, or even contempt. This kind of cavalier treatment of the local church reflects the low commitments we see throughout our culture as marriage vows are shattered, contracts are breached, and promises are broken. However, just as Christians are called to affirm their marriage vows, fulfill their contracts, and keep their promises, we are also expected to fulfill the covenant commitment we make when we publicly join in membership to a local church.

            But what do we mean by “covenant commitment” and how does this affect our understanding of local church membership? The term “covenant” simply means “formal agreement,” “solemn promise,” or “public commitment.” This relates to church membership in two important ways. First, when we describe church membership as a “covenant commitment” to a local community of believers, we are simply saying that by becoming a member of a particular church, we are not simply entering into rights and privileges, but we are assuming certain responsibilities and obligations. Second, a “covenant commitment” is more than simply being committed. I may be committed to abstain from coffee for a week (a purely hypothetical concept, of course!). However, such a commitment becomes a covenant commitment when I publicly confess my commitment before others as a formal promise or solemn vow. In the same way, regular attenders at a church may be “committed” to showing up week after week. But those who have formally entered into membership have made a “covenant commitment” when they publicly affirmed their loyalty to carry out their biblical responsibilities as members of a local body of believers.
            With the general concept of “covenant commitment” defined, let’s look at a few important considerations related to the concept of church membership in the New Testament and why our official entrance into such membership must be viewed as a covenant commitment to a local, definable body of believers.

 Cleaving to the Local Community
When we become members of a local church, we “cleave” to that community with the same kind of solemnity with which we cleave to our spouses or our families.
In Matthew 19:5, the Greek verb kollavw (kollao), refers to the joining in covenant commitment between a husband and wife. Elsewhere it means to enter into a contractual labor agreement, to “hire oneself out” to a master (Luke 15:15). In fact, so close is the relationship described by “cleaving” (kollao), that the term is used to describe the eternal relationship believers have when they join themselves to the Lord (1 Cor. 6:17)!
In its ecclesiastical usage, kollao is used with reference to “joining” a local assembly, even if one is already a baptized member of the universal body of Christ. Thus, when Paul traveled to Jerusalem after his miraculous conversion, he “attempted to join (kollao) the disciples” (Acts 9:26). After the church in Jerusalem responded with skepticism, doubting the genuineness of his conversion, Barnabas vouched for Paul before the local leadership of that church, that is, the apostles (Acts 9:27). From that point on, Paul’s relationship is described as “with them,” that is, a member of that community under the headship of the leadership.
Later, as Paul preached the gospel and made disciples, they “joined (kollaomai) him and believed” (Acts 17:34). We know from numerous passages throughout the book of Acts that believing and being baptized were closely associated (Acts 18:8), and that baptism itself was the first step in the life of discipleship (Matt. 28:19). We also know that discipleship involves a formal relationship of master and disciple (2 Pet 3:16). Thus, the idea of officially “joining” or “cleaving” to a particular local congregation of the body of Christ under ordained leadership for the purpose of mutual edification and accountability is quite biblical.


Accountability within the Community

Being a cleaving member of a local church involves an accountability relationship to that particular community that one does not have with any other congregation. This relationship of accountability defines who is “in” the community and who is “out.”

In 1 Corinthians 5:2, Paul commands the local church in Corinth to gather together and remove the unrepentant believer from “among” the church (1 Cor. 5:2). This has come after a proper process of church discipline. Such a removal from “among” the church is only possible if there were clearly-established boundaries of the local community. Just as a company can only fire those who are officially and legally employed, churches can only exercise discipline against those who are officially and covenantally incorporated into membership.
But can we be sure that Paul had in mind a well-defined covenanted community of actual identifiable members? Yes. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 5:13, Paul quotes a phrase from the Old Testament that clearly indicates this: “Purge the evil person from among you” (Deut. 17:7, 12; 21:21; 22:21, 22, 24). The Old Testament background illuminates Paul’s intention here. Only those who were covenanted members of Israel were responsible to its laws and therefore accountable to its discipline. That is, those who were circumcised as the sign of the Old Covenant were accountable to keep the whole Law (Gal. 5:3). In the same way, Paul regarded as accountable members those baptized believers who were covenanted to the local community in association with their brothers and sisters in the congregation under ordained leadership.
            In Matthew 18, Jesus outlines a process of church discipline that begins with a private confrontation between one brother and another (Matt. 18:15). If this step fails, the next stage is to bring two or three witnesses (18:16). If this intermediate step does not bring about repentance of the transgressor, the final stage is to take the matter before “the church” (Matt. 18:17), which includes at least the leadership of the church and those who constitute the “assembly” of covenanted believers joined to that local body, accountable to its discipline. Failure to bring about reconciliation at this point leads to an ejection of that member from the local church, as described in 1 Corinthians 5:2 and 13.
            Simply put, without a covenanted submission of believers to one another and to the established leadership, the kind of church discipline described by Jesus and the apostles is simply impossible. Without membership in a community, there could be no ejection from the community. And without a covenant commitment to the community, there could be no charge of a breach of that covenant with the appropriate repercussions that accompany it.
Leadership and Membership in the Community
The fact that leaders are exhorted to take care of the members of their churches demonstrates that they have a God-given responsibility for a particular definable covenant community. Without such a covenant, leaders could not responsibility and legitimately exercise such authority.
In Acts 20:28, Paul addresses the elders from the individual local church in Ephesus with the following charge of pastoral responsibility: “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with his own blood.” For such a charge to have any meaning, the leadership would need to be able to identify those who are members of “the flock.” Keeping in mind that Paul is addressing the local church leadership from Ephesus, those leaders would know who was within the scope of their oversight. This “flock” is called the “church,” that is, the local congregation in Ephesus.
            The apostle Peter also echoes this same kind of charge in 1 Peter 5:1–3. The elders in the churches were charged with the responsibility of shepherding (or “pastoring”) “the flock of God,” that is, an identifiable group of individuals for which the leaders were responsible (1 Pet. 5:2). In verse 3, those for whom the elders were responsible are referred to as “those in your charge” (kleros). The term is used with reference to an official, set membership in Acts 1:17, 26; 26:18. Thus, the idea of defined leadership responsibility requires defined membership boundaries and a covenanted relationship of responsibility.
            The establishment of local church leadership began already in the church in Jerusalem, where the apostles themselves served as elders alongside other elders appointed in the Jerusalem church (Acts 8:1; 9:27; 11:30; 15:2, 4, 6, 22; 1 Pet. 5:1). The establishment of leadership in local churches continued in Paul’s apostolic ministry. During their first missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas “appointed elders” in every church (Acts 14:23). These elders were responsible for overseeing the community of disciples they made in each location (14:21). The fact that these members of the local church are called “disciples” is significant, as “disciple” indicated a person who was in a formal mentoring relationship. In the case of the local church community, a disciple would be in a relationship of submission to the teaching, training, and mentoring of the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (Eph. 4:11). After the ministry of the apostles, the establishment of ordained leadership in each local church was intended to continue. Paul instructed Titus to “appoint elders in every town” (Titus 1:5).
            The responsibility of the membership of the local church was to live in a relationship of mutual encouragement and support, meeting together consistently (Heb. 10:23). This membership in the local established church also involved a relationship of submission to leadership (Heb. 13:17).   
The Seriousness of the Covenant Commitment
When a person joins a local church community with an established leadership structure and a set membership roster, they are committing to fulfill the biblical calling to that particular family of God. This commitment before God and His people is solemn and serious. It should not be entered into hastily or flippantly, nor should the church leadership and membership accept new members without scrutiny.
Scripture is quite explicit about the seriousness of our commitments as Christians—especially our commitment to build up our local church body. In general, we are to take our human commitments with utmost seriousness. In Galatians 3:15, Paul explained that “even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified.” Thus, entering into contracts, covenants, agreements, and promises is serious. As much as it lies within us, we are to keep our commitments without wavering. Paul wrote, “Do I make my plans according to the flesh, ready to say ‘Yes, yes’ and ‘No, no’ at the same time?” (2 Cor. 1:17). Obviously, the answer is, “As surely as God is faithful, our word to you has not been Yes and No.” That is, just as God keeps His promises and covenants with us, we are to keep our promises and covenants with each other (2 Cor. 1:20).
Our reputations as consistent promise-keepers should be such that worldly flakiness and waffling are unheard of among us. This means fulfilling informal agreements, contractual obligations, and covenant commitments. In fact, rather than having to swear oaths by God, the Bible, or our mother’s graves, Christians should have such a high degree of consistent integrity in keeping their commitments that they should simply let their “yes” remain “yes” and their “no” remain “no” (James 5:12).
            Now, applying this general principle of faithfulness to commitments to our local churches, we turn to the expectation of all members of the local body of believers described in 1 Corinthians 3:10–17. Don’t miss the context here! Paul is addressing the local church in Corinth, marred as it was with sin, divisions, and conflict. Nevertheless, he recounted how Paul himself had planted that church, followed by Apollos, who “watered” the plant (1 Cor. 3:6). Paul then likens the body of believers in Corinth to “God’s building” (3:9). As a master builder, Paul laid the foundation of the church in Corinth, the Gospel of Jesus Christ (3:10). After he moved on, others were left behind to continue building up that local body upon that original foundation (3:10–11).
In this context of building up the local body of believers in Corinth, Paul warns that each member must “take care how he builds upon” the foundation (3:10). That is, as individual members of our local church, we are to exercise our gifts to the edification of each other (1 Cor. 12–14). In this sense we can build with either precious, strong, high-quality materials that endure or with poor, weak, low-quality materials that crumble (3:12). Obviously the good quality work in the church will lead to positively building up our brothers and sisters in Christ while low quality work will lead to the church’s deterioration and ultimate destruction. The former will be rewarded, that latter punished (3:13–15). In fact, Paul closes his building analogy for the church in Corinth by likening them to a holy temple: “Do you not know that you [the Greek is plural] are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple” (3:16–17). We must not lose sight of the context here. The “temple” Paul refers to in this passage is neither the universal church nor the individual believer’s body. The temple is the local church in Corinth, the body of believers exhorted to work together to build each other up in the faith.
What does this text teach regarding the seriousness of keeping our commitment to our local church? First, we are to be positively exercising our gifts as well as expending our time, resources, and skills for the building of that holy temple—our local church body in which we are vital members. This is spelled out for us explicitly in 1 Corinthians 12–14. No member of the body can excuse itself from building up the local church.
Second, to either withhold our gifts or to withdraw ourselves from the local body of believers will bring destruction upon the church. If we contribute poor quality to our local church or if we fail to contribute at all, we will fail to build up the body of Christ. Instead, we will contribute to its weakening and ultimately its destruction.
Third, God will destroy those who destroy His local church. In one of the most sobering warnings of the Bible Paul says, “If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him” (1 Cor. 3:17). Think about this in relationship to our commitment to our local church. If I withdraw my time, talents, and treasures from the congregation to which I have obligated myself through membership, I will be directly contributing to its weakening and destruction. On what basis, then, can I expect to avoid the disciplining hand of God? Remember, Paul’s stern warning relates to an individual contributing to the destruction of the local church in Corinth, not to his general behavior as a Christian.
Clearly, breaking our membership commitment to a local church and the brothers and sisters of Christ with whom we have entered into a covenant relationship is serious business. So serious, in fact, that behavior leading to the destruction of the local church will mean “destruction” from the hand of God. These are not my words or my warnings, but the clear teaching of Scripture.
Conclusion
The Bible is clear about formally joining a church community by entering into a covenant commitment to a specific local body. This community then becomes our “spiritual family.” We ought to have extended family relationship with other local churches and other believers outside our local church. This is biblical and healthy. However, our “nuclear family” is the local church in which we have covenanted to build each other up in the faith, to submit to the leadership, and to love and support through good times and bad. Once we have entered into that covenant commitment, we are expected to contribute to the church’s positive growth, building it up with quality work rather than contributing to its destruction.
God is serious about the local church and our committed participation in its life and ministries. We need to strive to be just as serious in our covenant commitment to our local family of God.

The Dating Game (Round Two): Harold Camping’s Imminent (Second) Failed Calculation of Judgment Day

Posted on by
I’ll never forget September 6, 1994. Not because of what happened on that day, but because of what didn’t happen.
That was the day Jesus didn’t Rapture the church.
That was the day that Harold Camping, president of Family Radio, calculated that the Rapture of the church described in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 would take place. Though he acknowledged the possibility that he could be wrong, he defended his arguments with passion. After Camping’s failed attempt at playing the “Dating Game,” I lost track of him. I assumed he had simply drifted off into the backwaters of the evangelical fringe as false teachers usually do.
Boy, was I wrong! He and other contenders have reemerged with a vengeance, ready for round two of the Dating Game. This time the date set for the Rapture is May 21, 2011. This time these contenders have provided a simpler calculation for the end of the world—easy to follow, easy to explain, easy to promote. (Also quite easy to refute.) And this time they’re playing the game with billboards in major metropolitan areas to get the word out.
So What’s Supposed to Happen on May 21?
To get a clear picture of what we’re told to expect on May 21, 2011, let me quote from the Family Radio website (http://www.familyradio.com/facts/):

On May 21, 2011 two events will occur. These events could not be more opposite in nature, the one more wonderful than can be imagined; the other more horrific than can be imagined.

A great earthquake will occur the Bible describes it as “such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.” This earthquake will be so powerful it will throw open all graves. The remains of the all the believers who have ever lived will be instantly transformed into glorified spiritual bodies to be forever with God. 

On the other hand the bodies of all unsaved people will be thrown out upon the ground to be shamed. 

The inhabitants who survive this terrible earthquake will exist in a world of horror and chaos beyond description. Each day people will die until October 21, 2011 when God will completely destroy this earth and its surviving inhabitants.

Got that? On May 21 a mega-earthquake will toss the dead from their graves and kick off five months of earthly horror until October 21, 2011, at which time the earth will be demolished. Also on May 21 the believers will be resurrected and raptured, taken to heaven to be with God forever. In other words, these are “front-page,” “special-report,” “we-interrupt-this-program,” “this is not at test” kinds of events. In other words, there will be no question at all whether the players of the Dating Game win or lose.
How the Dating Game Is Played
Like the first round back in 1994, the second round of the Dating Game is doomed to failure. Let me present just a few of the straightforward arguments for the commencement of Judgment Day on May 21, 2011.
First, as odd as it may seem, the argument for May 21 begins with creation and the flood. By analyzing the chronology and genealogies in the Bible, the interpreters have precisely dated the year of creation at 11,013 B.C. The global flood in Genesis 7 is dated at 4990 B.C. This specific dating of the flood is essential to the whole May 21 dating game. In fact, we might say that the strict, detailed, and indisputable chronology of events in the Old Testament may be likened to the field, stage, or board on which the Dating Game is played. Without this precise dating, the whole calculation collapses.
Second, the players also use 2 Peter 3:8 as a key to interpreting the often hidden prophetic meaning of Scripture. Peter wrote, “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years” (ESV). With this key in hand, the secrets of Scripture can now be unlocked, because when certain parts of Scripture refer to days, they can now be interpreted as thousands of years! Without this formula of “1=1000,” the whole calculation fails
Third, the date-setters use Genesis 7:4, 10–11 as their prophetic text. With a precise dating of the flood and the prophetic key of 1=1000 firmly in hand, they read these verses not as an historical account of the flood, but as a hidden prophecy of the end of the world: “For in seven days I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground. . . . And after seven days the waters of the flood came upon the earth. In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened” (Gen. 7:4, 10–11). They read this account as a prophecy of the end of all things—each of the seven days leading up to the flood being seven thousand years from the flood until the end of the world. Without interpreting this historical record as a cryptic prophecy, the whole Dating Game flops.
So, in one publication entitled, “The End of the World Is Almost Here,” the author concludes, “Therefore, with the correct understanding that the seven days referred to in Genesis 7:4 can be understood as 7,000 years, we learn that when God told Noah there were seven days to escape worldwide destruction, He was also telling the world there would be exactly 7,000 years (one day is as 1,000 years) to escape the wrath of God that would come when He destroys the world on Judgment Day. . . . Amazingly, May 21, 2011 is the 17th day of the 2nd month of the Biblical calendar of our day” (http://www.familyradio.com/PDFS/jd_en.pdf). The math is quite simple. Seven thousand years after 4990 B.C. (the year of the Flood) is the year A.D. 2011: 4990 + 2011 – 1 (since there is no year “0”) = 7,000.
So, should we print up some pamphlets, hit the streets, and start proclaiming the end of the world?
Not so fast.  
Cheating at the Dating Game
Each of the three pillars supporting the May 21, 2011 date for Judgment Day is simply ridiculous. First, based on the data given to us in the Bible, it is impossible to date creation and the flood . . . impossible. The reality is that the Old Testament doesn’t intend to give us the precise dating of creation and the flood. In fact, great Bible scholars throughout history who have attempted to work out these dates have always come up with different answers. Nothing like a consensus has ever developed. Rather, the scholars generally agree that Scripture doesn’t give us enough information to date the flood with any degree of certainty. So, the precise dating of the flood at 4990 B.C.—an essential dating for the May 21 calculation—is mere speculation. It is not based on an informed and balanced interpretation of the Bible.
Second, the “1=1000” key to prophecy is also impossible to maintain. In 2 Peter 3:8, Peter is not answering the question, “With what secret key can I decode Old Testament prophecies?” Rather, the question is, “Why has God delayed the judgment for so long? Why hasn’t Christ made good on His promise to return soon?” The answer? From God’s perspective of timelessness, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day! That is, earthly time is completely irrelevant to God. In fact, Peter is paraphrasing Psalm 90:4—“For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.” That is, from our finite human perspective a 1000 years feels tedious; for God it is but a moment. Notice that Peter reverses the formula as well—“and a thousand years [is] as one day” (2 Pet. 3:8). Therefore, using 2 Peter 3:8 as a key for interpreting a day in the Old Testament as a thousand years is simply wrong. It is not based on an informed and balanced interpretation of the Bible.
Third, the use of Genesis 7:4, 10–11 as a prophecy looking forward to the final conflagration of all things also fails to pass scrutiny. Anybody with sensitivity to the genre and context of this passage can see that nothing in this text warrants these verses to be read as an end-times prophecy. Rather, Genesis 7:4 is simply a one-week count-down to the global flood given to Noah so he would know when to load the Ark. Then verses 10-11 is historical narrative explaining that the flood came just as God had said and giving us the exact time of year the rain began. This is historical narrative, not end-times prophecy. There’s nothing in this text that suggests the chronology of this account is to be taken typologically or prophetically in anticipation of the end of the world. Even if it were legitimate to interpret the seven days until the flood as indicating “seven thousand years” until the final Judgment Day, why, then, are the forty days of rain upon the earth not taken to represent 40,000 years of judgment upon the earth? Wouldn’t that be consistent? The fact remains that this prophetic interpretation of Genesis 7 is simply arbitrary and indefensible. It is not based on an informed and balanced interpretation of the Bible.
To summarize: 1) We cannot date the time of the flood with any degree of accuracy, and 4990 is a wild speculation. 2) The “1=1000” formula is not a key for unlocking prophetic chronology. 3) The historical narrative of Gen. 7:4, 10–11 is not a prophecy of the end times.
The Presumptuous Sin: God Knows and Tells?
Jesus, Paul, Peter, and the entire early church believed that nobody can calculate or know the hour, day, year, or even season of Christ’s return. Jesus said, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (Matt. 24:36). To clarify that not even the disciples could have known, Jesus added, “Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming” (Matt. 24:42). And to underscore the fact that even those who would believe in subsequent generations could not know the time of Christ’s return, Jesus said, “Take heed, keep on the alert; for you do not know when the appointed time will come. . . . What I say to you I say to all, ‘Be on the alert’” (Mark 13:33, 37).
Later the apostle Paul reiterated this teaching that nobody knows the day or the hour but that all believers of every generation must remain alert and ready for judgment to come at any moment. He wrote, “Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you. For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night” (1 Thess. 5:1–2). Believers, however, will not be overtaken by the suddenness of this coming (5:4), not because they will know the times, epochs, year, and day, but because they will be ready for Christ’s return regardless of when it occurs! Later the apostle Peter himself echoes this same thought: “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief” (2 Pet. 3:10, emphasizing the suddenness of the coming of Christ in judgment.
Finally, an early Christian writing called the Didache (A.D. 50–75), used for instruction of new Gentile believers in Christ, included a brief account of Christian expectations of the end times. The author of that text wrote, “Watch over your life: do not let your lamps go out, and do not be unprepared, but be ready, for you do not know the hour when our Lord is coming” (Didache 16.1). Thus, the pattern of teaching in the early orthodox church was the same as that of Jesus and the apostles: we do not know (and cannot know) the time of Christ’s return. It could happen in their lifetime as well as ours. Therefore, we must be ready for it every day and every moment of our lives.
Yet these facts of Christian faith don’t stop those high-risk gamblers playing the Dating Game. Instead, they suggest that these warnings are for unbelievers, or that God has chosen to progressively illuminate His church to discover the secret knowledge long hidden in Scripture, or they quote passages like Amos 3:7, concluding that God would never suddenly judge the world without adequate warning. They write, “However, the Holy Bible tells us that Holy God is a God of great mercy, compassion and love. That is why He has given us in advance of the destruction the exact time of the Day of Judgment. The Bible tells us in Amos 3:7: ‘Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but He revealeth his secret unto His servants the prophets’” (http://www.familyradio.com/PDFS/jd_en.pdf). There are, of course, a few problems with this, besides the obvious problem of presumptuously ripping this Old Testament verse out of its context and then pitting it against Jesus, Peter, Paul, the early church, and the vast majority of orthodox believers from the first century to the twenty-first century.
First, God’s New Testament prophets, including Jesus, has already given sufficient warning to every generation that Day of the Lord would come suddenly, unannounced “like a thief,” urging believers to be on their guard at all times. Note that this warning is for believers, not unbelievers. He has already fulfilled the principle of Amos 3:7 by telling us to be ready at any moment. This is God’s last warning before the period of judgment begins.
Second, in the classic belief of the earliest church, the unannounced, any-moment commencement of the time of final judgment on earth, which will last seven years (see Rev. 11–13), will be filled with numerous additional warnings, calls to repentance, and opportunities for mercy and salvation. We don’t need a special date-setting revelation today prior to the beginning of that tribulation for Amos 3:7 to be fulfilled quite literally. In fact, the book of Revelation shows us that God’s final seven-year period of judgment will grow in intensity and severity in order to grant people opportunities to repent and be saved.
Finally, the promise of Amos 3:7 refers to God giving a special revelation to His prophets to warn the people of coming judgment. This is different from granting an individual or group special abilities to interpret God’s inspired Scripture in order to calculate the time of Judgment Day. Unless Family Radio and other supporters of the May 21, 2011 date are claiming authoritative divine revelation directly from God, Amos 3:7 does not apply to their flimsy and faulty calculations. 
We’ve Got Some Bigger Problems
Besides the unbiblical and presumptuous nature of playing the Dating Game, there are several very serious theological and practical problems with this latest error of date-setting. In fact, when we consider the theological consequences of the inevitable failed prophecy of May 21, 2011, these problems expose implicit heretical implications.
The Christological Problem. Jesus clearly said that nobody knew the day or hour, not even He Himself in His humbled earthly state, having submitted His power to the will of the Father so that even things He could have by nature miraculously accomplished, He temporarily set aside to accomplish His earthly mission (as in Matt. 26:53). However, the date-setters say that the date of May 21, 2011 is clearly set forth in the Bible in the “prophecy” of Genesis 7:4, 10–11. All one needed to do was to calculate the date of the flood based on the clear testimony of Scripture and follow the “1=1000” principle already revealed in Psalm 90:4. This means that had Jesus simply put two and two together, He should have been able to interpret the Bible and would have known the date. This means that either Jesus didn’t know His Bible as well as Harold Camping and Family Radio or that He couldn’t do the math. That is, if the Father had already revealed this date in the Old Testament, how could Jesus have said that He didn’t know it? In fact, not even angels knew it! How is it that frail and fallible humans today can read and interpret their Bibles better than Jesus Himself? The only solution to this problem that doesn’t make Jesus look like an ignorant buffoon is to face the simple fact that only the Father knows the Day of Judgment and He has not revealed it either in the Bible or to any prophet. Harold Camping, then, is simply a false teacher two twists the Scripture to his own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16).
The Theological Problem. Jesus is not the only member of the Godhead that ends up slandered by the date-setters. God the Father, who revealed Scripture through the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20–21), will also be placed in a bad light when the prophecy of May 21, 2011 fails to come to pass. The simple fact is that Judgment Day will not begin on May 21, 2011. (Note: nobody knows the day, which will come when it is not expected; Family Radio has gone international claiming to know the day; therefore, it will not be May 21, 2011.) However, Family Radio has posted billboards claiming that God has provided clear clues in the inspired, inerrant Word of God that May 21, 2011 is the very day! In fact, they have placed a golden seal on some of their signs that says, “The Bible Guarantees It!” If this is true, then God must fulfill this guarantee. Yet, if these things do not come to pass on May 21, 2011 (and they won’t), then we have two options: 1) God changed His mind, as He did when He threatened judgment against Nineveh through Jonah, or 2) God genuinely threatened to send Judgment Day on May 21, 2011 in order to bring about repentance, knowing all along that He wouldn’t really judge the earth. However, in either case, God becomes a deceptive, untrustworthy, promise-breaking liar. If God, through His Holy Spirit, placed the “guarantee” of Judgment Day for May 21, 2011 in Genesis 7:4, 10–11, and then if He doesn’t fulfill that guarantee, then God is a liar. The only solution to this problem is that God has not, in fact, guaranteed the Judgment Day will fall on May 21, 2011, nor on any other day anybody past, present, or future, might set. Harold Camping, then, is a false teacher, guilty of ignorance and instability (2 Pet. 3:16).
The Practical Problem. Finally, by claiming that “the Bible guarantees” that Judgment Day will begin May 21, 2011, Harold Camping and Family Radio have contributed to the further undermining of the Bible’s perceived authority in our increasingly skeptical and cynical culture. How so? Well, when May 21, 2011 doesn’t pan out, weak believers, unbelievers, skeptics, critics, and scoffers will likely conclude one of two things: 1) Christianity and the Bible are utterly untrustworthy, legitimately leading to the question, “What else does it guarantee that isn’t really true?” Or 2) The Bible is hopelessly ambiguous, because if careful interpreters can read it so wrongly that they can say it “guarantees” Judgment Day on May 21, 2011, then Scripture can apparently be interpreted to say anything people want it to say. In either case, nothing good at all comes from failed date-setting. Rather, those who play the Dating Game make authentic, Bible-believing Christians look bad, as they lump us all together and regard us as misguided, brainless zealots. 
Our Enduring Response
Christians can learn something from yet another failed attempt at pinpointing the time of Christ’s return. We must all make a conscious decision to resist two perennial errors with regard to end-times expectations. First, we must ban, shun, and reject those who play the Dating Game. Setting a date for the return of Christ or some other end-time event(s) is completely unacceptable. It was unacceptable in the first century. It is unacceptable in the twenty-first century. We must exercise a policy of “ZERO TOLERANCE” for this unwise and borderline blasphemous practice.
Second, we must also inoculate ourselves against the much more common disease of “This-is-that-itis,” which is the common practice of interpreting the Bible’s prophecies in light of current events and presumptuously concluding (or at least hypothesizing) that our generation must be the last generation. This was unacceptable in the first century. It is unacceptable in the twenty-first. We simply cannot know the hour, day, week, month, year, decade, or generation. Christ could come in our lifetime. Or He could come in a thousand years.
God only knows.
(And He’s not telling.)   

Is the Virgin Birth Doctrine Really All That Necessary?

Posted on by

How important is it that Christians believe in the virgin birth? This may seem like a strange question, as most reading this probably wouldn’t dream of doubting the miracle of the virgin conception. It’s clearly taught in Scripture (Matt 1:18, 23; Luke 1:34–35), consistently believed throughout church history, and once we’ve accepted miracles like the resurrection of Jesus or the splitting of the Red Sea, it’s really not all that hard to believe that God could pull off a virgin conception. In fact, our understanding of the physiology of human procreation—especially in light of modern developments in reproductive technology—makes the miracle of a mother having a child without a father seem less, well, miraculous.

Nevertheless, the contemporary minimalist focus on things “absolutely essential for salvation” has pushed the virgin birth to the margins of what are often called “primary doctrines.” Now, it’s not that evangelicals are eager to abandon the virgin birth. Rather, almost all retain the doctrine “as is,” but some are now allowing for less conservative (let’s avoid the label “liberal” for now) Christians to redefine the doctrine and still claim to be heaven-bound believers. The argument goes like this: all that’s necessary for salvation is belief that Jesus is God and man who died for our sins and rose from the dead. According to some, that’s the sum of the tightly-packaged “simple gospel message” in the key New Testament passages (Romans 1:1–4; 1 Corinthians 15:1–4). There’s no clear mention of the virgin birth outside the Gospels, and only two of those, Matthew and Luke, bothered to include it. So, some less strict evangelicals, still regarding the doctrine as true, don’t make it an indispensable part of the Gospel message. And if it’s not a necessary part of the Gospel, then it’s not necessary for salvation. At least that’s how the argument tends to unfold with the “minimalist message” approach to the Gospel. For fear of adding too much confusing (or unbelievable?) content, the so-called superfluous elements are stripped away, leaving such secondary items to be handled after initial conversion.

So, three tendencies emerge when dealing with the doctrine of the virgin birth—1) rejecting it (flat out disbelief); 2) redefining it (finding the spiritual meaning of the mythical metaphor); or 3) re-categorizing it (demoting it to a secondary doctrine, true and good, but unnecessary for salvation).

My question to those who reject or redefine the doctrine of the virgin birth is always the same—why? What’s so offensive about the miracle of a virgin conception that would force us to regard it as either a loony legend or a meaningful myth? If a person reads a passage like Matthew 1:18 and says, “That’s ridiculous” or “That can’t possibly mean this,” I wonder what that same person does with the miracle of Christ’s bodily resurrection. (That’s a rhetorical question. I know what they do with it.) I have no patience for this kind of rejection or redefinition of the virgin conception. Those positions have no place within the Christian tradition. Never have, never will.

But is the miracle of the virgin conception of Jesus necessary for orthodox theology? Is it best to re-categorize it from “dogma” to “doctrine”? From “central” to “peripheral”? From “primary” to “secondary”? Often evangelical theologians and pastors argue for retaining the centrality of the virgin conception for a soteriological reason related to the work of Christ—His atoning death on the cross. The argument is that if Jesus had been the natural child of Joseph and Mary, then He would have inherited the stain of Adam’s sin. Jesus would have then been born a sinner who was Himself in need of redemption and therefore unable to pay the price for other sinners. Sounds reasonable enough, doesn’t it? But it assumes that sin and guilt are passed down only through the father’s seed, a doctrine not clearly taught in Scripture.

Another reason often cited for keeping the virgin conception primary is a bibliological reason. The argument goes like this: the Bible clearly teaches the virgin birth of Christ. In fact, it even prophesies the virgin birth in Isaiah 7. So, to deny the virgin birth is to deny the truthfulness of the Bible. And to deny the truthfulness of the Bible leads to potential doubt about everything it teaches. Such doubt undermines what the Bible says about sin, Christ, and salvation. So, every clear doctrine—and especially the virgin birth—becomes a primary issue for the Christian faith. Okay, I get it. But is an unbeliever really expected to believe everything in the Bible before he or she is regenerated by the Spirit? Would we need to convince a person that Peter literally found a coin in a fish’s mouth before we regarded that person’s confession of faith to be genuine? Would we check our new convert’s salvation pulse if she thought the story of Jonah might be a parable? Probably not. Most of us would likely say that a proper understanding of the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture comes early in the process of discipleship, not as a pre-requisite for conversion.

Yet there’s more important reason for retaining the centrality of the virgin conception—a christological reason. For me the necessity of the virgin birth relates primarily to the person of Christ—one of the fundamental pillars of the Gospel message itself. You see, the miracle of the virgin conception is not so much a miracle of a woman becoming pregnant without the contribution of a man. There are scientists alive today who could pull that off! The real miracle of the virgin conception is the incarnation of God the Son. The fact is, without the virgin conception, there could be no incarnation. There could be a Jesus of Nazareth possessed by a divine being, but not the God-man, two complete natures in one unique Person. Rather, He would be a complete human person who was adopted by the divine Person, an “indwelled” human being, no different from the way the Holy Spirit indwells a believer in Christ. In short, rejecting the doctrine of the virgin conception results in an adoptionist—not incarnational—christology.

When God the Son took on humanity, He did not adopt a human person. Yes, He took on full humanity—with body and soul, with human mind, human emotion, and human will. But to accomplish true incarnation (rather than adoption), there could be no personhood in the womb apart from incarnation. When the person, Jesus of Nazareth, began to grow in the womb, He had to already be divine and human, two natures in one person. Had Mary become pregnant the natural way, the divine Son would have descended upon a human being who was already a person. This would have resulted in two natures and two persons, the opposite of incarnational Christology. What would have been the result? A radically different Jesus than the One who died and rose again. Paul warns against those who preach “another Jesus” other than the One He preached (2 Corinthians 11:4). A different Jesus quite clearly constitutes a “different gospel, which is really not another” (Galatians 1:6–7).

So, Christians should not only take a stand against rejecting or redefining the doctrine of the virgin conception of Christ. We should resist the trend to re-categorize it as non-essential, or we’ll lose the essential truth of the Gospel—the Person of Jesus Christ, who alone, as fully God and fully man in one Person, is able to accomplish the work of redemption for us.

[Originally posted April 20, 2010 at www.retrochristianity.com]

Beyond the Preference-Driven Church: Revisiting the Marks and Works of the Church, Part 6—EDIFICATION

Posted on by

Having completed our examination of the three essential Marks of Orthodoxy, Order, and Ordinances, we began a survey of the second pillar of the church’s essential Works with a discussion of Evangelism. In this current essay, the sixth in a seven-part series on the essential Marks and Works of a local church, I want to add the second essential Work of a local church—Edification.

Edification is best defined as “building up” believers in the faith, including teaching, discipleship, the means of sanctification, and discipline. Unlike the Work of evangelism, edification is directed toward the Church, not the world. That is, only those who have been converted to Christ can grow in Him. Edification is included in the second part of Jesus’s command in the Great Commission. The Savior charged the apostles to “go and make disciples, baptizing them [that’s the result of evangelism] . . . and teaching them to observe all I have commanded you [that’s edification]” (Matt 28:19). In the Work of edification, the disciple-maker’s role is to teach and model. The disciple’s role is to learn and follow.

Edification Requires Practical Teaching

As a child I once tried putting my schoolbooks under my pillow at night, hoping that by mystical osmosis the information from the books would pass into my brain and I wouldn’t have to actually study. The result? A stiff neck and a bad grade! Sadly, this is how some Christians live their spiritual lives. They believe that by some mystical, supernatural hocus-pocus the Holy Spirit will simply grow them toward maturity apart from any actual teaching, instruction, or active participation in the life of the church. They think that spiritual growth will “just happen” through their passive presence in a church building for a few hours. Strangely, they spend the other 99% of their week wondering why they’re living a defeated Christian life.

The truth is that we all need to develop an “Ezra” complex. When that great Jewish leader re-discovered the long-lost Scriptures, he “set his heart to study the law of the LORD and to practice it, and to teach His statutes and ordinances” (Ezra 7:10). Did you catch that? Study it . . . practice it . . . teach it. That takes some effort! Oh, and as you work hard at studying and practicing, don’t forget Peter’s stern warning against the “untaught” who “distort” the Scriptures to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). Learning God’s Word was never meant to be an “independent study” or “correspondence course.” Rather, God gave teachers to the churches to equip the saints. Ephesians 4:11–13 says, “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.”

Thus, a major emphasis in a healthy local church must be the unapologetic preaching, teaching, and application of God’s inspired Word. Clearly this aspect of edification requires a robust order of qualified leaders and mentors as well as a clear sense of biblical orthodoxy (see previous essays on these two essential Marks of a church, hyperlinked in the first paragraph above).

Edification Requires Persistent Prayer

If teaching engages the mind of the local church, prayer engages the heart and soul. Without prayer, edification is impossible. Notice what Paul prayed for in Philippians 1:9–11—“And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ; having been filled with the fruit of righteousness which comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.” What a request! When was the last time you prayed for the edification of your fellow believers in the church? In Ephesians 6:18 Paul urges his readers to “pray at all times in the Spirit” as the essential key to perseverance in the midst of spiritual warfare. In fact, just a brief survey of the book of Acts reveals how vital prayer was for the growth of the infant church (Acts 1:14; 2:42; 3:1; 4:31; 6:4; 10:2; 12:5; etc.).

But Jude most explicitly ties prayer to edification when he writes, “But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith [that’s edification!], praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life” (Jude 20–21). Clearly, prayer is the spiritual lifeblood of the local church.

Edification Requires Consistent Discipline

Edification also includes discipline, which we might call the “negative” aspect of applying God’s Word. Sometimes when believers have hardened their hearts against the truths of Scripture, discipline is required, just as a child requires discipline from his parents to learn and grow. Jesus describes in Matthew 18:15–17 how this discipline is to be formally applied in a local church: “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault when the two of you are alone. If he listens to you, you have regained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you, that at the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. If he refuses to listen to the church, treat him like a Gentile or tax collector.”

The notion of “excommunication” comes from the biblical concept of church discipline. God has charged the leadership of a local church with the task of maintaining proper discipline among the congregation. This includes protecting the sanctity of the ordinances, which may mean preventing unruly saints from participating in the Lord’s Table as the rite of fellowship (see 1 Corinthians 5:9–13). This may seem harsh in our “anything goes” culture, but anything less than proper discipline threatens not only the Work of edification in the local body, but also damages the Marks of order and the ordinances.

Practical teaching. Persistent prayer. Consistent discipline. These things may not be on your list of favorite activities. Taking them seriously might actually mean rearranging your priorities, shuffling your schedules, or renewing your commitments. But only when we devote ourselves to edification of the local church through teaching, prayer, and discipline will we rise above the languishing preference-driven church.

Beyond the Preference-Driven Church: Revisiting the Marks and Works of the Church, Part 5—EVANGELISM

Posted on by

So far in this series on the Marks and Works of the church, we explored the first pillar of a faithful and true local church—the Marks of Orthodoxy, Order, and Ordinances. To maintain a balanced Orthodoxy, we must focus on the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith in our preaching and teaching, which excludes destructive heresy and allows diversity on non-essentials. To uphold a proper biblical church Order, church leaders (pastor-elders and deacons) must lead with wisdom and humility and the congregation must do the work of the ministry under the shepherding care of the ordained leadership. And to encourage purity and unity of the local body of believers, a church must celebrate the Ordinances of baptism as the rite of initiation into the Christian faith and the Lord’s Supper as the rite of renewal and continued fellowship.

Returning to our diagram, I want to focus on the three elements of the second pillar—the Works of the church. The essential Works of a true local church are those activities in which the church must be engaged for that organized body of believers to carry out its God-given tasks. These Works of the church are Evangelism, Edification, and Exultation. Let’s discuss the first of these three essential Works of the church.

Evangelism Defined

The Greek word euangelizo, from which we get our English word “evangelize,” means to proclaim a good message. Evangelism involves reaching out to unbelievers with the good news (“Gospel”) that Jesus Christ died for their sins and rose from the dead to bring forgiveness and new life. Evangelism is not directed toward the church, but toward the lost world. Thus, the normal venue for evangelism is not in the worship service (though it may occur here, as in 1 Corinthians 14:24-25). Rather, the most effective evangelism takes place as believers go into the world, live their everyday lives, and share the Gospel in word and deed with those God places in their paths.

The essential Work of Evangelism is most clearly articulated in Matthew 28:19. In the Great Commission Jesus ordered His disciples, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Notice what Jesus doesn’t say here. He doesn’t say “Wait for unbelievers to come” or “Pay some seminary graduate a salary to run an outreach program.” He says, “Go!” He doesn’t say, “Go to other churches and steal their sheep” or “Place ads or hang flyers for a low-key, high-budget, non-offensive outreach event” or “Let your next-door neighbors see your bland, upper-middle-class, moralistic lifestyles and hope they somehow become curious enough about how you spend your Sunday mornings that they ask about how they, too, can be upstanding, right-leaning, well-to-do citizens.” No, He tells His disciples to “Go and make disciples of all nations.”

Clearly, Evangelism—with the goal of converting unbelievers to Christ and initiating them into the Christian faith—is an essential Work of the local church. We should never replace it with either ineffective activity or inactivity.

Evangelism and the Marks of the Church

The essential Work of Evangelism is dependent on the biblical Marks of the local church. Evangelism depends on the Mark of Orthodoxy with regard to the content of its message about Christ’s person and work, that is, the Gospel (Romans 1:1–4; 1 Corinthians 15:1–5). If a person engaged in evangelism doesn’t have an orthodox view of the fundamentals of the Gospel, that person may be involved in proselytizing, persuading, or even story-telling, but not evangelism. And a clear understanding of the essential truths of the Christian faith will help clarify our message and keep us from programmed distractions symptomatic of church leaders who don’t have a grasp of the nature and purpose of the church’s basic proclamation.

Second, the Work of Evangelism rests on proper Order in the church. The pastoral elders are to equip the congregation for the work of evangelism. They are to lead by example and to train the members of the church in both orthodox teaching concerning the Gospel and how to share it with others. The teaching elders of the church serve as excellent resources when Christians doing the work of evangelism encounter non-Christian religions, false Christian sects, or difficult questions and challenges from unbelievers. Being able to turn to church leaders who have training and experience in such areas has great value for the church’s work of evangelism. Thus, the leaders of the church play a major role in preparing the church for the work of evangelism (Ephesians 4:11-12).

Finally, the Work of Evangelism is also related to the Mark of Ordinances. Matthew 28:19 says we are to make disciples from among the nations by “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Baptism is the act that signifies the end of the evangelism for the new believer and the beginning of the Work of Edification, or growing as a disciple of Christ. Many churches have too long de-emphasized this profound and powerful moment when a person’s inward conviction of faith is expressed through a public act of confession.

Everyone’s an Evangelist

I sometimes hear members of the church say things like “The church needs to do more outreach” or “The church needs to focus more on evangelism” or “The church doesn’t baptize enough new believers.” But if we’re the church, the problem is with us, not some invisible corporate entity called “the church.” If we wait around for our hyper-busy, over-burdened, time-taxed pastors and staff members to do everything we’re supposed to be doing, our churches will die. We sit back and complain that this or that ministry isn’t drawing people to our churches. Or we worry that visitors won’t come back if we don’t offer them such and such amenity. But more often than not the problem isn’t with the ministry, the music, or the media. The problem is with us—the messengers!

Evangelism is not only the work of the gifted and trained “evangelist” or the elders of the church. Evangelism is the work of every believer. Each of us has a sphere of influence among unsaved family members, friends, co-workers, and acquaintances we meet regularly. In fact, church members have more contact with unsaved people than full time church workers! Remember, the role of the leadership of the church is to do the work of the ministry alone, but to equip the saints for the work of service (Ephesians 4:12). If you’re a saint, you’re an evangelist!

The sad reality of church growth in America in general is that few churches grow through the work of evangelism. Most church growth comes from good old fashioned saint-rustling. We think that if they aren’t branded, they’re free for the taking! And even if they are members of another local church, we usually have no qualms about encouraging them to break their covenant commitment to that other community and to join our own. (When will we learn that if they’ll break their commitment to them for us, one day they’ll break their promise to us for somebody else!) Let me challenge all you churches engaged in programmatic sheep-stealing as a means of church growth: are all those flaky church-hoppers really worth it? Do you really want to build your church with weak and wobbly stones already misshapen and set in their ways? You decide.

Church growth today also focuses on peripherals and showmanship rather than on personal evangelism. Why is it that when numbers decline and people don’t come to our church events, we scratch our heads and try to decide what piece of furniture to plant in the lobby, what gimmick to add to the worship service, or what P.R. stunt to pull in order to get people “out there” to notice us? Or how often have we pointed fingers at this or that pastor, worship leader, or staff member and said, “He’s the reason we’re shrinking! Get HIM!” And we start looking for somebody more attractive or more charismatic to wake us from our self-induced spiritual coma. How pathetic. Let’s set the gimmicks aside, call off the posse, and just go back to the ancient, time-tested, fool-proof method of authentic church growth: Evangelism.

Cosmetic modifications to our buildings (or new multi-million-dollar megaplexes!), radical program overhauls, or ministry staff restructuring just won’t do the trick. Those preference-driven changes will never bring the heart transformation most congregations need in order to renew their passion for evangelism and missions. In fact, those external fixes, which are usually extremely expensive, inordinately time-consuming, and exceptionally controversial, mostly distract us from the internal commitment of the church members to rescue the perishing and initiate them into a living, growing community of faith. Until we redirect our time, efforts, and funds to the essential Work of Evangelism, we’ll continue to have a tough time overcoming the diminishing effectiveness of the preference-driven church.