Do you miss the fellowship? The encouragment? The theological discussion?  I do….let bring back our gatherings and our online contributions.  I wll get organized and get back with you…who is on board.

Here is an article by Dr. Mohler concerning the First Baptist Church of Decatur, Georgia and their upcoming vote on Julie Pennington-Russell as its next pastor. They say they aren’t making a statement, but I wonder. The fact that they are voting on Father’s Day is either a statement or extraordinarily ironic.

On the lighter side, her hyphonated last name tells me that she is probably “managing [her] own household well” which is more than many men can say. Now that I think about it, that’s not funny, it’s very, very sad.

Take a look at this. He was runner-up to Bill O’Reilly.

Chris Taylor
www.lbcofnwa.com

“Could we sing some more psalms?”
In eighteen years of vocational church ministry, no one has ever asked me this question. Most of those years have been in some form of music ministry, with a 4-year stint as solo pastor for a small, town-and-country church. I have heard a lot of questions in those years.

People have asked me if we could sing more “new songs,” meaning something of the praise & worship or CCM variety which they learned at a camp, a conference, another church or on the radio.

People have also asked me if we could sing more of “the old songs,” usually meaning songs they grew up singing, songs their parents grew up singing, or anything written in the ninetheenth-century gospel song style. Rarely is anyone talking about “old songs” from the 16th or 17th century when they ask this question!

Still no one has asked me about the psalms. I’m not suggesting my experience is universal, but I believe it to be typical among evangelicals. Psalm-singing has fallen into general disuse over the last 200 years. A few denominations have maintained a deep commitment to psalmody in worship, and a smaller number have maintained an exclusive psalmody position, admitting no hymns or songs “of human composure” to the public worship of the church. But the church at large has ignored psalm-singing as such.

Of course there are the occasional psalm “snippets” or phrases that make their way into contemporary songs. I thank God for these occasional uses of the psalms. There are also a few psalms that are better known as hymns: “My Shepherd Will Supply My Need” (Psalm 23), “All People That on Earth Do Dwell” (Psalm 100). But “snippets” what the apostle Paul had in mind when he exhorted the Ephesian Christians to “be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord” (Eph. 5:18b-19, NKJV)? Or when he wrote to the Colossians, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord” (Col. 3:16, NKJV)? Whatever else Paul may have intended in these verses, one thing is certain: he expected that we would sing psalms. James instructed, “Is anyone among you sick? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms,” (James 5:13, NKJV).

Historically, psalmody has been the norm for Christians in the Calvinistic camp while hymnody has been carried forward by the Lutheran tradition. Among the Scottish Covenanters and Baptists in England, the exclusive psalmody position held sway until well into the 18th century. The Covenanter position is alive and well among their descendants on this side of the Atlantic, the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America. But Benjamin Keach fought for the inclusion of “hymns of human composure” in the services of Particular Baptists and won that battle by the mid-1700s .

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF PSALM-SINGING?

While I enjoy singing historic Christian hymns as well as those written in recent years, I have recently become an advocate for psalm-singing. We are commanded in Scripture to worship God in this way. Yet I believe there are benefits which accrue to those believers who will commit themselves to this practice. Here is a partial list of those benefits:
1. You never have to wonder if you’re singing false doctrine.
2. Psalm-singing trains the mind to understand what brings honor and glory to God in worship.
3. Since the psalms cover the full range of human experience as well as the fullness of God’s attributes, the worshiper has an ample and extensive vocabulary for worship: praise, thanksgiving, supplication, complaint, sorrow, confession, penitence, imprecation, outrage, testimony and messianic prophecy.
4. Joy comes from knowing you are being obedient to the New Testament exhortations to sing psalms.
5. Singing the psalms increases our love for God as well as our faith in Him.
6. I do not take the exclusive-psalmody position, but I believe Psalm-singing lays a firm foundation for the other hymns and spiritual songs used in public worship.
7. Psalm-singing enriches and enhances your private worship as well as the public worship of God.

WHERE TO FIND PSALMS FOR SINGING
I have discovered a number of resources for suitable psalm settings and tunes.
Songs from the Psalms in Light of the New Testament by Isaac Watts. Watts paraphrased nearly every psalm and gave a Christological emphasis to them. Most are in common meter, long meter or short meter. Suggested tunes are listed in the front of the book.
The Book of Psalms for Singing from Crown & Covenant Publications. This is an excellent resource for someone who wants a complete set of psalms arranged in singable units. One thing I appreciate about this psalmbook is its effort to set every phrase in verse form. Also, the verse numbers are given in the text of the psalms themselves for easy reference and comparison to the Scripture. Every psalm is set with its own tune, but most are easily sung to other tunes of the same meter.
Trinity Hymnal, Baptist Edition from Great Commission Publications. This is the “old blue” Trinity Hymnal from the 1960s modified and reissued by GCP along with Reformed Baptists in 1995. Along with revisions to accomodate Baptist congregations, the “responsive reading” psalm section at the back was replaced with a psalter supplement to cover psalms not significantly represented in the main text of the hymnal.
Our Own Hymn Book: A Collection of Psalms and Hymns for Public, Social, and Private Worship compiled by C.H. Spurgeon and reprinted by Pilgrim Publications. The first one-hundred-fifty selections in this publication are devoted to settings of the psalms known to Spurgeon in 1866. The meter is given, but no tunes are suggested.

I have used all of the above resources for use in congregational singing. I understand that the “new” Trinity Hymnal and the Trinity Psalter are good psalm resources as well, but I have not used them.

If you have not considered singing the psalms before, I want to encourage you to give it a try. I have found it to be most rewarding in congregational worship as well as personal devotion time.

Greg Dixon

I’m sure if I were to take a poll among church leaders throughout the country, each person would have their own take on what is needed for the church to become all God intends for it to be today. Some would say the church needs a reinvigorated passion for the lost and to revitalize its evangelistic effort. Some would say the church needs to reword its message and remove its archaic, offensive, exclusivist and politically incorrect language because it’s falling on deaf ears. Some would say the church needs to reevaluate its programs and reinvent itself because it has lost touch with the culture.

To prove my point, here’s a quote from the guru of what has been called the Emergent Church Movement.

A church entering reinvention feels it is a mess. It feels it has lost its way. It is ready to go back to the drawing board and first principles and start all over again. It’s saying, “We think we need a do-over. We need a new beginning. We aren’t even sure what’s wrong with us … so we’re going to put everything up for grabs, everything, of course, except our identity as Christians, as followers of Jesus. Whatever he wants from us, we’ll do.” This seems to me to be not only a quantitative difference, but also a qualitative difference. Perhaps that’s why this process is so rare — it’s really quite radical(Brian McLaren, www.graceawakening.faithsite. com; May 28, 2002).

The idea that the church needs to be changed is prevalent, but, as you can tell, what some deem to be the remedy is frightening. For Dr. McLaren and many others, “Everything must be up for grabs”. That “everything” includes orthodox Christian doctrine (And though he says otherwise in this quote, it also includes our identity as Christians. His book “A New Kind of Christian” betrays him.).

But God has a different plan. His plan involves restoration and renewal not reinvention. And it’s not as complicated as some might think. You see, there was one important element in the restoration and renewal of God’s people throughout the Old Testament. It was the same element used in the restoration and renewal of God’s people in the New Testament. And it’s the same element I believe God is going to use today. The restoration and renewal of God’s people has been, is and will be accomplished through AUTHORITATIVE, BOLD, CHRIST-EXALTING PREACHING.

AUTHORITATIVE. Congregations throughout our country no longer believe in the God-given authority of the office of pastor or elder because pastors or elders have ceased preaching authoritatively. On any given Sunday, most sermons are nothing more than personal soap box rants, or op-ed pieces that belong in the local paper not the pulpit. Why? Well, I believe there are three reasons.

#1 Our culture frowns at that kind of authority. People today don’t consider the Bible to be authoritative. The words, “Declares the Lord” or “Thus saith the Lord” are phrases of the past. No one is expected to speak with that kind of authority because that kind of authority is considered non-existent. The predominant belief is that we are autonomous, free-will creatures whose moral authority is found within ourselves and there is therefore no such thing as absolute truth or authority that is for all people, of all times or in all places.

#2 Pastors are afraid to speak with that kind of authority. They are afraid of what others will say. They are more concerned with pleasing men than they are pleasing God. They are more concerned with worldly success than they are biblical faithfulness.

#3 Pastors themselves are unfamiliar with that kind of authority. That means, most pastors today aren’t in the Word enough and don’t pray enough to recognize that kind of authority and therefore haven’t placed themselves under that authority. So why should they, or better yet, how could they speak with that kind of authority if they themselves aren’t submitting to that authority?

Well, this must change. Pulpits must be filled with men who are willing to speak out regardless of cultural beliefs, regardless of what others might say or do. Pulpits must be filled by preachers who are willing to preach authoritatively even if people don’t accept that authority. Preachers must be willing to preach authoritatively regardless of the names they are called, the accusations that are levied, and the attacks they may experience. That will only come about if pastors begin placing themselves under the authority of God and His Word. They must come to a place where they understand that they will incur a stricter judgment because they are teachers.

BOLD- Sermons today are filled with humor, silly anecdotes, moralistic platitudes and the 1-2-3’s of life. It’s getting harder and harder to tell the difference between a sermon and a motivational speech. Pastors are more concerned with being trendy “life coaches” than they are shepherds. They’re not interested in stepping on toes. They would rather dumb down the standard so the self-esteem of their people isn’t damaged than hold the standard high and inspire others to meet it. And if you think I’m being too harsh listen to this.

“I don’t think anything has been done in the name of Christ and under the banner of Christianity that has proven more destructive to human personality and, hence, counterproductive to the evangelism enterprise than the often crude, uncouth, and unchristian strategy of attempting to make people aware of their lost and sinful condition.” (Time, March 18, 1985)

“The most serious sin is the one that causes me to say, ‘I am unworthy. I may have no claim to divine sonship if you examine me at my worst.’ For once a person believes he is an ‘unworthy sinner,’ it is doubtful if he can really honestly accept the saving grace God offers in Jesus Christ.” (Self-Esteem, p. 9

Both of those quotes were made 20 years ago by Robert Schuller, the pastor of the Crystal Cathedral and the host of the Hour of Power. But this isn’t just a tele-evangelist problem. This sort of thing goes on in countless numbers pulpits around the country. Our only hope of restoring and renewing the church is for it to stop. Preaching must be BOLD. It must be willing to rebuke and call people to repent. It must tell it like it is. It must call sin, sin. It must boldly proclaim the truths of God. It must not shy away from the truth. It doesn’t have to be offensive but at times it will and must offend.

CHRIST-CENTERED- Nothing else will do. Salvation is not found within ourselves. Our hope is not found in positive-thinking. We are not winners who have simply lost our way and have forgotten the potential that lies within all of us. We are sinners in need of a Savior. Jesus Christ is the answer. God is a Holy God. He is a just God. He is a wrathful God. But He is also a loving God. He is a gracious God. He is a merciful God. He sent Jesus Christ to pay the price for sin that was owed. He came to absorb the wrath that was deserved. He was a suffering Substitute. We must preach in such a way that people know that He is the one and only Substitute. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one will come and no one can come to the Father but through Him. Salvation comes as we look upon Him not within ourselves. The righteousness we need must come from Him. It must be imputed to us for ours is but filthy rags. There is no other answer. There is no other name on which we can call to be saved. Our preaching must cease being man-centered. It must be Christ-centered or we have no hope of being restored and renewed as a people.

There are things that happen in each of our lives that are so memorable we replay them over and over in our minds. When it comes to my role as a pastor, there are two such events that I will never forget. The first happened in March of 2003 as I sat among 1500 other pastors at the Shepherd’s Conference at Grace Community Church in California. It was there that God impressed upon me the shear magnitude of my responsibility that I have to Him to make sure my preaching is authoritative, bold and Christ-centered. The second event happened in my living room back in February. It was there that God impressed upon me the magnitude of my responsibility I have to those God has given me to shepherd. It was there that a gentleman desiring to join our church took my hand into his, gripped it firmly, looked me sternly in the eye, and said, “If you ever stop preaching the Word of God, I will hunt you down.” I appreciated his candor. I appreciate that accountability. I will remember his words and his face forever. May God grant every pastor experiences like that.

Chris Taylor
Legacy Baptist Church

John Piper has said, “when doctrine goes bad, so do hearts.” I have heard it asked many times, “why can’t we just all love Jesus?” And while there may be some good intention involved in asking such a question it completely ignores the question, “which Jesus?” Is He the Christ of the Scriptures or some man-made image of a false Christ? It is a great thing that we all desire all people to love God, but again, the true God or a god of our own making? Doctrine does matter - not just for the theologian, not just for the pastor - but should matter to all of us who have been called to follow Christ. All theology is practical; what we believe affects that way we live. In an earlier post mention was made of Jerry Falwell’s comments in regards to limited atonement, or what many call particular redemption. Does such a deep and grand doctrine such as limited atonement really affect us in our daily walk with Christ? I would say, “yes.” Shouldn’t such a grand doctrine such as this be reserved for theological discussions or is there something very comforting, pastoral, relevant, and practical to this doctrine that so often is viewed as narrow and wooden? Wade Burleson in his post that we have on this blog says in regards to Jerry Falwell’s comments, “This ‘heresy’ labeling is attached to even disagreements on secondary and tertiary doctrines, like that of ‘the extent of the atonement.’” I would say that the “extent of the atonement” is not only of pastoral concern but one that is primary in its importance. Jude tells us that there is doctrine worth contending for. In fact, he uses a word from where we get our English word, “agonize.” There is doctrine over which we should agonize; over which we should labor; over which we should make a strenuous effort. In our relativistic culture to struggle over truth may seem foolish to the world; to die for it, downright absurd. And yet many, throughout history, have done just that. I wonder, how many of us in the church today can honestly sing the words to the old hymn, “Faith of our fathers, holy faith! We will be true to thee till death”?

So how could this doctrine of “limited atonement” be relevant both in the tower of theology and in everyday life? Let me tell you a parable, a story if you will (our culture seems to be all about stories these days). Keep in mind, illustrations are just that; they illustrate a point. It is not meant to convey all the theological nuances of that which it illustrates so I am sure it breaks down at certain points.

A man was sent on a mission to save a group of missionaries who were being held captive by a tyrant. They were in bondage, locked up in cells, and treated poorly. This man sneaked into camp, found the bound missionaries, cut a hole through the bars where they could get out and said to the missionaries, “you are free if you choose to be.” He then turned around and left, leaving the prisoners to themselves and returned to his base. Upon returning, his commanding officer said, “where are those missionaries I told you to save?” The man replied, “I cut open the gate, told them they were free and then I returned home.” Several days went by and they began to receive news that all the missionaries had been caught and either killed or returned to bondage. The commanding officer called the man back in and said, “none of those who you went to rescue made it out. One didn’t want to leave, two had broken legs and couldn’t walk on their own, three were weak from malnutrition, and one, the strongest and smartest of the group, almost made it, but he was killed. None of them were able to meet the requirements needed to get out themselves.” The man replied, “but they didn’t have to, I went to save them.” But the commanding officer replied, “Then where are they? Did you go to save them or did you simply make it possible for them to save themselves?”

The Apostle Paul tells Timothy in 1 Timothy 1:15, “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.” Jesus Christ came to save sinners! He came not to make it a possibility but to make it a reality! Revelation 5:9 says, “For you were slain and did purchase for God with Thy blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.” Christ bought us with a price. He redeemed us - fully, completely. We have great comfort and confidence in our Christ. If it were left up to me, or to you, we wouldn’t have made it “out of the camp.” But praise God His Son Jesus Christ came to save sinners like you and me. And what He came to do He accomplished. Here’s the question, “was Jesus Christ successful in His mission?” In His mission to save sinners? The answer to that is a resounding “yes”. Jesus says in John 10, “I am the good Shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep….My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.”

I just wanted to let everyone know that Together for the Gospel 2008 opens registration on May 1.  If anyone wants to go simply register online at www.t4g.org  

I want to link to Frank Turk’s post which is a theological reflection on the Virginia Tech shooting.  This is very insightful and I really hope everyone will take the time to read this.  Here’s the link:  www.centuri0n.blogspot.com    

This is a great post by Wade Burleson.  Read his blog at www.kerussocharis.blogspot.com

We’ve More In Common With Boyce Than Falwell

Yesterday I read Les Puryear and Tom Ascol on their thoughts about Dr. Jerry Falwell’s statement during last Friday’s chapel message at Liberty University. Falwell declared about his school’s theology:

“We are not into particular love or limited atonement. As a matter of fact we consider it heresy.”

I appreciate the ministry of Dr. Falwell. I appreciate Liberty University and the pastors who have graduated from that school, many of whom are now serving within the Southern Baptist Convention. I am glad Dr. Falwell has chosen to unite with the Southern Baptist Convention and welcome him as part of our fold. However . . .

I have long been concerned that a group of independent, fundamental Baptists are attempting to remake the Southern Baptist Convention into the mold they perceive is best. One of the ways fundamentalists accomplish their goal is to label anything ‘heresy’ that is in disagreement with their views. This ‘heresy’ labeling is attached to even disagreements on secondary and tertiary doctrines, like that of ‘the extent of the atonement.’

I believe that if and when the Southern Baptist Convention ever rolls over and acquiesces by agreeing with pronouncements of ‘heresy’ like that of Dr. Falwell regarding ‘limited atonement,’ we are finished as a cooperating convention.

When I was eighteen years old I was handed “The Abstract of Systematic Theology” by James Petigru Boyce as a graduation gift. I have now read the book at least five times from cover to cover and make it a personal policy to give a copy to graduates as well. We also have used it as a textbook and study guide for our men’s Tuesday morning discipleship class.

James Petigru Boyce was the principle founder of Southern Seminary. He was born January 11, 1827 in Charleston, South Carolina to Mr. and Mrs. Ker Boyce. His father was considered the wealthiest man in South Carolina and Charleston was the most cultured American city in the early 19th Century. J.P. Boyce had the privilege of the finest education available at Charleston College, Brown University (R.I.) and Princeton Seminary (N.J.)

It was while a student at Charleston that Boyce was converted. Dr. Francis Wayland, President of Brown University discipled Boyce during his years at Brown, and the great theologians and teachers Archibald Alexander and Charles Hodge mentored him at Princeton. After graduation in 1851, Boyce was ordained and accepted the call to First Baptist Church, Columbia, South Carolina. He served faithfully until 1855, when he was made professor of Systematic Theology at Furman College. It was at Furman, in 1856, that he gave his famous address ‘Three Changes in Theological Institutions’ which became the founding structure of Southern Seminary in 1859.

The address set forth three principles on which a seminary would meet the needs of the educated and uneducated man. John Broadus summarized the principles in his book “Memoirs of James P. Boyce” as these:

(1). A Baptist theological school ought not merely to receive college graduates, but men with a less general education, even men having only what is called common English education, offering to every man such opportunities of theological study as he is prepared for and desires.

(2). Besides covering, for those who are prepared, as wide a range of theological study as could be found elsewhere, such an institution ought to offer further and special courses so that the ablest and most aspiring students might make extra-ordinary attainments, preparing them for instruction and original authoriship, helping to make our country less dependent upon foreign scholarship.

(3). There should be prepared an “Abstract of Priciples”, or careful statement of theological belief, which every professor in such an institution must sign when inaugurated, so as to guard against the rise of erroneous and injurious instruction in such a seat of sacred learning”

The Abstract of Principles, written by Boyce’s friend Basil Manley (notice Boyce’s two best friends are John Broadus and Basil Manly — it’s where we get the name Broadman Press), still serves as the doctrinal standard of Southern Seminary and Southeastern Seminary today, preceding the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message by more than half a century.

The Abstract of Principles is Calvinistic. It declares regeneration precedes saving faith. It unequivocally declares the sovereign election of sinners for salvation by God’s free grasce. It also emphasizes substitutionary atonement.

John Broadus, fellow founder of Southern Seminary, declared this about his friend James P. Boyce:

“It was a great privilege to be directed by such a teacher in studying that exalted system of Pauline truth which is technically called Calvinism, which compels an earnest student to profound thinking, and when pursued with a combination of systematic thought and fervent experience, makes him at home among the most inspiring and enobling views of God and the universe He made.”

Boyce held to the view that the atonement was ’sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect.’ I hold to the belief that the atonement is both sufficient and efficient for the elect alone, the same view held by Dr. John Gill and Southern Baptist systematic theologian John L. Dagg, but my appreciation for the writing and ministry of James Boyce is unequivocal.

My point in this post is simply this:

I would never dream of calling an opposing view of the extent of the atonement ‘heresy’ or cease from cooperating in missions and evangelism from those who don’t see atonement the way I do.

It is incumbent upon us as a convention to avoid ‘heresy’ pronouncements if we are going to continue to grow in our cooperation and missions ministry. I am trusting that the majority of Southern Baptists will see our heritage as a convention in the vein of J.P. Boyce. We welcome Jerry Falwell and those who believe as he does, but we will not let them get by with heresy pronouncements unchallenged.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

posted by Wade Burleson | Monday, April 16, 2007 | 99 comments links to this post   

We had about 150 more people in attendance on Easter than on a “normal” Sunday morning.  I realize that a certain number that attended are family members of our regular attenders.  But, part of that number is that most members all come to church at the same time because we don’t want to miss Easter Sunday.  The challenge is for us view every Sunday as extremely crucial  to our spiritual lives.  Not because there are special events, activities, etc.  We should come ready every week to corporately worship our King.  To sing, pray and hear His word proclaimed as a body is at the core of our Christian faith.  We should come every week to celebrate the reality of the risen savior.

What should be normal for believers is that almost nothing can keep us from our church family on Sunday.  The writer of Hebrews proclaims, “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.  And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the day drawing near” (Hebrews 10:23-25)

Now this passage gives us three positive commands and in the middle of the passage he tells us one sure fire way to fail in these matters. 

First, he says to hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering.  This is in the present active form which literally means - keep on holding fast the confession of our hope.  If we neglect the assembly we put ourselves in danger of losing hope, of being discouraged.  God gave us the body so that we maitain hope in our faith and in the faithfullness of our savior.

Second, the writer says for us to consider something.  We are to consider how to stir up one another to love and good works.  WOW, here is a revolutionary thought!  I am not to attend on Sunday simply for myself.  I am to attend considering how to stir up my brothers and sisters in Christ to love and to do good works.  I am to be stirred and I am to stir!  This literally means that I am to provoke, incite, stimulate, and sharpen others while they do the same to me.  We do not come to be passive recievers but to be active engagers.  There is no way I can accomplish this if I am there only half the time.  There is no way I can be stirred-up if I am gone all the time.  WOW - this is getting good.

Finally, he says we are to encourage one another.  If we put this in the negative it goes like this, “When I neglect my church it is discouraging to my brothers and sisters in Christ.”  When I fail to be committed to the body, not only can I not encourage the body, but I become a source of discouragement to the body of Christ!

Have you ever thought about church attendance in these terms? If not, ponder all the possibilites and the impact you can have in your local church body by following these three exhortations.

- Tad Thompson