Exploring the nature of the New Covenant

Before it dies off completely, drop by and read the discussion on Frank's blog about the nature of the new covenant. We've hit upon paedobaptism, & are now embarking on who is in the covenant. I'm trying to understand the correspondence between OT Israel & NT believers, as it relates to unbelievers in the covenant. I say there aren't any, but at least one person over there says there are.

What say you? Comment here or there.

"The Playboy Legacy"--from today's WSJ

Nice piece about the true legacy of Hugh Hefner.

In lieu of a real post today...

...I'm going to refer you to some excellence elsewhere in the 'sphere.

You should read Sojourner on the fear of the Lord, and Doxo's two-part post on Bible study: How To Do It, and How Not To Do It.

Barna and the Church

In the comments of the previous entry (big blogs have a "meta," but us small fish just have "comments"), I was asked what exactly I meant by the last post.

Here it is: it was a sarcastic swipe at Barna over a comment he had allegedly made about the local church is becoming irrelevant.

I was probably too sarcastic. And I'll admit, I hadn't seen the quote first-hand, so I broke my own rule of viewing original sources before making comments.

But Barna and others seem to be purveying this notion that the local church is irrelevant, and somehow just a cultural thing, instead of a biblical institution. And I am concerned that this movement seems to be gaining ground.

For example, here is a link to a recent article from Time Magazine on the "simple church" which I think typifies what my concern is: that people can live a perfectly healthy & fulfilled life away from a local body of believers. It's not just a homegroup, or a subgroup of a local body, but this little gathering considers itself a church.

Please don't misunderstand. I'm sure a lot of what they are doing is a reaction to the excesses of the megachurch movement, and to the weak state of evangelical churches as a whole. However, the methods they are employing are just as unbiblical as the movements they are fleeing.

Don't take my word for it, though. Have a look at a simple church site.

Back to Barna. Here are two quotes from an excerpt of his new book, Revolution that exemplify this worrisome attitude:

"In the great awakenings of America’s history, the pattern was always the same: draw people into the local church for teaching and other experiences. In this new movement of God, the approach is the opposite: it entails drawing people away from reliance upon a local church into a deeper connection with and reliance upon God."

"I am not called to attend or join a church. I am called to be the Church."

Now there is probably a sense in which both of these are true, in context. But in a society of Lone Ranger Christians, these types of assertions seem more irresponsible than anything else. Barna at one time said he was on a mission to reform the church; it now seems that he's replaced that mission with a desire to simply discard it altogether.

The local church is not "beside the point;" it is the point. It is the church--the way the Bible mandates that we organize ourselves as believers.

Is this Barna's replacement for the Traditional Church? (from the WSJ.com)

WSJ.com - New Cellphone Services Put God on the Line: "Good News Holdings LLC, in partnership with Barna Group Ltd., a Ventura, Calif.-based provider of Christian data, recently launched FaithMobile, a cellphone service that offers scriptures, Christian ring tones, and one-minute-long inspirational videos to subscribers who sign up on its Web site. The service's advertising slogan: 'Have you talked to God today?' It is available in the U.S. on T-Mobile, Alltel and Cingular, selling for an additional $5.99 a month."

Capote

We rented Capote last night, and it was marvelous--an incredible piece of filmmaking. Philip Seymour Hoffman was brilliant, as well as being particularly loathesome (at least in my mind).

If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend it. Don't be put off by the "R" rating; the "intense violence" is less than what you see every week on CSI, and while there is some bad language, overall, they were pretty restrained, consistent with with the time period it was set in.

And now for something completely different...

I just wanted to take a moment and proclaim the Lord's graciousness to me with Greek over the last few weeks.

I have really been struggling, because I don't seem to have enough time to devote to it. Yet, I am so encouraged when I go and hear Dr. Zemek's encouragement and reminders that the point of this is to know God's word more deeply; that has truly been an encouragement.

I had my first test, and God's hand was certainly upon me, because I did much better than I deserved; moreover, I am actually starting to understand sentences (at least, the Greek equivalent of "see Spot run").

I loathe my laziness earlier in life, when I had the time to do this, and chose not to, but I hope and pray that God will make me strong in my weakness.

So, for Friday I say, praise God, and pray for me.

Orthodox Pharisees?

In the meta of the Pyro post Wright's Wrongs, Pastor Rod said this:
"Let me take a statement Jesus made about the Pharisees and change its context and application. (In other words, this is my point not his. I am simply alluding to his criticism of the religious elite of his day.)

“You keepers of the creeds and definers of the orthodox, you have found the narrow gate and made it even narrower, driving away those who would enter. It would be better for you to have never studied theology. There will be greater honor in the Kingdom for a simple-minded child who calls people to love Jesus than for you.”"

But why are those who hold to a set of propositional truths about the Gospel always equated to Pharisees? Aren't there true things about the Gospel and true things about Jesus that must be believed, or were the Beatles right when they sang Love is All You Need?

Didn't Jesus admonish the woman at the well that she should worship in spirit and in truth?

What Will Martyrdom Accomplish?

With all the discussion about the Abdul Rahman story (Cent's two cents is Classic Gospel, tone-deaf world), I'm wondering if we're really missing the point. Yes, human rights are important, but what about building God's Kingdom?

By God's providence, we're studying Hebrews 11 at church right now, and we're coming up on the place where the writer talks about all those in the "hall of faith" who sacrificed in order to receive a better resurrection (cf., Heb 11:32-38).

Also today (at my men's group), we talked about suffering (finishing up John Piper's book Desiring God. If you have time, take a look at it, and see if what's described there is not exactly the type of thing we're seeing in Afganistan.

Human rights are important, but God's kingdom is paramount. Heb. 11 tells us about all sorts of triumphs of faith, both those who overcame, and those who were overcome. Though we don't like to talk about it, and certainly don't desire it, part of how God builds His kingdom is through martyrs. But we can be thankful that there are believers around the world who are willing to "resist to the point of shedding blood" (Heb 12:4).

Would that we all would be that faithful in our own lives.

In Defense of Right Belief

I'm in the midst of an interesting conversation with someone, who, among other things, wonders if an "orthodox belief in the Trinity" is needed in order to be saved, or if requiring that belief is akin to adding to the Scripture. Here is my (slightly edited) response.

I'm not trying to add doctrines to the Scripture, or require more of salvation than what's required. At the same time, I do think we need to know and understand certain things about God in order to be saved. I don't think we need to have complete or perfect understanding, but I question whether or not someone who knows little about God can truly have a relationship with Him. I also question whether someone who understands what the Bible teaches about God, if they willfully reject some facet of Him, can truly be in a relationship with God. I don't see this as "adding to Scripture." Rather, I see it as a necessary consequence of knowing God in the first place. Without knowledge of Him, how can we have a relationship with Him? (cf. Acts 17--the unknown god).

I should also add that this is not just a theoretical exercise; it's very practical to me. I have children, and I wrestle with how much they need to know & understand in order to be saved. I don't think they need perfect or complete understanding in order to be saved. But if they have knowledge of God and reject it, does it make sense to believe they are saved?

Again, I'm not trying to add lines where none exist. What I'm trying to say is, if there is a fundamental doctrine about the nature of God that someone rejects, can they still be rightly called a follower of God? My answer to that question (at this point, anyway) is no. I believe the Trinity is one of those doctrines, hence my questioning whether someone in that state is a believer. It's not about the Trinity, per se.

Finally, let me say that I think there is a difference between cautious questioning and open rejection. I don't think we should merely parrot others' beliefs about something. That said, if someone honestly rejects the God of the Scripture in any aspect, on what basis can they claim to have a relationship with Him?

***
Update
The new Shepherd's Fellowship blog has a post by John MacArthur which has something to say about this issue of belief.