Abuse Does Not Take Away Use

In my online forays, I've observed it's increasingly common for people to explicitly reject a doctrine, or the notion of orthodox teaching in general, on the basis of its abuse. You'll often read something along these lines: "I grew up in a church that had a heavy emphasis on doctrine X (depravity, judgment, sola scriptura, etc.). My pastors and elders used that doctrine to berate people, cow them into submission, or excuse horrible evils." So now, whenever they hear doctrine X, they can't accept it because they know (feel) it's a tool being used to control them or bring about another harmful result. In fact, some will go further and elevate this reaction into a principle of theological methodology: if a doctrine could be or has been used to hurt or damage, it must be rejected out of hand.   

I understand the impulse. For those who have been beat down with the Bible like it's a weapon, or doctrines like they're billy clubs, when they see someone pick them up—even as agents of healing—some post-traumatic stress makes sense. It can be hard to distance or differentiate a doctrine from its uses, especially if that's all you've ever known. It doesn't matter if someone's trying to offer you an oxygen mask; if someone used one to choke you out in the first place, you're going to flinch when you see it.    Continue at Derek Rishmawy

What To Say To Church Members Leaving for Poor Reasons

Let’s face it: there are better and worse reasons to leave a church. Are you moving to another city? That’s a good reason. Are you harboring bitterness toward someone who has offended you? That’s a bad reason. Does the church neglect to preach biblical sermons weekly? A good reason. Do you not like the church’s style? Probably a bad reason.

The question is, how should you respond to a fellow member who is leaving for what sounds like a bad reason?

The question raises a number of tough theological issues, such as how far the authority of the church extends, or how much weight should be given to cultural preferences. There are also difficult pastoral issues, such as knowing how to differentiate between a bruised reed and a fool.

But let me see if I can pack some of that theology into the form of practical counsel. Here are some bad ways to respond to such a situation, combined with better responses:

Bad response: “Oh.” This is the non-response. This is the “I don’t care” or “I need your approval so I’ll say nothing” response. I’m not saying that it’s never right to keep your mouth shut. I’m just saying that fear-of-man or the failure-to-love should not be what’s motivating you to say nothing.

Better response: “Why are you leaving? Can I help you think through it?” Love takes an interest and asks questions. Love recognizes that we’re responsible for the discipleship of our fellow members, and it investigates. Love does not fear having people not like you. It’s willing to ask the awkward question or offer the risky counsel for their good.   Keep Reading >>>

Mormonism, Democracy, and the Urgent Need for Evangelical Thinking

Predictably, Mormonism is in the news again. The presence of two members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints among contenders for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination ensured that it was only a matter of time before Evangelicals, along with other Americans, began to talk openly about what this means for the nation, the church, and the stewardship of political responsibility in the voting booth. 

There are numerous ways to frame these questions wrongly. Our responsibility as evangelical Christians is to think seriously and biblically about these issues. The first temptation is to reduce all of these issues to one question. We must address the question of Mormonism as a worldview and judge it by the Bible and historic Christian doctrine. But this does not automatically determine the second question — asking how Mormon identity should inform our political decisions. Nevertheless, for evangelical Christians, our concern must start with theology. Is Mormonism just a distinctive denomination of Christianity?   Keep Reading>>>

Indicatives and imperatives

Justin Taylor has provided a helpful set of links to the ongoing discussions between William Evans and Sean Lucas at Reformation21 and Kevin DeYoung and Tullian Tchividjian at the Gospel Coalition. Having made reference to a couple of these before, being persuaded of how important the issues are, and therefore having an ongoing interest in the matter, I thought others might appreciate following the discussion. Taylor summarises:

William B. Evans and Sean Michael Lucas have been engaged in a profitable discussion over at Reformation 21 on sanctification and the gospel. Here are their exchanges:

• Evans, Sanctification and the Nature of the Gospel
• Lucas, A Rejoinder on Sanctification and the Gospel
• Evans, Sanctification and the Gospel: A Surrejoinder to Sean Lucas
• Lucas, A Concluding Contribution on Sanctification and the Gospel
• Evans, A Question of Balance? Some Final Comments on Sanctification and the Role of the Law

Rick Phillips also added a helpful and important post summarizing seven assertions about the relationship between justification and sanctification.

As I’ve mentioned before, Kevin DeYoung and Tullian Tchividjian have been engaged in a longer—though less direct—discussion addressing similar issues:

• DeYoung, Make Every Effort
• Tchividjian, Work Hard! But in Which Direction?
• DeYoung, Gospel-Driven Effort
• Tchividjian, First Things First
• DeYoung, Glorying in Indicatives and Insisting on Imperatives
• Tchividjian, Deconstructing Moralism

The Wanderer