People ask me all the time if I ever think about starting a church. My answer? No, not much. Only about twice per day.

I have thought through quite a bit what an “ideal” church looks like. You know the old saying, “once you find the perfect church, you better leave since your presence makes it no longer perfect” . . . or something like that.

No, I am not talking about the “perfect” church. There is no such thing. Ideal. That is the key. How would it be structured? How often would you take the Lord’s supper? Liturgy? Type of preaching? All of these are great questions. But I want to talk only about one here today. Maybe we will follow this up with other issues, but let’s focus now on my (loosely held) opinion concerning the pastorate:

Michael, what would your pastoral staff look like theologically? Calvinistic? Premillenial? Memorialist Lord’s supper?

No, none of these. I would propose a call for a somewhat theologically diversified group of pastors.  I would not only allow for freedom in many areas of theology, but I would intentionally attempt to build a diversified staff, many of whom would disagree with me on issues about which I have very, very strong opinions.

I would have to distinguish between those issues upon which I have strong opinions and those which I am convicted are necessary for the proper functioning of the local church.

Non-negotiables:

• Belief in the central elements of the Gospel: The person and work of Christ (who he is and what he has done).
• Belief in sola Scriptura: Scripture alone is the final and only infallible authority for the Christian.
• Belief in sola fide: Faith is the only instrumental cause (from a human standpoint) that brings about justification (i.e., no works-based salvation).
• Belief in the future coming of Christ: i.e., cannot be a Preterist.
• Must be formally trained in Bible and theology (sorry, no online stuff).

(Oh, and then there is the 1 Tim requirements, but that goes without saying here).

Pretty Evangelical Protestant so far. Continue Reading »

This is taken from a church’s statement of faith concerning music:

“When Christians come together to worship God they are commanded to sing (Eph.5:19;Col. 3:16).We are opposed to mechanical instruments of music in Worship to God. The reason for this is because they are not authorized. No where within the pages of the New Testament will one find where the early Christians used the mechanical instrument of music in their worship to God. In every reference that is made in regards to the kind of music which God desires of His people it is always vocal music (singing), (Matt.26:30; Mark 14:26; Acts 16:25; Rom.15 :9;1 Cor.14:15; Eph.5:19; Col.3:16; Jam.5:13). Paul said, “So then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God” (Rom.10:17). He also stated, “…for whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom.14:23b). God has not given us the evidence (revealed it in His word) for the use of the instrument, therefore, to use such instruments is without authority and sinful.

The church of our Lord must not add to nor take away from that which God has revealed (Rev.22:18-19).Thus we will not use mechanical instruments of music in our worship to God.”

What are your thoughts?

Some Q/A about my proposal for an Evangelical Apostolic Succession.

Does this mean that we believe that there are modern day Apostles?

No, this does not in any way say that people are to carry on the “office” of apostle nor its authoritative prophetic accessory. It implies no infallibility on anyone. It is simply a safe guard the way it was in the early church to test if someone was carrying on the true faith.

What about Evangelical doctrines which are novel such as sola Scripture and sola fide?

I would argue that they are not novel at all. I would grant that their articulation was somewhat dormant, but this in no way suggests non-existence. We don’t believe that the Council of Nicea advocated a non-existent doctrine of the Trinity in 325 A.D. It simply was a development of the seeds that were already there.

In other words, my proposal for apostolic succession does not suppose that there cannot be development in doctrine. What we pass on is the DNA of the faith. It can take form as it grows and it can even shape itself in individual cultures. The DNA of our faith is very flexible.

This type of apostolic succession is already an unspoken for many of us (and you). It is simply a matter of getting Evangelicals to become more historical with regard to their faith.

For example, if we were to place more of a priority on this type of apostolic succession novel doctrines such as the health wealth Gospel may arise, but the identity of Evangelicalism would be protected. We would not go through an identity crisis, always groping to find out who we are. Promoters of the Health-Wealth Gospel would simply not be Evangelical (at least in this sense).

I have proposed that we call this “Historic Evangelicalism.” Others have said something very similar. Those who wish to identify could, but this would carry, first and foremost, the identifying with the boundaries or, better, the center that we believe has anchored and focused the church with regard to our beliefs for two-thousand years. We simply cannot be something today that is dichotomous to what the church was then.

Frankly, many of the seeker models would not make the cut.

It would imply much more doctrinal fidelity and historic community than has been the case of the last 200 years of Evangelicalism (since the second great awakening).

Are you saying that Evangelical ministers should be able to trace their lineage person by person back to the Apostles like the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans?

No. Apostolic Succession does not necessitate a succession in person, just a succession in teaching. I think that this has been the implied principle since the time of Ireneaus (who developed this doctrine in 150 A.D. to combat novel doctrines in his own time). Just because someone has been ordained by someone else is no guarantee that they will indeed follow in the teaching of their mentor. I don’t want to downplay the importance of the “laying on of hands” for there are real hands involved, but I don’t want to mystify it as some sort of sacrament the way others have done. We need balance.

It would take a level headed Evangelical community of leaders and scholars to come together to agree on a “regula fide” (rule of faith) which all agree comprise what are the essentials and the norms of Christian teaching.

Are you meaning to include Catholic and Orthodox in this circle?

No. It is Evangelical. It would not be something Orthodox or Roman Catholics would agree with us on. This does not mean that we believe that all those who are outside this circle are damned to the fires of Hell. Therefore, it is not something that is meant to point our nose in the air. More than likely, most Fundamentalists (esp. of the KJV Only variety) would not be able to hold to it. But, then again, it is an Evangelical proposal for our own identity! Continue Reading »

It is no secret that I am an advocate of some sort of Evangelical return to “Apostolic Succession.” (Read my “Evangelicals: Let’s Rethink Apostolic Succession“). The need for this has never been greater. In fact, I would be willing to step out on a limb and say that a deeper understanding and application of the principles of apostolic succession is vital to our survival.

Quick Working Definition of Apostolic Succession:

“The belief that the foundational stability and fidelity of the church is found in a firm adherence to the apostles teachings which have been passed on from generation to generation. This “passing on” takes on a form of ordination or approval of the succeeding generation by those that have gone before them. The goal is to create an accountability and a confidence that the faith that we proclaim is indeed the faith that the Apostles handed down. This is an antidote to divisive novelty and heresy of doctrine. The assumption is that the Christian faith cannot be now what it was not before.”

This will not only guard against novelty and heresy, but will restore a healthy fear that all must have when we find ourselves as representatives of the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3; )

My belief is that we can maintain a firm adherence to the Evangelical priorities of sola Scriptura and the priesthood of all believers, yet separate ourselves from the “free church” mayhem that is, understandably, driving Evangelicals to more institutionalized traditions that have just as many problems of their own, and from which we fled four-hundred years ago.

Enough of that…Here is a short story to illustrate this need. I think the situation speaks for itself.

*NOTE: While this story is true, names, addresses, and particular details have been changed for obvious purposes. Continue Reading »

Read this definition from the Theological Word of the Day and tell me if you think that there are any modern day ecclesiola movements.

Ecclesiola

(Gk, little church”)

This refers to small churches within big churches which met together for spiritual nourishment. The purpose was to revive the spiritual life and commitment of the church through a committed nuclei. The implied idea often became that this was the true church of committed believers meeting within the larger church of nominal Christians. The strong being separated from the weak so that they could, in theory, further strengthen themselves and make the weak strong. The ecclesiola were first formally developed by the pietists and popularized by Philip Jacob Spener. Many Lutherans opposed these meetings believing that the allowance of such was divisive, evidenced separatism, and amounted to spiritual pride. They also feared that such meetings, without qualified clergy, could produce heretical misinterpretations of doctrine.

Read more about this to get a better understanding. Very interesting.

As many of you know, my family and I moved to Norman, Oklahoma, a year and a half ago primarily due to my mother’s illness. Previously, we lived in Frisco, Texas, where I was a pastor at Stonebriar Community Church for six years. We all loved the church. We loved the people, the commitment to the preaching of God’s word, and the reverence for certain traditions. Oh, and did I mention grace?! That is why I went there in the first place – grace! Rarely (and sadly) do you find a passionate commitment to the word of God and a attitude of grace. This situation gives forth to energy. Call it the power of God, the movement of the Holy Spirit, or whatever you will according to your tradition, but the church was alive. I wanted to be there every day. I miss it greatly.

Grace and truth. The two most important elements in my hierarchy of looking for a church.

Notice, to the surprise of many, I did not list “perfect theology” as a criteria. I did not even say theology that I am always comfortable with (since there is no perfect theology). At Stonebriar, I had it all. Just about everything Chuck taught, I agreed with. If not, I loved the man so much that I would bend myself to agree with him! (At least for that Sunday.) Of course, Chuck is a pastor more than a professional theologian. But he was committed to sound theology and he is a Calvinist! (a four pointer at least). Oh the depths and riches of reformed preaching! The power, the hope, the pride that can be taken when God’s sovereignty is preached in such a way.

However, today I do not go to a Calvinistic church. In fact, I am at an Arminian church. In fact (again), I am a regular teacher at a church that is both Arminian and Egalitarian. In fact (last time), last week I had to call the pastor that I am under to ask if it was okay for me to teach on “Women in the Church,” a topic in a current series I am on. This church is called Crossings Community Church and it is part of the Church of God, Anderson (not the charismatic Church of God you may be thinking of).

Let me briefly define a few terms before we move on (I will get in trouble if I don’t. If you already know these “big” words, move on. If not, learn them! – its not that hard):

Calvinist: One who believes in the doctrines of grace most traditionally defined by the TULIP acronym. The most controversial of the doctrines are Unconditional Election: the belief that God elects some individuals to salvation and not other based upon his sovereign will; Limited Atonement: the belief that Christ’s death only paid for the sins of the elect; Irresistible Grace: the belief that when God’s saving grace is presented to the elect, it is always effective (i.e. they will not ever reject it); and Perseverance of the Saints: the belief that those who are saved (the elect) will persevere and cannot “lose” their salvation.

Arminian: One who denies all of the Calvinistic doctrines of grace except the first, Total Depravity. The Arminian will opt for a belief in “Conditional” election: the belief that God’s predestination is based on the foreseen faith of the individual; “Resistible” grace: the belief that God’s saving grace can be rejected by anyone; “Unlimited” atonement: the belief that Christ’s death paid for the sins of every individual; and the belief that a truly saved person and fall from or “lose” their salvation.

Complementarianism: Belief in essential equality, but functional hierarchy in the sexes. This hierarchy is by God’s design and is not due to the fall. Man is to be the leader in the church and home. Women are not to be in positions of authority over man in the church or home, but are honored due to their role in the same way as men.

Egalitarianism: Belief in the essential and functional equality of the sexes. All role distinctions which imply leadership belonging to the man is due to the fall, not by God’s design. Therefore, women can serve in positions of authority over man in both the church and the home. Role is assigned by individual giftedness, not gender.

So . . . Why does this Calvinistic Complementarian go to an Arminian Egalitarian church? Continue Reading »

Why go to church? Church stinks. People are either rude, looking down their self-righteous nose at you, or they are nice and in a hurry. I hardly ever have a significant conversation at the church service, it is just “Hi,” or “Good to see you,” or “How’s the family?” or something churchy and pithy like that.

Teaching? Yes, the sermon is great. But can’t I just listen to someone on the radio or download the podcast? Really. What is the difference?

Fellowship? Do not neglect the gathering together of believers, I know. But is that talking about a gathering together at a church building? Why can’t I just hang out with some Christian friends, going to dinner and maybe having a Bible Study at the house. What is special and unique about gathering together with them at a church building? It seems so shallow in those walls.

Taking of the Lord’s table? Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me.” He did not say where we are to do this. Are we limited to a church building? Do elders, pastors, and/or deacons have to distribute the elements? Why? Where do you get that? Why can’t I just do it at my house or at Starbucks?

Giving? Isn’t giving primarily said to support those who labor in teaching and for the poor? I cannot think of any other way it is described in the New Testament. Can’t I just do this on my own, giving to others who are laboring in teaching that I am benefiting from elsewhere?

I am tired of being judged by whether or not I go to church. I heard that the Catholics say that if you miss Mass without a valid excuse you have committed a mortal sin and, if not confessed, no matter how much you love Christ, you are still going to hell. I have been to Protestant churches that seem to believe the same thing (although they would not put it that way). I actually heard someone say that if I don’t go to church I am not a Christian. If that is true, I am not that type of Christian and want nothing to do with it.

I think that the modern idea of going to church is rather legalistic and can cause people to miss the point entirely. I love Christ. I have Christian friends that I love and hang out with. We are the church, but we don’t go to a church. Isn’t this enough? What am I missing?

These statements are not mine, but are typical of many people that I know. In fact, many of my closest friends think this way, they are just scared to admit it.

How would you respond?

See updated version here.

Protestantism is not perfect. No informed Protestant would claim such. Evangelicalism has major problems. This is nothing new. But Protestants have always thought the strengths of Protestantism outweigh the weaknesses. Otherwise, we would not be Protestant!

While I often write about the weaknesses of our system, sometimes complaining about Evangelical shames, I want to do something different here. I am going to give a short list of what I believe to be the major strengths of Protestantism:

1. Celebration of diversity: Protestants can appreciate and celebrate the diversity in the Christian faith unlike any other tradition. Whether it be in worship style or liturgy, house churches or mega churches, Protestant recognize that all people are not alike in their subjective preferences. Protestantism, as a movement, cannot dogmatize the way people should be in areas that are based in non-essential personal preferences. We can recognize that God has created people differently—and this was intentionally. If people have a personality that does not respond well to one style of worship, they are free to celebrate their diversity without feeling the obligation of adapting their style to some traditional norm. Therefore, to be Protestant is to be able to celebrate diversity. Continue Reading »

The central motivating factor in my ministry over the last ten years has been the need for Christians to engage the intellectual side of the faith with more confidence, hope, and joy. I began The Theology Program in 2001 which now is in hundreds of churches and has effected tens of thousands of people. I can barely keep up with the demands of this ministry as its need and potential becomes more evident each and every day.

The intellectual side of Christianity.

With all of this success, one inevitably finds those who continue to place much needed anchors in my mission. While I believe what I am doing has been given to me by God, I also understand that the intellect is not all there is. In fact, while I want to produce more confidence, hope, and joy in the lives of believers, I also want to instill a deep sense of humility. Theology done right should always produce a confident humility. Theology done wrong produces an ironically insecure emotional confidence that is made up of what I call “cut-and-paste” theology and apologetics (“just give me the answers, I don’t care how we get them”). Continue Reading »

I know that the title is provocative, but please understand that I am serious in this question. At this point, I believe that it is very difficult for Roman Catholics who hold to Transubstantiation (is there any other kind of Roman Catholic!) to find harmony with a basic principle in the Definition of Chalcedon. In other words, I believe that Catholics are at odds with some essential elements of orthodox Christology.

Having said that, it may be that I am misunderstanding things (this would not be a first).  So I write this post with the intention of informing my audience of a very intriguing issue, giving them a better look at Chalcedonian Christology, and giving an opportunity to Catholics to give an answer to this issue (if there are any that happen by—and there usually are).

I am going to explain the issue and I want all of you to hang with me through some deep waters. I will try to navigate you to a point where you understand why I believe (tentatively) that Catholics deny Chalcedon because of their view of Mass.

Component #1:

Orthodoxy has historically claimed that Christ is fully God and fully man. This is not an arbitrary pronouncement or belief, but is one that is central to an understanding of the Gospel.

Short history lesson. Continue Reading »