Sorry, Goose, but it’s time to buzz the tower.

In keeping with my Bohemian heritage and Reformation Day, I thought I'd highlight one of the lesser known figures, the pre-Reformer John Huss (also spelled Jan or Johannes Hus).

Huss was from Bohemia (now part of the "Czech Republic) and was the master of the University of Prague. He preached in the language of the people (not Latin) at Bethlehem Chapel, at a time when possession of a non-Latin Bible was punishable by death.

His theological views and criticisms of the church were heavily influenced by John Wycliffe, the English pre-Reformer.

Huss (whose name means "goose" in Czech) was among the first to buzz the tower and draw the ire of the church.

He opposed the corruption in the church and was on the "wrong side" with regard to accessibility to the Bible, authority of the pope, and issues of salvation. He spoke against simony (the purchase of church offices) and indulgences (the purchase of forgiveness).

Huss was excommunicated for siding with Pope Alexander (as did the people of Bohemia) instead of the Pope who succeed him (and may have murdered him) and for failure to comply with the order to ban and burn all the works of Wycliffe, and failure to stop preaching. Part of that papal bull of excommunication forbade anyone to give Huss food, drink, salutation, discourse, purchase, sale, or hospitality.

Huss was undaunted:

Huss reminds his friends that Christ himself was excommunicated as a malefactor and crucified. No help was to be derived from the saints. Christ’s example and his salvation are the sufficient sources of consolation and courage. The high priests, scribes, Pharisees, Herod and Pilate condemned the Truth and gave him over to death, but he rose from the tomb and gave in his stead twelve other preachers. So he would do again. What fear, he wrote, "shall part us from God, or what death? What shall we lose if for His sake we forfeit wealth, friends, the world’s honors and our poor life?... It is better to die well than to live badly. We dare not sin to avoid the punishment of death. To end in grace the present life is to be banished from misery. Truth is the last conqueror. He wins who is slain, for no adversity "hurts him if no iniquity has dominion over him." In this strain he wrote again and again. The "bolts of anti-christ," he said, could not terrify him, and should not terrify the "elect of Prag."
-Phillip Scaff, History of the Christian Church, §45.

Even though the Council of Constance had condemned Wycliffe and ordered his writings burned and his bones exhumed, burned, and sprinkled in the river, Huss did not distance himself from Wycliffe.

"I indeed confess that I hold the true opinions propounded by Master John Wycliffe, professor of sacred theology, not because he taught them but because the Scriptures taught them."
-Matthew Spinka, John Hus at the Council of Constance (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965), pp. 69-70.

In the face of trumped up charges and imminent death, Huss was able to express joy to Christ while being burned at the stake as a heretic in 1415. As Huss stood before the stake he reportedly said, "In the truth of the Gospel which I have written, taught, and preached, I die willingly and joyfully today."

584 years after Huss experienced a humiliating and cruel death, Pope John Paul II apologized to the Czech people on December 17th, 1999.

"Today, on the eve of the Great Jubilee, I feel the need to express deep regret for the cruel death inflicted on Jan Hus and for the consequent wound of conflict and division which was thus imposed on the minds and hearts of the Bohemian people."
-The Vatican Information Service (VIS)

Incidentally, Huss proved to be a prophet at his execution when he said, "You are roasting a poor Bohemian goose, but in 100 years there will arise a swan whom you will neither roast nor boil."

I don't know if any would refer to him as a swan, for Pope Leo called Martin Luther a "wild boar" (i.e., pig) in his papal bull of excommunication, Exsurge Domine. ("Rise up, O Lord, for there is a wild boar loose in your vineyard.")

I have every confidence that this "pig" would find kinship with "the goose" and wouldn't hesitate to say, "Ich bin ein Hussite."

"A cantionale, dating from 1572, and preserved in the Prag library, contains a hymn to Huss’ memory and three medallions which well set forth the relation in which Wyclif and Huss stand to the Reformation. The first represents Wyclif striking sparks from a stone. Below it is Huss, kindling a fire from the sparks. In the third medallion, Luther is holding aloft the flaming torch."
-Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, §45.

On the 490th anniversary of Luther's nailing of the 95 Theses on the church door in Wittenburg, we also celebrate John Huss, an early advocate of sola Scriptura, who was willing to die a martyr's death for the One who had died for him.

Do not seek the treasure!

This is the time of year when I am inclined to share some thoughts on the incompatibility of Halloween and Christians. I did that last year, however, and I'll summarize with the notion that the American holiday of Halloween typically does one of two things, or both. It either sucks Christians into the glorification of evil and death (e.g., imagery such as witches, black cats, haunted houses, and other slooge that is either superstitious or blatantly deviltry) or into the consumerism whereby they spend lots of money on costumes and candy for no redeeming reason.

But ... what I wanted to talk about was another form of deviltry incompatible with Christianity, Freemasonry. A good buddy recently asked me for some Cliff's Notes on the subject since he knew it was the subject of a consuming study for me for about 1.5 years in the mid-1990s.

Back before the days of the Internet's proficiency, one had to work harder at research. So, I would visit Christian bookstores and gobble up every book I could find on the subject, always in the "Cults" section, mind you.

I've actually been meaning to whip up a little something about Freemasonry, so this was a good catalyst. There are a great many books and even a few good videos on the market that implicate Masonry as deviltry in varying ways and in varying degrees.

There are some good websites (e.g., Saints Alive in Jesus and Ephesians 5:11), though some are a little on the "fighting fundy" side (e.g., The Curse of Baphomet).

(FYI: "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them." -Ephesians 5:11, ESV)

The gist is that Freemasonry is essentially a religion and not merely a club or a hobby. It uses religious language, meets in a temple in meetings led by the Worshipful Master, requires initiates to proclaim they are in darkness but want to be in light, etc.

And that's the trick really, Masonry is a source of light and it helps the initiates to navigate through the various light-givers (Jesus, Confucius, Lucifer, etc.) to learn the secrets of the craft and the world.

In fact, I just say this piece recently that the courts have provided Masonry religious protection. Pike would be proud.

"Every Masonic lodge is a temple of religion, and it teachings are instructions in religion...this is the true religion revealed to the ancient patriarchs; which Masonry has taught for many centuries, and which it will continue to teach as long as time endures."
-Pike, Albert. Morals and Dogma, 213-14.

Even my SBC has put forth some criticism of the Masonic religion, though its been muted by the many Masons within the SBC who serve on deacon boards, etc.

They ordered a study in 1992, which was pretty tame, but even it found "many" tenets incompatible with Christianity and they didn't even really get into the writings of the higher ups like Mackey or Pike. Of course, we're a non-binding association/denomination anyway, but they couldn't say "Don't do it." The pressure they got from the masons within forced them to soften the conclusion to "examine in light of your conscience," but it's better than nothing.

Most denominations, however, actually have statements against Masonry and many even forbid lodge membership for its members.

I've read the primary sources and finally had to break down and buy them (e.g., Mackey's Lexicon of Freemasonry and Pike's Morals and Dogma). There's no denying that in them they say stuff like "Sure Adonay is god, but Lucifer is also god" and "we recognize only the light, not the light bearer." For those Masonic authorities, Lucifer is the supreme lightbearer.

I know, it seems far-fetched. We have an organization that bills itself as a bunch of good ol' boys and which encompasses the Shriners, who also do many great things. Many grew up as Rainbow Girls or Job's Daughters or in the DeMolay.

Either you or your relatives have probably been affiliated with Freemasonry in some way. Surely, Grandpa wasn't dancing around in goat leggings and toasting goblets of blood. Probably not, but he did wear an apron to protect his "generative principle" and he participated in an organization that is even less compatible with Christianity than Mormonism is, and membership for Christians is a "compromise and a contradiction" (Rice, John R. Lodges Examined by the Bible, 47).

But there's worked into the system a bit whereby they intentionally deceive the younglings so that they don't really understand all that they do, they just think they understand.

"The average Mason is lamentably ignorant of the real meaning of Masonic symbology and knows as little of its esoteric teaching"
-Steinmetz, George H. Freemasonry-Its Hidden Meaning, p.5

So, they give their money and it looks like a good philanthropic organization, but it's very similar to the Mormons in that regard whereby you call yourselves Christian and use some of the same terms, but give different meanings.

This is no surprise, especially when you realize Joseph Smith was a Mason and he brought much of that with him to the Mormons, who also have secret ceremonies and levels of advancement, etc. Also no surprise, Mormons are not allowed to be Masons. My assumption is that they don't want folks to gain "knowledge" prematurely or learn the overlap, etc.

Many writers have written about the influence Masons have had on our government, including the layout of Washington, D.C. and its monuments. Others have drawn connections to the Klan, and having had a relative who was public about one and very secretive about the other, I'm not surprised.

In a sermon entitled, "Freemasonry and Christianity" Alva J. McClain (Founder and 1st President of Grace Theological Seminary) shows why a Christian cannot be a Mason. He offers four (bad) reasons why a "professing" Christian might stay, but lists men of faith who have fought against Masonry (John Adams, John Quincy Adams, James Madison, Millard Fillmore, Daniel Webster, Charles Sumner, Charles Finney, D. L. Moody, R. A. Torrey, for example).

There's a good video I have entitled, "Freemasonry: From Darkness to Light" that essentially shows just how similar Masonry is to witchcraft in its ceremonies and incantions, including the initial initiation ceremony and both ending their prayers with, "So mote it be." You can watch a portion of the video here.

There are many books and articles that can be read and I'd be happy to share with you an annotated Bibliography, though somewhat dated now. Most Christian bookstores will have some slooge on Masonry in their "Cults" section. You can also watch a video on the secret history of Freemasonry here.

G.A.O.T.U. (The Great Architect of the Universe) is not the same as the God of the Bible. If nothing else, I hope you come away knowing that.

Many Masons never make it out of the Blue Lodge, the first 3 degrees. Many never branch off into either the York or Scottish Rite. Many never get the fullness of the secret words like Tubal Cain, Boaz, "No help for the widow's son?", Mahabone, Hiram Abiff, Jabulon, the sexuality of the "square & compass," Jachin, the "point within a circle," the obelisk, and the Luciferian nature of Masonry.

So, I don't want to give the impression that every Mason worships the devil in spirit and falsehood. But I would say that any professing Christian serious about his commitment to Christ should prayerfully examine the organization. But, it's inconceivable to me that one could not have the eyes to see the conflict with Christianity.

Bob Jones III, President of Bob Jones University (in a letter to Thomas D. Resinger) wrote, "It is a Luciferian religion. We are fully aware of its diabolical origin and purpose. I believe than any born again Christian, when the facts from the lips of the Masonic writers themselves are presented showing that Masonry is a religion and is the worship of Satan, will immediately withdraw."

Masonry treasures light, but that light is not the Light of the World, but a false light. Do not seek the treasure.

If I'm here, and you're here, doesn't it make it our time?

There are some moments in your life that you know you need to savor and enjoy. By the grace of God I have been keenly aware that I need to appreciate the moment, for it will soon be gone.

I've been blessed with many such moments, where I wanted time to stand still, for I knew it was an experience that I would one day look back upon with great nostalgia. They've all involved my children and I've had at least one with each child.

The first was when I took Sarah on a "Daddy-Daughter" day when she was less than a year old. Much of the time was spent with her asleep in the stroller as I pushed her around the pond at the park. But sitting on the park bench with her snuggled up on my chest I was overcome with emotion. It was as if I could see her going to school and graduating and dancing with her at her wedding. I knew in an instant that she wouldn't be a baby for long and that I needed to absorb the moment as best I could.

Rachel has always been a "Daddy's girl." She's always been the one most inclined to like what I like and to care about the things I care about. She would always run to me at full speed when I'd pick her up from preschool. I was doing some church work on the computer when Rachel was 4 years old. She had come in to visit for about the 93rd time and I really didn't have time and wasn't interested in small talk. She had come in and wanted me to show her my pipes, explaining which country each one was from. She had come in to talk about what I was doing at church and she reminded me that I was the pastor of the church and that it was important because I helped people learn about God. None of this was helping my efficiency.

However, when she came in and I gave her a curt, "What is it now, Rachel?" and I got a sheepish, "I brought you a Cherry Coke" time stood still. I looked at her and the thought hit me like a ton of bricks, "She just wants to spend time with her daddy." I knew there would come a day soon that dad would be much further down on the depth chart and that I would have a hard time getting time with her. With tears in my eyes I gave her a hug and then held her at arm's length just to look at her. She asked, "What's wrong?" I responded with, "Nothing. I just want to remember this moment forever."

Eric Jr. is my only boy and with that comes certain blessings and curses. One such mixed bag occurred last January when he and I made a road trip to Tulsa, Oklahoma, to get our picture taken with the World Series trophy the Cardinals had won a few months prior. We had a great time and pulled off to the side of the road so I could take his picture in the snow. Doing so I was overcome with the realization of the uniqueness of the event.

Though the Cardinals have been a good team, this was only their 2nd championship in my lifetime. I thought, "We're in Oklahoma standing in snow wearing Cardinals gear as I'm making a road trip with my boy to get our picture taken with the World Series trophy. There's a greater than zero chance this will never happen again. Enjoy it." I recorded the moment with the camera, but I savored it in my heart. What's more, so did my son. I can't tell you how many times I've heard, "Dad let's go back to Oklahoma, just you and me." He starts kindergarten in August of 2008. We'll definitely have to get in another road trip before then.

TONIGHT I had another one of those moments.

Victoria had fallen asleep on our bed and after midnight it was my job to carry her up to her own bed. She is 2 years old. As I started up the stairs I had the distinct feeling of Déjà vu, particularly since I had done this same thing recently, but with my 8 year old daughter, Sarah.

I had a flashback to when Sarah was 2. I was stopped in my tracks as I realized that in the blink of an eye Victoria would be 8 years old.

I got a call this past week from my boss at Southwestern Seminary, checking in on my PhD progress, which has not been impressive, to say the least. He encouraged me to keep plugging away at it, though it may take a while.

But, as only a brother a little further down the journey can do, he gave me some advice. He said to "enjoy your kids," to enjoy them while they're young, because you'll never get that time back.

Walking down the stairs tonight, I thought of two things.

ONE: the words of a song by Kansas that was playing on the radio as we left my Uncle Terry's funeral in 1979:

I close my eyes, only for a moment, and the moment's gone ...
It slips away, and all your money won't another minute buy.
Dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind.

TWO: the words of James:

What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes.
-James 4:14, ESV

I enjoyed taking the family to the Plano East high school football game tonight, but even more I enjoyed standing there beside Victoria's bed, holding her in a horizontal position.

I committed that I would hold her and enjoy the moment until my arms or my back gave out. My arms gave out before my heart was done.

Sometimes late at night when I check on my kids before going to bed I will just kneel down by their beds and watch them sleep. I'm overcome with love for them and can't help but thank God for them and pray for them. Sometimes I lose track of time, but I know our time together is short and I find myself repenting of every moment with them that is wasted.

Because if I'm there and they're there, that makes it our time, and I'm going to savor it.

It was a McDonald's hot apple pie. They're not kidding. It was hot.

Without the Cardinals in it, I've not followed baseball much this post-season, expect to watch the Cubs get swept in the first round.

However, I've been quite impressed with the Colorado Rockies, who have won 22 of their last 23 (including the end of the regular season). They are a RED HOT team, I mean they're like McDonald's hot apple pie hot!

But they're starting a 7 game series on the road against the Boston Red Sox.

Can the Rockies, the hottest team, beat the Red Sox, perhaps the best overall team?

I think they can, but Game 1 plays a key role in the outcome of the series.

I don’t want to overstate the importance of Game 1, but I really think it could crush the Rockies if they lose it.

They didn’t expect to get to the playoffs, let alone the World Series.

When a team already feels it has overachieved, losing Game 1 could be tragic.

Remember STL in 2004? If they beat Wakefield in Game 1, that thing is a whole other series. They lost a close game and got swept in the series.

If STL would have lost in Detroit in Game 1 in 2006, I think they go out with a whimper, already stoked and shocked to have beat the Mets. Instead, they win Game 1 and head to St. Louis having secured a split on the road. They never went back to Detroit.

My prediction: If the Rockies lose Game 1, they AT BEST lose the series 4-1.

BUT … if they win Game 1 in Boston … I think they win the whole thing.

Shoot! And I said I wasn’t going to overstate the importance of Game 1.

Stop whining! Take it like a man!

*The following is an article I wrote that will be appearing in the Wylie News and Murphy Monitor this week.*

Stop whining! Take it like a man!

The older kids were at school, so dad duty was limited to my younger two. This included lunch, which is always an adventure. This was no exception.

Mom left sandwiches for each child in a plastic container, one white and one purple. Upon seeing that the purple container was designated for him, my four-year old son remarked, “But I don’t like purple.”

To this, the sympathetic Victoria blasted, “Stop whining! Take it like a man!”

From this two-year old I learned a few things: First, kids are great at parroting lines from movies they’ve seen (e.g., “Night at the Museum”).

Second, complaining is unattractive to others. Even kids hate to hear other kids being childish. How’s that for ironic?
We all love to complain, but the complaints of others do not inspire us.

But … Why do we complain? We complain because we think we deserve better than what we’re getting. We think our desires deserve to be satisfied.

But … Why is complaining unattractive to others? They wonder, “Who does he/she think he/she is?” Those aren’t complaining, but that’s because their desires have been met, and in that light a complainer just looks selfish and childish. The complainer can give the impression that his/her desires are more important than those of anyone else.

But … Why is complaining so unattractive to God? God is the one who is running the universe and doing so in a way that seems best to Him. Complaining is in essence criticism of His management of the planet, including our own little universes.

The Bible says to “Do everything without complaining and arguing” (Philippians 2:14, NIV).

I think that can be done, with God’s help, but only if we really understand Romans 8:28: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” (NIV).

If you are a Christian, one who loves God and had been called according to HIS purpose, you can be confident in God’s promise that all you encounter will be for your own good. You may see how things work out for your good with the 20-20 hindsight, but other times you may just have to take it by faith, taking it “like a man,” that is.

This Aggression Will Not Stand, Man!

*The following is an article that will debut this week in the Wylie News and the Murphy Monitor.*



This Aggression Will Not Stand, Man!

Before school began we had a church outing to Hawaiian Falls. It was a great time for the kids, but the wave pool was their favorite.

Though my older girls can swim, they wore precautionary life vests just to be on the safe side. Also provided were a few tubes in which folks could sit or hang on. A lady was done with hers, so she offered it to me. Eventually, I managed to get one for Sarah and Rachel.

Rachel was thrown off by a wave at one point and before you could say “Hang Ten” a pre-teen boy snatched it away.

Of course, being the good father I am I hunted him down and grabbed the tube. I sternly told him, “This aggression will not stand, man! You can’t go taking a tube away from a little girl. What’s the matter with you?”

I encouraged him to run along and tell his parents of his shenanigans, though I doubt he did.

Of course, I knew what was the matter, it’s the same problem we all share. We covet that which we don’t have. Due to our depravity we try to meet our desire to be happy by assuming the accumulation of things will satisfy us.

However, our true joy is found only in Christ. In fact, nothing else satisfies. This is why Paul could confidently say that could do all things through Christ who strengthened him (Phil 4:13). He had learned to be content in want or in plenty. Why? Because he had Christ and in Christ there is a joy that transcends whether or not we have a fancy car, a big house, or an inner tube.

When we find our joy in God, He is glorified and we are satisfied, regardless of circumstances. In fact, as John Piper said, “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him.”

In the end a good time was had by all at the water park, but I was reminded of the problem we all face when we’re quick to turn to aggression when we are discontent in our relationship with God. The good news is that He is enough for us and that He alone can satisfy our needs.

We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline.

I recently read a challenging piece about the role of a pastor in the pro-life effort. His thesis is a response to the question, "What does a pro-life pastor looks like?"

In summary ...

“The pro-life pastor commits himself to four essential tasks. First, he preaches a biblical view of human value and applies that view to abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and cloning. Second, he equips his people to engage the culture with a persuasive defense of the pro-life view. Third, he restores lost passion for ministry with cross-centered preaching. Fourth, he confronts his own fears about preaching inconvenient truth.”

This came at a time wherein I've been asking a similar question, "What does a pro-life Christian look like?"

There's much talk about a 3rd party candidate because of fears the GOP might nominate a pro-choice candidate (namely, Rudy Guiliani). So, being pro-life is a topic of conversation once again, but this is normal leading up to an election.

Many are in fact self-described as "single issue voters," using a candidate's stance on abortion as the litmus test of whether or not to support him/her. This is particularly important with regard to the president, since it is the president who appoints judges and it is ultimately in the (Supreme) court where this battle will be won or lost.

But ... other than voting pro-life (i.e., voting for a candidate who purports to be pro-life), what do these people DO?

What does, or better yet, what should a pro-life Christian look like?

Is it more than just casting a vote every 4 years? I think so, especially since in many places the vote actually accomplishes nothing.

For example, someone who lives in Texas will (effectively) make no difference because the state will be a "Red State" and the pro-life Christian who cast such a vote actually accomplished nothing for the cause.

Now, that may sound harsh and I know about the "categorical imperative," but everybody doesn't think that way, so it doesn't negate the reality.

Let me state my point more directly: I think it ironic at best and pathetic at worst that so many make such a big deal about being pro-life (i.e., with regard to being anti-abortion) but actually DO nothing more than cast a vote.

It's easy to make fun of those who claim to be Christian but only actually go to church one or two times a year, right? But aren't the VAST MAJORITY of "pro-life Christians" only really so during an election?

What should a Christian do in keeping with his/her conviction of being pro-life? What should he/she not do?

We want to temper our zeal, for I'm not advocating doing violence or blowing up buildings, but there seems to me more than can/should be done than just clamoring for a pro-life candidate and then voting accordingly.

If you call yourself pro-life, what have you done to further the cause?

Yoo-hoo ... I'll make ya famous.

Many bloggers suffer from blog envy, desiring the number of hits the big boys get. Often, I've noticed posts just as good (if not better) from lesser known bloggers than you'd find from "the pen" of famous bloggers.

So ... I thought this would be most helpful to those who aspire to be famous bloggers.





If all else fails ...

Cartoons by Dave Walker.

An army without leaders is like a foot without a big toe.

This past month we had a great meeting of the Lone Star Founders Fraternal, the topic of conversation was church leadership by a plurality of elders. We had a great presentation by Jerry Halbrook of Parkway Baptist and great discussion.

Although mocked at times, a plurality of elders is a growing trend in Southern Baptist churches, where the pastor is one among equals. Elders are overseers who are freed up by deacons to focus on the more spiritual aspects of church while the deacons take care of the more physical aspects.

Sam Hughley has a good series of posts asking,
Elders in a Baptist Church?
(Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3)

In those posts, Sam shows that many reject the idea of a plurality of elders because it's associated with Calvinism, but he shows there is historic support for the practice among Baptists, and he shows that for opponents it's often a matter of not understanding the issues.

In my own past experience I've shown fellow (lifelong) Baptists the truths that:
1. a plurality of elders is biblically prescribed (not just described)
2. a plurality of elders has support of historic Baptists (i.e., it's not some new or Presbyterian only thing) by doctrinal statements (1644, 1689, 1858, and 1925) and church history.
3. a plurality of elders would be less confusing and better serve the interests of pastoral accountability.

They've acknowledged such, but then still said either:
1. Well, it's just not Baptist (because I'm a Baptist and have never done it that way before).
2. In spite of all that, I just don't like it.

I think much of it is ignorance, but also a fear of loss of power. Thinking they would not be elders frightens many deacons as they think they will lose power and somehow the pastor will gain it. Therefore, the "balance of powers" they seek will suffer.

Here I will lay out a brief case for a plurality of elders as the governing body in a Baptist church. That's the situation at Providence Church and I wouldn't have it any other way.

“Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.” (Heb 13:17)

This verse raises the question, who are the leaders in the church? To whose authority are people called to submit? Who are these men who watch over the church who must give an account? In short, who are the leaders in the church that are to be obeyed?

Examination of Biblical Data
NT churches were governed by a plurality of elders who were assisted by deacons who were appointed to serve the church in various ways. The pastor was an elder, but not all elders were pastors, in the vocational sense of being the primary person(s) responsible for preaching. For example, 1 Tim 5:17 notes that “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.” The word “pastor” (Greek is "shepherd") as a noun is only seen in (Eph 4:11), where we learn that God gives such pastors to the church as His gifts to equip the saints for the work of the ministry. Yet, it's a rather recent phenomenon whereby we seen a single pastor as the lone elder in a church.

Presbyters (also translated “elders”) and bishops (also translated “overseers”) were apparently the same individuals; the 2 terms were synonymous. For example, we note Titus 1:5 (“appoint elders”) which is followed by v. 7 (since an overseer “must be blameless”). The fact that the sentence in v. 7 begins with a “since” shows a connection: bishops are elders. Otherwise, why would Paul mention the qualifications of a group that were not whom Titus should appoint? In Acts 20:17 Paul calls the “elders of the church” of Ephesus together for a final meeting. Then, in v. 28 he addresses them as “overseers” (or bishops). Thus, any passage that deals with bishop is equally applicable to elders.

Oddly enough, Baptists would think nothing of having a plurality of deacons, even though the biblical treatment of deacons pales in comparison with texts dealing with elders. In fact, one would have a much more difficult time proving a plurality of deacons using only Scripture.

The consistent pattern in the NT is that each church (singular) had elders (plural). Note the following texts (where either elder or bishop is used):

• Acts 11:30--elders at the church of Antioch
• Acts 14:23--Paul and Barnabas appoint "elders in every church"
• Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4--elders at the church in Jerusalem
• Acts 20:17, 28--elders/bishops at the church of Ephesus (v. 17--"elders of the church")
• Acts 21:18--elders at the church in Jerusalem
• Phil 1:1--the church at Philippi has bishops and deacons
• 1 Tim 3:1-7--Paul tells Timothy, the Pastor, the qualifications for elders
• 1 Tim 5:17--elders at the church of Ephesus
• Titus 1:5--Titus is to “appoint elders” in every town (The early church had but one church in each city or
• town. Hence, Paul's instruction to Titus is to appoint multiple elders in every church.)
• James 5:14--"the elders of the church"
• 1 Pet 5:1-2--"the elders among you"

In every one of these texts the plain implication is that each church had more than one elder. The evidence is overwhelming and most SBC church governments miss the NT mark. The pastor would have been counted among them, but was not automatically over them (i.e., a pastor is an elder, but elders are not necessarily vocational pastors).


Examination of Historical Data
Although, like my church, I affirm Sola Scriptura, it is worthwhile to examine the issue of church government from a historical perspective.

First, the first London Baptist Confession of Faith (1644/46) dictates that each local church is to choose qualified “elders and deacons” for the “feeding, governing, serving, and building up” of the church. The second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) notes that the officers of the church are “bishops or elders, and deacons.” We next look at the first SBC creed, the Abstract of Principles (1858), which is still the doctrinal statement of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, KY) and Southeaster Baptist Theological Seminary (Wake Forest, NC). In it the officers of the church are elders and deacons. The first edition of the SBC Baptist Faith and Message (1925) noted that the officers of the church were elders and deacons. It’s not until the 1963 edition that we note a change to “pastors and deacons” as the officers of the church.

Historically, we can see that, at least as far as Baptists go, the absence of elders is a relatively recent phenomenon. It should also be noted that this change is observed not at the height of the denomination’s fidelity to biblical doctrine, but rather at a time when the conservatives were very much not in control. It was not until the late 70s and early 80s that a conservative resurgence of faithfulness to biblical inerrancy began to impact SBC life positively.

Examination of the Present State of Affairs in the SBC
The fact of the matter is that SBC ecclesiology is as varied as each individual church. However, a cursory examination of SBC churches in general reveals that the majority of SBC churches do not have an office labeled as elder, although many of them would label their pastor as their lone elder if pressed.

One problem with that concept is that a plurality of eldership is lost and you may have a (hopefully) benevolent dictatorship, since the pastor is the only elder and it is the elders who govern the church. Or the church may be led by a body other than the elders (e.g., deacons, the congregation, or an ambiguous combination of various rulers), contrary to Scripture.

As more and more churches shift back to a more biblical Christianity we are also seeing a rise in popularity of the plurality of elders in SBC churches. They two may or may not be related, but my contention is that the promotion of biblical inerrancy and a prioritization of Scripture over tradition are fueling this trend.


Suggestions for SBC Church Polity
In most SBC churches there is great ambiguity with regard to how decisions are made. For example, it is often unclear which decisions are to be made by the pastor, which decisions were to be made by the deacons, and which were to be made by the congregation at a business meeting. Is the church a strict democracy or is it run by “God’s man” who dictates what the church ought to do? Is the church governed by a deacon board who sees its primary responsibility as keeping the pastor in line?

My suggestion is for churches to examine their polity in light of Scripture and to see in our Baptist tradition the legitimacy of governance by a plurality of elders.

Scripture should be enough, in theory, but the reality is that arguments against this model are typically that it is “not Baptist,” which is patently false. It’s the minority report now, but the novel or trendy move has been one to a single elder model. Making the transition would not necessarily be smooth or easy, but nobody said following Christ was easy.

A church can only go where the leaders take it. Thus, it is crucial to have a church led by spiritually qualified men who meet the biblical qualifications of elder and seek to serve and follow the “owner” of the organization, the Lord Jesus Christ.


I have other resources I could recommend, but as Baptists continue the Reformation that began with the importance of the inerrancy of the Bible, I am confident that we will continue to abide by Sola Scriptura and Semper Reformanda to bring our churches more in conformity with Scripture.

This is the trend, but it is certainly not without opposition.

Truth hurts. Maybe not as much as jumping on a bicycle with a seat missing, but it hurts.

I'm sitting in the airport last night in St. Louis talking with a fellow Cardinals fan and the discussion turns to what I do in Texas.

He then wants to engage in a theological conversation, where his assertion is that religions are all the same, they just have a few different points of doctrine.

Of course, I had to object. No, I had to strenuously object.

It doesn't surprise me to hear such from the "man on the street," but twice now I've heard this type of thing from one in whom it is inexcusable.

If it happens once, perhaps you could say it's a fluke. A second time, it is what it is.

President Bush has (again, cf. 2003) said that all religions worship the same deity.

Well, first of all, I believe in an almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That's what I believe. I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace.

I have to echo the sentiment of Richard Land after the 2003 incident:

"Like many other Americans I applaud the president as a man of deep religious faith who attempts to bring that faith conviction to bear on public policy issues," Land told Baptist Press. "However, we should always remember that he is Commander-in-Chief, not theologian-in-chief. And when he says that he believes that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, he is simply mistaken."

Scripture "is clear" on the issue, Land added.

"There is one God and His name is Jehovah and His only begotten Son is Jesus Christ of the seed of Abraham and Isaac, whose mother was the Jewess virgin, Mary. Jesus our Savior has made it clear that we must know His Father through faith in Him and Him alone."

I know Christ's exclusivity is a truth that hurts, but falsehood hurts even more, having eternal consequences.

Although President Bush professes to be a Christian, his theology is inherently un-Christian and that should be huge cause for concern. I'm not a hater by any stretch of the imagination, but I hate the lie he believes and is propagating.

John Calvin wrote:

"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."

Something greater than freedom has been attacked. God's truth/Truth has been attacked and this aggression will not stand.

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." -Jesus, John 14:6

Life all comes down to a few moments. This is one of them.

Today is the 304th birthday of Jonathan Edwards. (HT Jay the Bennett, who has some good slooge about his "homeboy")

I just wanted to share one of my favorite Edwards bits. His recollection of his conversion, upon meditation of 1 Timothy 1:17. (In the past, I've also shared his "resolutions.")

The first instance, that I remember, of that sort of inward, sweet delight in God and divine things, that I have lived much in since, was on reading those words, 1 Tim 1:17. Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen. As I read the words, there came into my soul, and was as it were diffused through it, a sense of the glory of the Divine Being; a new sense, quite different from any thing I ever experienced before. Never any words of Scripture seemed to me as these words did. I thought with myself, how excellent a Being that was, and how happy I should be, if I might enjoy that God, and be rapt up to him in heaven; and be it as it were swallowed up in him for ever! I kept saying, and as it were singing, over these words of Scripture to myself; and went to pray to God that I might enjoy him; and prayed in a manner quite different from what I used to do; with a new sort of affection. But it never came into my thought, that there was any thing spiritual, or of a saving nature, in this.

Of course, per Edwards conversion entails a change in the affections and I always find myself inspired by the affection Edwards had for our Master.

OVER THE LINE!

When I heard of nooses hanging from the tree at the Jena high school, I thought, "No way that could happen in 2007." Surely the racists and bigots (I want to be inclusive here) know better than to come out from under their rocks where they hide.

Then I saw THIS:
5th Grade History Lesson Uses N-word as Crossword Puzzle Answer. (HT Tank)

Essentially a 5th grade teacher got a crossword puzzle from edhelper.com, to supplement their reading of Sounder, "a book is commonly used in classrooms nationwide to illustrate racial bigotry and sharecropping hardships through the eyes of a young black boy."

I don't know anything about the book, but I know about 17 across: "An insulting way to label a black person."

Oh yeah, that's exactly what you're thinking it is.

That's a word my kids have never heard, to the best of my knowledge, and one I'd love to shield them from forever, albeit unlikely.

The principal of the school said that the teacher "justifies it as a way to teach about how it was at that time."

Hey, I have a hatred for historical revisionism and I don't think our country should ever forget its past, lest it be susceptible to repeat it. In the same way, I don't think the Fatherland should ever forget the Holocaust.

However, that doesn't mean I'd advocate the Kinder drawing Swastikas to get a feel for what it was like for the Jewish people back in the day. There are certain things culturally off limits and I don't think it's a bold statement to say the line was heinously sailed over.

Sure, the teacher apologized, but that there could be any attempt at self-justification shocks me. I'm not necessarily saying a job should be lost, but I've seen it for less, so it wouldn't surprise me.

It was an accident. I'll take it again. I can fail, I know I can.

I got this trifecta of tests forwarded to me and I thought they were good enough to share. (HT Marky Mark)

They are based on the sayings/words of Jesus. Honestly, I think preaching through the parables this year and going through Luke on Sunday nights has given me a bit of a leg up. These are not easy.

1. Beginner’s Test
2. Intermediate Test
3. Advanced Test

I got a 10,10, 9. The one I missed on the Advanced I missed hard. I guessed at it and had to look it up. When I did it, I realized it would have been my last guess. There was another one on there that I basically had to go 50-50.

So, if you need to "phone a friend," I might not be your best option.

How'd you do?

I'm curious to see how you seminary boys do. I'm not sure my ThM or MSt really helped me much here. This is just knowing the Bible.