A Cautionary Tale

Troubles at Mars Hill Church, i.e. how power corrupts.

JOYFUL EXILES – Fired Mars Hill Church Pastor Releases History

Accountability in Church Government

I was going to write something about accountability of church Elders. Working on the idea I came across this blog post by Douglas Wilson. It is pretty good, so I just link to it instead of duplicating of what he wrote.

Accountability in Church Government by Douglas Wilson

Here is quote:

 First, no human authority, including the authority of church leaders, has the right to require absolute submission. Under every human government, there comes a time when we must “obey God rather than men.” But second, such points requiring departure must be publicly demonstrable from the Word. Mere discomfort or disagreement, in themselves, are insufficient.

Why you should read Church Bylaws

Church Bylaws may be a boring reading but they can tell you a lot about the thinking and spiritual attitudes of the people writing them. Especially if you are or want to be a member of a relatively young, independent (non-denominational) church you should pay attention to what is in them because most probably the people who wrote them are still the Elders of the church. And the Bylaws may reveal some important things about the way the Elders think.

We know that we are all sinners (simul justus et peccator), not withholding the elders, so Bylaws will generally include a section about removal of an elder. It will describe the proper procedure usually culminating in “The affirmative vote of a majority of all other Elders then in office shall be required to remove an Elder”.

You may notice that this takes care of removing a single disqualified Elder by a vote of remaining Elders. Obviously it means that if your church has fewer than three elders then this procedure is not going to work.

But if you go through the potential scenarios of problems in the church and the ways to deal with them according to the Bylaws you may notice that one scenario may be missing: What if all the elders commit a disqualifying sin and simply ignore it? The Bylaws may in such a case provide no tools for the church to deal with such a situation.

Now, the objection would be that it is highly unlikely that all the Elders would disqualify themselves at the same time. However, such scenarios do happen in real life. An example of when all elders may fail simultaneously would be misuse of church discipline.  A highly likely scenario might occur if one of the elders, or a pastor,  does not fully share the vision and philosophy of the other elders. The elders may then be looking for faults in that person’s life to point them out as sins (and they eventually may find some). Because of underlying negative attitude to that person, they may rush to confront him. Even if the person repents, they may not follow Matthew 18:15, but instead may drag the sins into the open, with the result (if not the intent) of humiliating the other Elder. They are in this sinning against that person, but not only. If the sins of the one Elder in our hypothetical scenario were small, and the actions taken by the other Elders incommensurable with that sin, this will generally result in sowing a confusion through the congregation. If now the humiliated Elder leaves the church, the church is stuck with all the other elders having overstepped the boundaries of their authority and having disqualified themselves.

Now we come back to the Bylaws which now turn out to be completely insufficient in guiding the church how to properly deal with the situation. In particular if the elders were of one mind in the decisions that they made, they will mutually be convinced that they did nothing sinful (unskilled yes, but not sinful).

What has to happen is that all the elders together need to be examined to officially establish that they indeed committed an offence that disqualifies them. But the Bylaws determine that the only body having the authority to do this is the Board of Elders. This will only work if the elders are capable to admitting the error of their ways, but given how the above presented scenario unrolled, it is highly unlikely that the elders see their error and step down.

So what we are left with are some ad-hoc, haphazard solutions that unwilling elders will present to the congregation to investigate the situation.

Some of them, like establishing a committee of members to investigate the actions of the elders, are actually against the Bylaws, as the Bylaws say that the elders have authority above the congregation.

Bringing a third trustworthy party as an arbiter would be a good solutions, but the question is who  will have sufficient authority. A third party with the most authority would most likely see through the actions of the elders and would condemn them, so the elders may be unwilling to suggest or agree to call someone like that.

Would it not be much easier if the Bylaws contained clearly outlined procedures that could be applied in situations like this? They could be invoked by anyone from the congregation and then given their due course.

So why don’t the Bylaws include procedures to be applied if all the elders could be accused of disqualifying themselves?

There are several possible explanations (some are more and some are less gracious):

• Elders just did not think things through.
• There was an element of pride involved, assuming that it is “impossible for all these wise elders to fall”.
• Elders wrote the Bylaws to serve themselves not to protect the congregation.

So what is the lesson from this? Read your church Bylaws to see how they handle the above described scenario. If the Bylaws do not cover a case of all Elders being simultaneously at fault, ask your Elders what would your Church do. If they say “Oh, that would never happen” – you have been warned.

Do not steal: Against wealth redistribution by the State

Below you can find an essay titled “Do not steal”, talking about the role of the State in protection of private property and condemning state controlled wealth redistribution as essentially a theft. This is followed by answers to some popular Christian arguments for large Government-led social programs financed by redistributing wealth.

Do not steal

Translated from: “Nie kradnij”, Reformacja w Polsce, 2/2008, ISSN 1730-0347.

Bible tells us that the world and all that is in it belongs to God. The reason for this is obvious – God created the world. Behold, to the LORD your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it. (Deuteronomy 10:14) The earth is the LORD’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein. (Psalm 24:1) … for the world and its fullness are mine. (Psalm 50:12b). God, therefore, is a Creator, which means that he is the sovereign Lord of this world, and can do with it as he pleases.

God, however, right after creating the world entrusted it to Man: And God blessed them. And God said to them,”Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis 1:28). These words express the Cultural Mandate according to which Man is the steward of this world. Man is not an absolute lord, thus he cannot do whatever he wants with the world, but has to follow the rules/guidelines given by God.

Man is to rule the world but in all this he is to conform to the will of God. With thanksgiving, he is to explore the creation and transform it from glory to glory. God appointed Adam as a caretaker and guardian over Garden of Eden, but not just so that Adam would merely preserve the Garden untouched, but rather so that he could transform it and make it even more beautiful. God told Adam  and Eve to multiply and fill the Earth, and He gave them all resources they needed.

On the seventh day God rested from his labor and enjoyed its fruit. Adam, just like God, was to enjoy the fruit of his labor.

The Cultural Mandate, though given before the Fall, did not cease with the Fall. As we read in Genesis 9, God repeated it after the Flood. We are still stewards of God’s creation. God gave us talents, so that we could use and increase them to his glory. God also gave us his Commandments so that the our labor and its fruit could be protected.

Seventh Commandment  (“Do not commit adultery!”) applies first of all to the protection of family – the first  and most important institution established by God withing the context of the Cultural Mandate. In its larger scope, Seventh Commandment says that in order that society as a whole, and also every group within it, might survive and function as intended it needs mutual loyalty of all its members. It needs the sense of common fate, mutual obligation, and divine sanctions in case the covenant were broken.

Eight Commandment (“Do not steal!”) applies to the protection of assets that God gave to each and every person. By assets I mean here not only the property but also time, talents, abilities, which are gifts from God. Of course, some of us have more of these gifts while others have less, but it is wrong for us to demand that God use our standard of “fairness” as to what He gives and to whom. Jesus teaches us in one of his parables: Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity? (Matt. 20:15). In its larger scope, the Eight Commandment talks about mutual trust and confidence which then translates into a sense of security. Without that trust and sense of security it is difficult to use and multiply our assets because we would waste time and resources on safe keeping and protecting them.

The two last Commandments of the Decalogue also have wide social application. Keeping these commandments by a particular social group allows its members to be cooperate fruitfully in fulfilling the Cultural Mandate.  The Commandments, if kept, give us a sense that we live in a world where search for knowledge and diligence in work bring profit, while sloth and wickedness lead to ruin. If this sense is missing, we lack not only the motivation for diligent study and industrious work, but also have a sense of insecurity, that generally demotivates us from honest work and encourages laziness and deceit. In other words, Godly society rewards those who are honest, diligent and industrious, while the lazy are held in low regard.

Here we should mention the role of the State in all of this. Reading God’s Word leaves no doubt that the State exists to protect the society — chiefly to protect the life and property of its citizens (e.g. Romans 13:1-7). The role of the State is thus neither to multiply the assets (the wealth) nor to redistribute that wealth. The State should neither be directly engaged in the business nor should it punish those who are industrious. Unfortunately, for many reasons, it is precisely the redistribution of wealth, that is nowadays considered as one of the more important functions of the State. Marxists, following in footsteps of Socrates, go as far as to claim that the main cause of the conflict in the society lies in the private property. Getting rid of the private property will, in Marxist view, lead to extinction of strife, conflict, and poverty. They maintain that the amount of assets available is limited, thus one can get rich only at someone else’s expense – someone gains only if someone else loses. Socialists, emphasize that Man (a human) is more important than property and assets, thus where there is a conflict between property rights and human rights, we should choose human rights. As Theodor Roosevelt put it: “Property belongs to a man, not a  man to the property”.

Bible, however, does not teach that. First of all, the owner has the right to do whatever he wants with his possessions; of course, while also taking someone else’s property rights into consideration. In any case, as noted by Gary North in Tools of Dominion, when Socialists talk about the conflict between property rights and human rights, in reality we have to do with a conflict between property rights of two people or two social groups. Moses in the Law addresses this, when he presents the specific laws regarding what to do when someone’s property is destroyed. In any case, property right is one of the human rights. Whoever questions the property rights also questions the human rights. Of course, Man may make wrong use of his rights, including the property right, but that does not mean that we should strip him of that right, only provide and demand sanctions in case of abuse and to protect the rights of those who have been wronged. It seems, therefore, that when talking about the apparent conflict between the property rights and the human rights, the socialists want to break the relationship between a man and his property; in particular they want to transfer the property right from Man to the State. Eventually, this makes Man a slave of the State, who has no right to use the fruits of his labor as he pleases.

Secondly, it is indeed true that in worldview that presupposes a closed world, where God is just one part of it, rather then being the transcendent and omnipotent God, there is only limited amount of goods, resources, possibilities, etc. This might indeed suggest that, one person’s gain is another person’s loss. Bible, however, says that our God is not like that. For example, he is not constrained by the world and can create ex nihilo. In his Word, God commands us and shows us how we should transform what we encounter in our lives, from glory to glory, and among these things how we can and should develop and multiply what has been entrusted to us. We should remember that we are not only guardians of the Garden but also its managers.  This means that wealth of one man can and should be the source of the wealth of others. However, not via a forced (re)distribution of wealth supervised by the State, but via creation of places of work and via commerce. Of course, God calls us to care for the poor, but we should care for them in the way he directs us to do. The role of the State has to be limited to protection of assets, so that in this way human productivity can increase, so that we have means of helping the poor, to get them out of the poverty they are in.

Thirdly, Bible states that it is neither the property nor the wealth, but the love of money that is the root of all evil (1 Tim. 6:10). By eliminating private property, and replacing it with the State property, we will not eliminate strife and conflict, as the experiment called Communism has clearly shown. Property will always be there, and someone will manage it and profit from it. Love of money will not disappear when our pockets are empty. Envy will not stop being a problem when we nationalize the means of production. Moreover, we should not forget what Milton Friedman said about the way money can be spent. There are four ways: (1) we can spend our money on our needs (it is the best way, our interest is then both in efficiency and satisfaction); (2) we can spend out money on the needs of others (we may be more interested in efficiency than satisfaction); (3) we can spend somebody else’s money on our needs (we would be interested more in satisfaction than in efficiency); (4) we can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else’s needs (this is worst, because we are neither interested in efficiency nor satisfaction). The Socialist State of course spends somebody else’s money on its own needs (running the government) and on somebody else’s needs.

Thus, private property is the basis of the Cultural Mandate. Therefore, God’s Law protects private property. That the Eighth Commandments talks about private property, is confirmed by the Tenth Commandment (“Do not covet!”), where we see a prohibition of the envy of something that belongs to our neighbor, a concrete person. Infringing someone else’s property is thus both sin and crime.  In essence, it is infringing on God’s property that was given to that person in care. It is an attack on the Cultural Mandate instituted by God, on God’s plan for the world and for its transformation from glory to glory. Therefore, a society can thrive only if it values and protects private property. As members of society, we should value someone else’s property, we should neither try to acquire it lawlessly nor destroy it. The State has the sword, so that it can protect property of its subjects, so that it makes sure that theft does not pay. For this purpose the State may tax its subjects. If the situation is such that the members of the society feel that their property is threatened, then rather than concentrate on multiplying wealth, they will focus on protecting their property, which results in economic stagnation and poverty. Therefore, God’s Word encourages us to pray for those in offices of power, so that we can live quiet and peaceful lives and enjoy the fruit of our labor (1 Thes. 4:11, 1 Tim. 2:2). As Paul wrote Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor,doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need (Eph. 4:28). [END]

Socialist Christian arguments refuted

The above essay argues that, from a Christian point of view, the role of the State (Government) should be very limited. Ideally, the role of the State should not go much beyond Law and Defense, i.e. protection. However, there are Christians who argue for a more socially involved State. Obviously, Bible calls Christians to love their neighbors. This is interpreted by some as a mandate for not merely a protective State but also for a “caring” State (a Socialist State)

Let’s look at the typical New Testament passages that are used to argue for a Socialist state.

Acts 2:44-45 — And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.

A lot can be said about this passage, but let me just highlight main points. First of all this model Church life does not apply to all Churches in the New Testament. Elsewhere, we see that there were highly regarded Christians who did posses property (e.g. Philemon 1:1-2, Collosians 4:15). They did use it to serve the Church, but it was still their property. In other places, like e.g. letters to Corinthians, we see descriptions of churches that clearly had both rich and poor members. But, even if all churches of the New Testament period were like this church in Jerusalem, this is still not a mandate for a Socialist State. Notice that everything here was voluntary, something that cannot be said about the tax code.

Some try to see in this passage certain “proto-Marxist” elements. Indeed, there is talk about communal property which reminds us of Communism. However, Marxist philosophy of history and Marxist understanding of Man is diametrically different from the Christian perspective. A Marxist cannot be a Christian, and a Christian cannot be a Marxist.

Luke 18:18-27 — 18 And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’” 21 And he said, “All these I have kept from my youth.” 22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 23 But when he heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. 24 Jesus, seeing that he had become sad, said, “How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 Those who heard it said, “Then who can be saved?” 27 But he said, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.”

The most important point that this passage is teaching us is that we cannot do anything to “inherit eternal life”. This is where the ruler was wrong when he came to Jesus with his question. He was just like millions of religious people today who think that they will go to Heaven based on the fact that they we basically good people who do good things. Jesus answers the ruler that “No one is good except God alone”. Jesus then lists the commands of the law, but the ruler is very confident that he kept them just fine. Jesus shatters his self-confidence by choosing one aspect of his life where he was still lacking. That happened to be the lack of love for his neighbor and the love of the riches. Anyone thinking that verse 22 is just one more commandment that we should do in order to be considered good and inherit eternal life simply does not get the verse 19. “No one is good except God alone”. How then can we be saved? “What is impossible with men is possible with God”. We are saved by grace of God, who while we were still sinners saved us by the death of his Son.

Matthew 25:31-46 — 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

Many (see e.g. Matthew 25 Network) think that this whole passage represents a Christian Socialist Mandate. They think that this is a call for Christians to change the society into a “caring” society. However, the passage says nothing about society, state, or government. On the contrary, this passage describes judgment of individual persons, recounting their individual actions. The King looks at the attitudes of the heart. The righteous did good deeds out of the fullness of their hearts, while the cursed ones led self-focused and selfish lives. Indeed, this parable is a call to us to judge ourselves and see which group our lives are most similar to.

We do not need help of the state or the goverment to do good deeds. Moreover, it is a travesty to equate the individual good deeds that were commended in this passage with impersonal and inefficient state sposored programs financed by involuntary tax contributions. People who call this passage a call for Christian Social Action but want to finance it from involuntary taxes are contradicting themselves.

John Piper about the coming elections

Thoughts on Voting and Politics by John Piper.

Happy Reformation Day

Reformation Rap

Luther at the Diet of Worms

Nature abhors a vacuum

Baylor University has recently commissioned a survey the results of which are summarized here: Baylor Survey Finds New Perspectives On U.S. Religious Landscape (More info can be found here: Institute for Studies of Religion).

WSJ has a humorous article about this study: Look Who’s Irrational Now by M.Z.Hemingway.

Here are some quotes:

… The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won’t create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that’s not a conclusion to take on faith — it’s what the empirical data tell us. …

… The Gallup Organization, …  asked American adults a series of questions to gauge credulity. Do dreams foretell the future? Did ancient advanced civilizations such as Atlantis exist? Can places be haunted? Is it possible to communicate with the dead? Will creatures like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster someday be discovered by science?

The answers were added up to create an index of belief in occult and the paranormal. While 31% of people who never worship expressed strong belief in these things, only 8% of people who attend a house of worship more than once a week did. …

Of’course this is nothing new, maybe except to those in the Ivory Towers of academia and Mass Media who think that abolishing organized religion will bring in a new glorious age of science.