"Passion is taking a pretty big turn as we continue to say “yes” to Him. At the heart of the shift is an unmistakable calling Shelley and I have sensed in our lives over the past eighteen months…a calling to not only serve The Church around the world, but to give our lives to building up a church where we live. So, in coming months, by the grace of God, we will be planting a local expression of the Kingdom of God in our rapidly growing and diverse city that we hope will serve as a base for our influence throughout the world."
"Our intention is to continue to lead Passion Conferences, love university students, guide sixstepsrecords and have a global reach. It’s just that we’ll have a local community with the same DNA as the Passion Movement…a place we pray will touch Atlanta and the world."
And I'm going to put it side by side with Carl Trueman:
"But the church is surely not a mission field; rather, it is the place where Christians are fed and watered and grow to maturity. Put bluntly, you don't get fed at conferences and through reading books in order to go to church to evangelize the couple next to you in the pew. To the extent that the Reformed revival does not make this connection, or leaves it optional, to that extent it is not really Reformed or biblical."
And Mark Dever:
“We believe the local church is the focal point of God's plan for displaying his glory to the nations.” 9 Marks Ministry
And our Lord Himself:
"I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18
16 comments:
Eh bro,
the Mt. 16:18 reference does not apply to the church local, only the church universal...
Hi,
I guess that it should be qualified that the local church is by definition supposed to be a localized and contextualized expression of the church universal. The truth is that Christ has bought and purchased us with his blood to belong to a community. I find it difficult to obey certain commands in scripture if I am not even committed to a particularized, specific church community.
Of course, Matthew 16:18 does not refer to any particular church. However, in the context of Matthew 16, the church is the church is because of it's confession of Christ and the cross-bearing, self-denying following of Christ. Any local church which seeks to be faithful to the gospel in such confession and following may thus rightly expect Christ to be on their side to keep them and build the church.
regards
Edward
Edward,
the issue here, at least for me, is that Christ in Mt. 16:18 has promised to build his Church, but He does not promise to preserve any specific congregation, otherwise Christ'a promise has failed in the cases of the Middle East, and increasingly in Europe, where whole congregations and denomations had and have apostasized. Thus, it is errant to use Mt. 16:18 as a prooftext to prove that any particular church or denomination will always prevail throughout history and not be wiped out.
hi both, i don't think i was specifically saying that that verse refers to the local church - perhaps i should be clearer in my post. neither was i taking this as a promise for every congregation, rather it was quiet rejoicing that there are evidences of grace in the body of Christ.. i see it as a positive step forward for movements like the young calvinist..
Trueman - "Put bluntly, you don't get fed at conferences and through reading books in order to go to church to evangelize the couple next to you in the pew."
I like the way Trueman reminds us to be "outward" looking, contrasted with many "inward" looking Reformed churches in Singapore. The local church's focus is not merely the spiritual growth/feeding of members, or the reaching out to those attending church services.
What can the local church do to influence the NATIONS?
I have yet to see any Reformed minister/pastor writing to the Government/Press and voicing his opinions on key issues affecting the legislation/nation. All we see is e.g. the NCC Singapore making statements concerning important issues like biomedical ethics, homosexuality etc.
I wonder - Why the apathy?
We can fight and kill fellow Chirstians over doctrines like bible versions, supra/infralapsarianism, covenant theology etc, but aren't we concerned with the murder of thousands of lives/the direction the nation is going/the salvation of souls?
I guess its time for Christians to turn the world upside down with a loud voice.
Vincent:
although as believers we are to be salt and light of this world, and this most definitey means that we are to "voice our opinions" on these issues, among other social outreach [and I agree that "reformed" churches in Singapore are not doing this], how does one do this without crossing into what Steve Camp calls Evangelical Co-Belligerance?
Daniel,
I do not know much about Camp (as he is not an authority in this area). I am, however, acquainted with the name-calling of “Co-Belligerance.”
Try this:
http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2006InDefense.html
You can search for many other articles ... :)
Vincent:
while I am most decidedly not against Christian activism per se, the issue that I am troubled by is when the activity of Christians activism would put us in an alliance with for example Roman Catholics to oppose abortion. In such an alliance, it wouldn't be proper to seek to evangelize any RCs there because, after all, internal conflict is not allowed. That is what Steve Camp meant by Evangelical Co-Belligerance. While he obviously is not a theologian (He is a Christian music artiste), yet I think this issue indeed must be thought through as such would place the obligation to share the Gospel in conflict with the goal of Christian activistm. So I think such concerns must be addressed. Frame's article just indicates a general defense of Christian activism, but it is in the details as to how it interacts with the Great Commission that is the hard part.
Ah, Daniel, aren't we then speaking about the same things?
I have recommended a book before to you:
Biblical Seperation: The Struggle for a Pure Church by Ernest Pickering
The "details" are discussed in ... detail ... here. :)
And I guess your example of Evangelicals and Catholics “together” for abortion is not a fair assessment of the situation. There are many solid evangelicals – Frame and Poythress included – who strongly advocate social action without compromising the Gospel with unbelievers/false teachers. I suspect there is a more insidious reason for certain unfounded criticisms. I guess the relevant question here is: should we work together with other believers who do not cross our theological ‘T’s and dot our theological ‘I’s, and not so much a question of compromise with heretics.
http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2005/07/what-evangelical-co-belligerents.html
Obviously, Steve Camp meant more than that.
It is important, though, to note that his engagement with this issue is pretty shallow. I was hoping that there would be less ad hominem and more edify talk to fellow Christians.
http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2005/06/silence-of-lambsmuzzling-faith-for.html
Steve Camp wrote, “Ladies and gentlemen this is THE core issue and the problem with Evangelical Co-Belligerence. They may get it right some of the time in defining the problems of our society; but they miss the solution entirely when they offer no biblical solution for the cure of those moral maladies biblically. They are silent on the gospel; they're ashamed of it; they really don't believe it, trust it, or hold it in high esteem. If they did, it would be on their lips--"what's in the heart the mouth speaks." They claim to represent Christians in the political arena; they claim to be the self-appointed spokesmen for family values and morality; and yet, they are dumb in developing their arguments from the Word of God.”
My question: Are Christian MPs and Law Professors supposed to preach the Gospel in Parliament, or argue for their cause using the Bible in parliamentary meetings?
Daniel, I do not have the time now to rebut Camp’s superficial writings point by point, but he should at least refrain from name-calling and ad hominems.
Also search for "belligerence" in his blog.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/shallwe-reform-ccm.html
Finally brethren, do you think we should follow the above critique of Camp, and agree with David Cloud's conclusion?
I'll leave you to the answer :)
Here's the juicy bit:
Most of what is wrong with Camp’s Call to Reformation lies in WHAT HE DOES NOT SAY AND IN ITS LACK OF SPECIFICITY OR APPLICATION.
Typically, he does not name any names. You can get by with preaching very hard as long as you keep the preaching in the realm of generalities. Many of today’s evangelical pastors who are renowned for their preaching are masters of this. They preach hard and sound ever so bold, but you will never know exactly who they are preaching about. Steve begins the Call to Reformation by saying he does not want to condemn. Those are not the words of a prophet of God or an apostle of Jesus Christ. They certainly were not afraid to condemn when condemnation was needed. Consider the words of Jesus to the Pharisees in Matthew 23 or of Paul to Elymas in Acts 13. “And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?”
The Bible commands us not only to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness” but also to “REPROVE THEM” (Eph. 5:11). In fact, though Steve hints that he models his Call to Reformation after Martin Luther’s 99 Theses, it doesn’t have the spirit of Luther. No matter what can be said against him, old Luther was a bold preacher who did not forebear to state his case plainly and to name names and call a spade a spade! He had the courage and boldness to stir up a reformation even if he didn’t have the wisdom to carry it all the way to the Bible. That is the kind of preaching that is called for in this lukewarm hour. It is time for preachers to worry less about hurting someone’s sensitivities and more about offending the God who has called them to preach.
In the sections on the character of the musician, Camp, while quoting relevant Scriptures, is so general in his statements that the effect is hollow.
He does not mention the common practice among CCM musicians to love and even perform secular rock music. In fact, he does not say anything that would make me think that he no longer loves jazz, rock, and the other forms of sensual secular music that he mentioned in a 1986 interview.
He also did not say anything about the rampant and unscriptural ecumenism that permeates CCM. That is doubtless because of his own ecumenical associations. Steve lectured at the 2001 Christian Artists Seminar in Estes Park, Colorado, which is the mainstream of what he condemns in his Call to Reformation. These “seminars” began in 1981 in Europe and have featured thousands of contemporary artists, including many in various stages of very immodest attire and many who are yoked with secular corporations and who have borrowed the world’s music. Camp has also spoken in recent years at the Reformed Theological Seminary. Faculty members at this seminary hold leadership positions with the World Evangelical Fellowship and the National Association of Evangelicals. Thus, they are committed New Evangelicals. (See our book Evangelicals and Rome.) The school states at its web site that it is “committed to maintain openness to and appreciation for Christians in differing denominations and organizations in a loving spirit, thus contributing to the purity and the unity of the Christian community and witness.” That is the ecumenical philosophy, which downplays the significance of the alleged “tertiary” doctrines of the Word of God, such as ecclesiology and eschatology.
To the contrary, 1 Timothy 1:3 teaches that “no other doctrine” is to be allowed. That is very narrow. 1 Timothy 6:13-14 instructs the churches to keep the apostolic teachings “without spot.” That certainly refers to the details. In the immediate context of 1 Timothy 6:13, the “commandment” Timothy was to keep without spot was the instruction about the church, as that was the theme of the epistle (1 Tim. 3:15). The things that Paul covered in 1 Timothy pertain to church polity, which is one of the categories of “tertiary” doctrine that is not supposed to divide. For example, speakers at Promise Keepers events are not allowed to speak on such things. I cannot imagine Paul agreeing to that!
As noted earlier, Steve Camp is a spokesman for Food for the Hungry, an ecumenical organization that is represented by a wide range of mainstream ecumenical CCM artists, such as Bob Carlisle, Cheri Keaggy, Out of the Grey, Petra, Phillips Craig & Dean, and Wayne Watson.
Further, while Steve calls upon CCM musicians to “return to our churches and to the faithful pastors/elders that shepherd us,” he says nothing about the fact that a great many of the musicians are members of carnal and unscriptural churches that are led by worldly pastors who are the blind leading the blind.
FINALLY, CAMP DOES NOT CALL FOR THE BIBLE’S SOLUTION TO THE REBELLION WITHIN THE CCM INDUSTRY, WHICH IS SEPARATION FROM IT. He calls for separation from the secular music companies, but he does not call for separation from the compromised Christian music industry itself and from those who are living and teaching in open disobedience to the Word of God.
Romans 16:17 says, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and AVOID THEM.”
And 1 Timothy 6:3-5, “If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: FROM SUCH WITHDRAW THYSELF.” This verse is an apt description of the CCM Industry, as plainly admitted by Steve Camp in his Call to Reformation. God tells us what to do. Separate from them.
And 2 Timothy 3:5, “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: FROM SUCH TURN AWAY.”
In other words, like the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, Steve Camp’s call for reformation within CCM today is excellent as far as it goes, but it does not go nearly far enough. It is a partial reformation, and that can be more dangerous than no reformation.
In the days of the Protestant Reformation there were separatist Bible believers calling for a complete return to the apostolic faith. They were called anabaptists and baptists (not the heretics at Munster but those who followed the simplicity of the New Testament faith), and they were hated not only by the Catholics but by the Protestants as well. Yet they were the ones who were calling for a fully biblical position, which was not merely to reform the apostate entity of that day but to reject it outright. They rejected not only the papacy and indulgences but also everything else contrary to sound doctrine, including infant baptism, state churchism, the priesthood, and every form of sacramentalism. They were the ones calling for true liberty of conscience, something neither Rome nor the Protestants understood. It would have been well for all men had Luther and Calvin and Cranmer and all their associates followed the godly anabaptists’ lead.
The anabaptists did not merely reform the apostate entity of that day; they rejected it outright. That is exactly what we need to do concerning the corrupt and apostate Contemporary Christian Music Industry.
We don’t need to reform Contemporary Christian Music; we need to separate from it; and from that position of scriptural separation and obedience to the Lord, we must pursue excellence in Christian music and in worship and in every other aspect of the Lord’s service.
I am thankful that Steve Camp has issued his Call to Reformation, and I urge him to go even further and obey the Word of God in all things.
Vincent:
OKOK, I will check out that book then. I thought it was only on ecclesiastical separation?
With regards to Cloud, well let's just say I am not an anabaptist in spirit as he claims to be. Besides this, I think I wouldn't say more since I haven't read that specific book by Pickering.
hi both, i don't think i was specifically saying that that verse refers to the local church - "perhaps i should be clearer in my post. neither was i taking this as a promise for every congregation, rather it was quiet rejoicing that there are evidences of grace in the body of Christ.. i see it as a positive step forward for movements like the young calvinist.."
I agree, if it's an extention of the local church or working with the local churches. I see this as a good thing and needed thing. Where I am from there is only one Reformed Church in a radius of a good 100 miles or so. Grand Rapids is...2 hours away, the mecca of Calvinism..
Danial, isn't the local church part of the Universal Church?
Ken:
the local church is part of the universal church, but that does not mean that whatsoever is applicable to the universal church is also applicable to the local church. I think the logical fallacy is called attributing what can be applied to the whole to the parts.
agreed!
Post a Comment