“Peace, Peace” When There Is No Peace

One of the more troubling mis-translations in the history of English Bible translation (at least in terms of its popular acceptance and impact) is the King James rendering of Luke 2:14 as “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” Despite the fact that nearly every modern translation has corrected this unfortunate translation, properly narrowing the scope of Christ’s ministry of peace “to people on whom his favor rests,” the universally conciliatory rendering found in the KJV is etched on the minds of millions in the English-speaking world. Christmas, it is supposed, is about fostering tranquility and harmony everywhere.

This idea is not, of course, unique to the English-speaking world. It is apparent that the utopian vision of universal peace was already circulating during Christ’s earthly ministry—so much so that Jesus felt compelled on multiple occasions to denounce the idea:

• Matthew 10:34–37: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth,” he said. “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”   Continue at Mark Snoeberger

Are Your Church’s Governing Documents Ready for a Post-DOMA World?

One of the more interesting discoveries I made when researching Baptist polity a few years ago was the lost practice of “recognition councils.” Most Baptists are familiar with ordination councils, in which a local church calls together a group of elders and messengers from like-minded area churches to examine an aspiring minister’s fitness for ministry, and thereafter to advise the church either to pursue ordination, to delay ordination until the examinee is more fit for the ministry, or to deny ordination entirely. Recognition councils occur when a new assembly calls together a group of elders from like-minded area churches to examine its governing documents, and thereafter to advise the assembly to pursue chartering, to delay chartering until its documents are in order, or even to abandon entirely its plan for a new church.

Typically, recognition councils examined a prospective church’s constitution and by-laws, doctrinal statement, and covenant. But there are a great many other documents that may also be subjected to examination: mission statements, philosophies of ministry, employee job descriptions, teacher policies, nursery policies, facilities-usage policies, etc. What I’d like to suggest in this post is that the lost practice of recognition councils be formally revived, or, at the very least, that churches informally pool their collective minds to assist one another in creating ecclesiastical documents that are orthodox, orthoprax, and in our litigious society, as litigation-proof as is possible.   Continue at Mark Snoeberger

The Biggest Lie About Law?

One of the commonest errors about law relative to Christian conduct is that God no longer uses fear or laws to promote Christian conduct.

I was born and raised in a fundamentalist milieu that was at times excessive in its proliferation of rules and regulations. I recognize quite freely that this tendency, while commencing as a well-intentioned pursuit of godliness, in many instances offered fertile soil for the wickedness of self-aggrandizing Pharisaism, fear-driven authoritariainism, and the diminution of the gospel of the grace of God.

Still, I was uncomfortable when I read recently that “rules and regulations…bring about a kind of religious moralism that is very far from genuine Christianity” and, further, that such rules de facto reflect a sort of fear that is incompatible with faith.

Why was I uncomfortable? Well, because the New Testament is filled with fear-motivated rules and regulations that function as legitimate self-disciplinary tools for the promotion of true Christian godliness. Note the following:

• “Great fear” induced the early church not to lie (Acts 5:5, 11 cf. 19:17ff).
• Paul exhorts us as believers to “purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of fear for God” (2 Cor 7:1).
• Paul tells slaves to “be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ” (Eph 6:5).
• Paul tells his readers, “As you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12).   Continue at Mark Snoeberger

Are Tongues for Today? Part 3

It is here that my greatest concern with tongues comes to the fore. If the foregoing is true, then the continuance of tongues implies either (1) that Scripture is a source of revelation that is inadequately attested or (2) that Scripture is a source of revelation that is insufficient for the needs of the present dispensation (violating the spirit of such texts as 2 Timothy 3:17 and 2 Peter 1:3–4). At best this understanding threatens Scripture’s unique authority and causes people to neglect Scripture in favor of other, more direct sources of instruction and guidance, and at worst it opens up the faith to an unbounded host of non-orthodox additions and emendations.3 It is difficult to see how the continuation of tongues and prophecy can coexist with the doctrine of biblical sufficiency, and even with the first-order doctrine of sola scriptura. And if church history tells us anything, it tells us that the denial of sola scriptura has functioned time and again as the threshold for heterodoxy in the development of the Christian church. Read the rest HERE


Are Tongues for Today? Part 1
Are Tongues for Today? Part 2
Are Tongues for Today? Part 3