Skip to main content

Remove the Persistent Agitator

This is adapted from a manuscript of a recent sermon preached at Southside Baptist Church in Lebanon, TN.

As Paul brings his letter to Titus to a close, he wants to give some instructions on what to do with divisive church members who persistently disrupt the unity in the church with their wild theologies and controversies.

Titus 3:10-11—As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

1. The Church must be patient with divisive members (v.10a): Paul has already alluded to divisive members who promote “controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law” (v.9).  He says they are “unprofitable” and “worthless.”  Notice, Paul didn’t say that these divisive members were being unprofitable and worthless or that their theology is unprofitable and worthless, though those things are certainly true.  Paul says that they, the members themselves, are unprofitable and worthless.

This is why the job of the shepherding elders is so tough.  Not every person that enters our building is membership material, meaning that not every visitor is here for the right reason.  The reason we exist as the Church is to “declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light” (1 Pt.2:9).  But people come in all the time with their own agenda and motivations that are rooted in selfishness and not the gospel.

And sometimes, some of our own church members will become like those self-righteous visitors.  Some of our own members will hear a weird preacher with weird views, or else they’ll hear a good preacher with good views but they misunderstand something he says.  And then they begin to promote those weird views in the church, and before you know it divisions arise.

Paul gives Titus, as one of the elders of the Cretan Church, the responsibility of rebuking such divisive people.  But notice the patience with which the Cretan leadership is to have with them.  They are to be warned not once but twice.  This is very similar to Jesus’ teaching on church discipline in Matthew 18: call for repentance privately; then with two or three witnesses; and then tell it to the church.

In Matthew 18, however, sinning church members get three warnings.  In Titus, Paul is dealing with a more serious problem, namely false teaching that is causing division.  Someone who is committing adultery may or may not threaten the unity of the church.  Someone who has been unfaithful in gathering with the church may or may not threaten the unity of the church.  But false teachers spreading their gangrenous division is always a threat to the unity of the church.

Paul, however, is not saying that the false teachers ought to be ousted because of their false teaching, although that would be permissible.  Rather, Paul is saying that false teachers that are causing division in the church ought to be ousted.  And it is Jewish legalism that is especially in view in Paul’s mind.  Today, it might be denominational legalism or American-pride legalism or self-made moralism.  Yet in God’s grace, God calls for patience.

2. The Church must remove divisive members from its fellowship (vv.10b-11): Paul says to “have nothing more to do with” the divisive church member.  It means that after two warnings, the agitator is to be excommunicated and ostracized.  No more hanging out.  No more game nights or Mexican cheese dip or guy outings of any kind or shopping trips for the gals.

Paul is very adamant about this, and he tells us why in verse 11: “knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

Warped and sinful means that a person is beyond ordinary instruction.  While they are not beyond the power of God’s grace to work in them, we must understand that the primary way that God works grace into a person is through the preaching and teaching of God’s Word.  If a person is unteachable, always arguing and debating doctrine with a know-it-all attitude, then they are beyond God’s ordinary means of grace.

The phrase, “He is self-condemned” is very interesting.  Often people will react to church discipline by saying, “Who are we to judge?”  But notice that Paul does not promote the judging of others.  Rather, he makes it clear that such people are self-condemned, meaning they have brought judgment on themselves.  The church is simply confirming the sinner’s unrepentant status.

Sometimes we react to a single teaching of Scripture like this as if it is an isolated instruction, but the teaching on church discipline is far from being a single teaching.  Here’s a few examples of other places that mention the removal of and warning about unrepentant members:

2 Thessalonians 3:6—Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

2 Thessalonians 3:14—If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.

Galatians 6:1—Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness.  Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.

Romans 16:17-18—I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve.

The biblical evidence is clear.  The church should not tolerate theologically divisive people, but we should lovingly remove them from our fellowship.  For church discipline is love in three directions:

1) Love for the unrepentant person–It is better they suffer now than to suffer eternally in hell.  The hope is that they will repent and get right with Jesus.

2) Love for faithful members–We hear a lot about harming the unrepentant sinner, but what about the rest of the church that is walking faithfully with Jesus?  What is it teaching our children when a church member is living in adultery and the church stands by and does nothing about it?

3) Love for the glory of Jesus–Ultimately, it’s all about Jesus.  The Church has been saved and set apart for the purpose of making Jesus look good, for shining the spotlight on Him.

May the Lord continue to purify for Himself a people who willingly remove unrepentant members from its fellowship with patience and love in the hopes of bringing them back to repentance.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Jeremy Vanatta

“Plurality of Elders”: The Preeminent Structure for Church Leadership

In the previous article “Elder”: The Preeminent Term for Church Leaders,” we learned that the term “elder” is by far the most frequently used term for church leaders in the New Testament.  As was previously noted, this doesn’t mean that we should no longer call church leaders “pastor/shepherd” or bishop/overseer.” But I did suggest that the preeminence of the term “elder” might affect our understanding of how decision-making ought to happen in the local church.  I said this because the contexts in which the term “elder” occur reveals a lot about the leadership structure of the early church.

Today I will be noting the three main church leadership structures that have been employed over the last two thousand years and try to determine which one gives Christ the most preeminence, especially as it obeys Scripture the closest.

1.  Episcopal:  The Episcopal form of leadership has been the most used form since at least Ignatius of Antioch and was practically undisputed until the Reformation.  This remains the form of church leadership in the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Anglican/Episcopalian churches.

2.  Presbyterian:  The Presbyterian form of leadership has been common in Presbyterian and Reformed churches and is commonly described as elder-rule.  A plurality of elders are elected by the congregation or the drawing of lots.  These elders also serve as leaders in the regional body of churches (classis), and the classis will send a chosen few to a broader body of leadership known as a Synod.  These broader bodies do not have a higher authority except only in so far as authority has been delegated to them.

3.  Congregational:  The Congregational form of leadership is founded on the principle of each local congregation being an independent, self-governing body of Christ.  Congregational churches may be involved in associations of other local churches and conventions of churches across a wide geographical area, but congregational churches remain autonomous—that is self-regulated.  If you have been a long-time Baptist then you will understand this form of leadership the best.  But you might be surprised to learn that there are two main forms of Congregationalism:

a)  Single elder-led/Congregational-rule:  This is when the congregation elects a single man to serve as the elder of the church.  While the elder is sought for council and leadership, the congregation makes nearly all of the decisions.

b)  Plural elder-led/Congregational-rule:  This is when the congregation elects a body of elders to serve as a plurality of leadership.  They will not all be paid staff of the church but they all will be responsible for shepherding, teaching, equipping, and being examples to the congregation.  Usually there will be a “first-among-equals” that does the majority of the public teaching and may be the only paid staff.

In some cases, the elders are sought for council and leadership, yet the congregation makes nearly all of the decisions.  In other cases, the congregation is free to take opinions or concerns to the elders, yet the majority of decisions are made by the elder body.  Usually the only decisions that the congregation actually vote on include an annual budget, appointment of elders or deacons, major building programs, or the admission/dismissal of a member.  The congregation elects the elders and trust that they will shepherd the flock faithfully.  If they have issues with any of the elders’ decisions or an elder himself, then they simply talk with the elders about it.

It is my conviction from Scripture that a plural elder-led/ congregational-rule best reflects the New Testament evidence of what local church leadership ought to look like.

a.  Evidence of a plurality of elder-led leadership:  There is ample evidence in the New Testament of a plurality of elder-led leadership.

Acts 11:29-30—So the disciples determined, everyone according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers living in Judea.  30 And they  did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.

Acts 14:23—And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

Acts 15:22-23—Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.  They sent Judas called Barsabbas and Silas, leading men among the brothers,

Acts 20:17, 28—Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church to come to him. . . . Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God.

Philippians 1:1—Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints of Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons.

1 Thessalonians 5:12—We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work.  Be at peace among yourselves.

James 5:14—Is anyone among you sick?  Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

Hebrews 13:7, 17—Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God.  Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. . . .  Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.  Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

b.  Strengths of a plurality of elder-led leadership:  Not only is there biblical evidence for a plurality of elder-led leadership, but there are lots of common sense reasons why it is a better system.  The following seven strengths are drawn from Mark Dever’s The Deliberate Church.

1)  It curbs the exaltation of one man above others

2)  It balances the strengths and weaknesses of the leaders (1 Cor. 12:27-30)

3)  It gives greater pastoral wisdom (assurance in knowing and doing God’s will; Acts 6; 15:25; Matt. 18:18-20)

4)  It indigenizes leadership

5)  It enables corrective discipline

6)  It reduces congregation criticism

7)  It reduces “us vs. him” thinking

c.  Weaknesses of a single elder-led leadership:  There are also lots of common sense reasons that a single elder-led, congregational-rule system is quite weaker.

1)  It is easier for a few influential people to manipulate a congregation than it is to manipulate a plurality of elders.

2)  It is easier for a congregation to bulldoze a single pastor than a plurality of elders.

3)  It is easier for a congregation to idolize a single pastor to the point that he becomes an autocratic leader that is “above the law.”

4)  It is easier for dissension to grow in the congregation because everyone considers himself a decision maker in the church.

5)  Most single elder-led congregations have adopted an elder-led structure by default:  We see this in congregations where the body of deacons is looked to as the decision makers in the church.  While the deacons must have the congre-gation’s vote to make it official, everyone knows that it is mainly a formality.  The problem with this system is that deacons are not qualified to serve as elders.  Therefore, it would be best to simply adopt the most biblically sound leadership structure—a plurality of elders that are entrusted to lead the congregation.

While there is certainly some room for debate on the issue of church leadership structures, it  seems that the weight of New Testament evidence points to a plurality of elders who lead the local congregation.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Jeremy Vanatta

“Elder”: The Preeminent Term for Church Leaders

Who are the leaders in the local church?  That’s a simple enough question, but it sometimes proves difficult to answer.  Really, there is only one leader of the local church–Jesus Christ, Son of God.  Paul teaches us this in Colossians 1:15-20:

Colossians 1:15-20—He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.  16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.  17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.  18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.  19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

From these verses we learn two crucial truths about Jesus. 1) Jesus is preeminent over all creation (vv.15-18).  2) Jesus is preeminent over the Church (vv.18-20)

While this answer is obvious, we often give lip-service to this truth with little real life application.  So its important for the local Church to look to Jesus as its authority in all things.  And one of those things has to do with who He has appointed to lead His local churches.

While there are several structures used by various denominations and churches that are adequate enough, we are in search for something more than adequate. We are in search for the leadership structure that gives Jesus the most preeminence.  And our search must begin with Scripture and not simply our own traditions.

The first step is to define the terms used for Church leaders in the New Testament.  I believe the best text to start with on this issue is Acts 20:17-29.

Acts 20:17, 28-29—Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church to come to him. . . . 28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.  29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;

1.  Three terms: There are two terms for Church leaders used in these verses (elders/overseers), and the third term (pastor) is indirectly alluded to with the use of the word flock.  We will also look at a fourth term (deacons) that the New Testament mentions as well.

a.  Elder (presbuteros):   This term is used 16 times in the New Testament in reference to local Church leaders (Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; 1 Tim. 5:17, 19; Tit. 1:5; Jas. 5:14; 1 Pt. 5:1, 5).  The word elder is best defined as an official within a group and is sometimes translated presbytery.

b.  Overseer (episkopos/episkopein):   The term is used in reference to local Church leaders 4 times (Php. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1, 2; Tit. 1:7).  The word overseer is best defined as one who is engaged in oversight or supervision of a group of people and can also be translated as bishop.

 c.  Pastor (poimein):  The term is used in reference to local Church leaders only 1 time (Eph. 4:11) The verb form of the word is used 2 times (Acts 20:28; 1 Pt.5:2) in reference to local church leaders.  The term is literally translated shepherd (or the verb form, shepherding), which highlights the pastor’s role as a leader and protector of Jesus’ sheep

  d.  Deacon (diakonos):  The term is used in reference to local Church leaders 3 times (Php. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8, 12).  It is best defined in two ways: 1) an agent or courier who serves as an intermediary in a transaction; 2) an assistant who gets something done at the request or command of a superior. Based on the meaning of the word itself and the evidence in the New Testament, the office of deacon is a servant body, NOT A DECISION-MAKING BODY.

This is where many churches (including many Baptists) have erred the most.  No where in Scripture do we see deacons as the primary decision makers in the Church.  Rather, the deacons exist for the purpose of meeting the physical needs of the congregation so that pastors can be freed up for prayer, study, and teaching of God’s Word.

2.  One office: While there is debate among Christians, the biblical evidence is most in favor of these three words being used in an over-lapping sense.

a.  Scripture confirms this:  The Scripture that we read today, Acts 20:17, 28-29, is most convincing, but two others clearly support this understanding as well.

Titus 1:5, 7a—This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you . . . 7a  For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach . . .

In Titus, Paul tells Titus to appoint elders, and then he goes on to describe the qualifications of an overseer (1 Tim.3:1-7).  If the words elder and overseer are not being used in an overlapping sense here, then Paul is indeed confusing.

1 Peter 5:1-2—So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder   and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed; 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly.

This time it’s Peter using the terms in an overlapping sense.  He commands the elders to shepherd (i.e. pastor) the Church by exercising oversight (i.e. overseeing/bishoping).

b.  Scripture never lists separate qualifications for the three terms:  This is proven by looking at Titus 1:5, 7a again and cross-referencing it with 1 Timothy 3:1-7.  Therefore, we can conclude that the three words refer to one office in which qualified men have the same function (primarily that of teaching and leading the flock).

3.  The preeminent term of “elder”:  As we have seen, the word elder is used 4 times the frequency of overseer, and the word elder is used 16 times the frequency of pastor.  Therefore, the preeminent term for a church leader in the New Testament is elder.

4.  Plurality of elders:  While it doesn’t really matter which of the three terms we call the ministers in the local Church, the fact that the term elder is the most prominent does affect our understanding of how a Church is led.  Over the years, I have been convinced from Scripture that a plurality of elders is what God intends for the local Church.  I still whole-heartedly affirm congregationalism, but I have come to believe that a Church should have more than one elder/overseer/pastor.  And that will be the next topic on The Threshing Floor . . .

Soli Deo Gloria,
Jeremy Vanatta

The Tithe That Binds, part 3

Having presented the case that Old Testament tithing is no longer binding as a law for New Testament believers, and having put forth the abiding principles of faith, sacrifice, and worship as the center of giving in the New Testament, I now want to present and answer the most common objections to my view that I have encountered over the years (some of which have already been addressed in the previous articles).

1) Some have said “Jesus commanded us to tithe”: This conviction comes primarily from Matthew 23:23/Luke 11:42.  About the tithing of herbs, Jesus certainly says, “These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others” (Mt.23:23), but we must remember that the overall context and the overall biblical theology of this phrase (i.e., how it fits into the entirety of scriptural teaching) must guide our interpretation.  Jesus is talking to Jews living under the Old Covenant system.  We should expect Him to command them to tithe, just as He would command them to circumcise their baby boys, eat kosherly, observe all of the feast days, and keep the Sabbath Day holy.

If we are going to insist that Jesus is commanding us to tithe from these texts, then we must be consistent in our interpretation of other such commands from Jesus.  For example, in John 13:14-15 Jesus commands His disciples, “If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.  For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you” (emphasis added).  Admittedly, foot-washing is not an Old Testament law, but it does serve as a command of Jesus nonetheless.  It is the very Word of God just as much as His Word on tithing, but few Christians would say that foot-washing is binding on New Testament believers (minus a few groups here and there).

2)  Some have said, “I know that you have a seminary education but . . .”: I have to say that this one can be a bit disconcerting.  What does a seminary education have to do with anything?  Certainly, such an education can sway a person to my view on this issue.  But just as certainly, an education can sway a person to believe that the tithe is still binding in the New Testament.

3)  Some have said, “Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek before the Mosaic Law”: I have briefly addressed this in Part 1 of this series but want to say a bit more here.  While it is true that tithing predates the Law in the Old Testament, so too does circumcision.  Every orthodox branch of Christianity agrees that circumcision is no longer binding on God’s people under the New Covenant.  Some may object that circumcision was the sign of the old covenant.  Therefore comparing tithing and circumcision is like comparing apples to oranges.  I must respectfully disagree.  I do so respectfully because I do agree that circumcision was the sign of the covenant.  But I consider this a false dichotomy.  Even though circumcision was the sign of the covenant, this makes tithing no less a part of the Mosaic Law.  While tithing was not the centerpiece of the Law, it certainly was the major tool for funding the religious system that carried out the other laws and duties of the covenant such as circumcision.  In other words, the tithe “paid” for the procedure of circumcision.

4)  Some have said, “Won’t this encourage people to give less”: This may be the most frequent objection I have heard, that on one hand I consider to be the most reasonable.  It is the most reasonable because it can be the most natural response.  We might say this is man’s natural response to a financial issue.  I’ve noticed over the years that people get antsy when the money gets tight in the local church.  Our natural reaction to such a problem is usually law.  We tend to believe that laying down a standard percentage for giving and then teaching that standard a bit dogmatically will lead to more faithfulness.  But this misses the point of giving entirely.  Law-based giving lends itself to legalism and worry over whether you have met the “standard.”  Grace-based giving, however, lends itself to freedom in the Spirit.  The “standard” for giving in a grace-based economy leads to a deeper reality of worship.  The people that would use my interpretation of the tithe to wiggle their way out of “having” to give more money have already nullified God’s grace anyway.  Both legalistic giving and libertarian giving miss the point of the Bible: grace-based giving.

While this series of articles on the tithe may have left some things unanswered, I pray that it serves to help us understand God’s Word and to keep lines of communication between Christians open.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Jeremy Vanatta

The Tithe That Binds, part 2

Having presented the case that Old Testament tithing is no longer binding as a law for New Testament believers, I thought it important to lay out further the principles, or patterns, of giving that saturate the New Testament.  I will also be writing a third and final part that will answer the most common objections that I have encountered in my ministry.  As stated in part 1 of The Tithe That Binds:  “While tithing is no longer a law to be obeyed, it certainly remains a principle to be applied.  Whatever our view on tithing, the binding principles behind the giving of tithes is strongly reaffirmed in the New Testament: faith, sacrifice, and worship.”

Rather than a continuation of a total tithe of 23.3% (Num.18:21-24; Dt.14:22-27; Dt.14:28-29), the New Testament presents giving based on the principles of faith, sacrifice, and worship.  (These are certainly not the only principles, but they are the prevailing ones).  These three principles were also present in the Old Testament economy, but they have taken on an even more profound importance under the New Testament.

1)  Faith: True New Testament giving is first of all an act of faith.  Both sacrifice and worship are impossible without faith in God.  When we give out of obligation, guilt, or greed (hoping to get something from God), then the purpose of giving is lost.  The reason we give is to joyfully see the work of God carried on, lives changed, provisions given, and God glorified.  The purpose of giving is to turn our naturally stingy hearts into generous hearts.  Indeed, we are to give joyfully or not at all.  Paul’s word to the Corinthian Church, though he doesn’t actually use the word “faith,” is a reminder of how our giving is really an indicator of the quality of our faith.

2 Corinthians 9:6-8—The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 Each one must give as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work.

2)  Sacrifice: Sowing bountifully not only requires faith but also sacrifice.  By its very nature, faith hinges upon giving up something in order to gain something better.  For example, real faith in Jesus for salvation hinges upon giving up our self-perceived “right” to rule our own lives (otherwise known as sin) in order to gain forgiveness of sin and eternal life.  That hinge is what the Bible calls repentance.  There is no faith in Jesus without repentance, nor is there repentance without faith in Jesus.

Like salvation, the giving of money to the Lord’s work through the local church requires sacrifice on the part of believers.  We see a great illustration of sacrificial giving in the early church in Acts 4:32-37.

Acts 4:32-37— Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. 33 And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold 35 and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. 36 Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, 37 sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

The principle of sacrificial giving is founded on an even more encompassing principle: Christ sacrificed it all (His very life) that we might have a better standing with God.  Hear what the writer to the Hebrews says:

Hebrews 8:6-7—But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

3)  Worship: The New Testament is clear that God is to be valued above earthly possessions because God is the Creator, worthy of all of our attention and adoration.  A realistic view of possessions includes the acknowledgement that earthly things will fade away but God and His gospel are eternal.

Matthew 6:19-20—“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.

Jesus commands us not to treasure earthly wealth in the place of what is most valuable, namely God.  Once we see possessions as we should, then we will be free to give to the church with the right motives (Matt.6:19-24).  One way that we do this is through the giving of money to a local church as a part of our worship of God.  Let’s state it clearly:  Giving is an act of worship, just as much as singing, praying, and hearing God’s Word.

In the New Testament, there is no law on giving but one: Give!  Give in faith.  Give sacrificially as God leads you by His Holy Spirit.  Give as an act of worship of a God who has sought us and bought us by the blood of His Son.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Jeremy Vanatta

3 Reasons I’m a Posttribulationist

I have been a posttribulationist now for 12 years.  Back then, I would not have seen such a transition from my pretribulationist past coming, but it happened.  I can say with all confidence that it happened because I was convinced from Scripture and not some fly-by-night T.V. personality or fanciful author.  I can also say with all assuredness it happened despite it being among the more infamous views in my own evangelical circle.

First,  I want to affirm the non-dogmatic status to which all mainline eschatological views should be viewed.  Whether we end up being pretribulation, midtribulation, posttribulation, premillennial, postmillennial, or amillennial, we should all be able to get along as long as we all affirm that Jesus Christ will literally return one day to deliver His people and judge those who have not trusted Jesus.

Second, I want to admit that not all 3 of my reasons for being a posttribulationist carry equal weight.  Some may be stronger than others, but I believe each one is rooted in Scripture.

Without further ado, I am a postribulationist because . . .

1)  It is the most contextual view:  This means that posttribulation better allows individual texts and even entire books to speak for themselves without bringing in undue baggage from other texts.  This is especially true regarding Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians and 1 & 2 Thessalonians.  For example, let’s take a look at 1 Thessalonians 5:1-10.

1 Thessalonians 5:1-10  Now concerning  the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need to have anything written to you.  2 For you yourselves are fully aware that  the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.  3 While people are saying, “There is peace and security,” then  sudden destruction will come upon them  as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.  4 But you  are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief.  5 For you are all  children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness.  6 So then  let us not sleep, as others do, but let us  keep awake and  be sober.  7 For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk,  are drunk at night.  8 But since we belong to the day, let us be sober,  having put on the breastplate of  faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation.  9 For God has not destined us for  wrath, but  to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him. (ESV)

Based on the context of these verses, we see that the topic is the Second Coming of Christ because it speaks of destruction coming upon unbelievers (v.3).  So whether pre-trib or post-trib, all should be agreed.  But not only will unbelievers be present on the Day of the Lord, but the Church will be too.  According to Paul, the Thessalonians will not be surprised by “that day” (v.4).  It is not that the Rapture occurs some 3.5 or 7 years before “that day” because Paul is certainly calling the Thessalonains to be vigilant (vv.5-8).  If the Thessalonians are going to be in heaven with Jesus, why would Paul even mention this?  Why would he call them to be vigilant and discerning about the times?

2)  It is the least complicated view:  Even a pretribulationists must admit that the posttribulation view is the simplest, especially if understood from an amillennial perspective.  Occam’s razor proves often true:  The simplest solution is often the correct one.  Even in the 1 Thessalonians 5 passage above we see this to be true.  A posttribulationist reads these verses and simply concludes: Jesus is coming back at a time unknown to believers and unbelievers, but it will occur on “the Day of the Lord,” a day on which unbelievers will be destroyed but believers will be delivered from God’s wrath.  No charts or timelines necessary.  No further complexity need be inserted.

3)  It is the most covenantal view:  Posttribulation maintains a closer relationship between God’s Old Testament people and God’s New Testament people, affirming that the Church is the New Testament fulfillment of all that we find in the Old Testament.  This means that the New Testament Church is made up of both Old and New Testament believers, and there should be no separation within God’s people along nationalistic or genealogical lines.  And this does not amount to “replacement theology” in which some would say that the Church has replaced Old Testament Israel.  Rather, I would term it “fulfillment theology” (Rom. 2:28-29).  While greater multitudes of Jews may believe on Jesus as the latter days draw nearer (Rom. 11), this does not automatically necessitate a literal “time of the Jews” in which the Church is missing.  After all, to be a follower of Jesus means you are a part of His body, the Church.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Jeremy Vanatta

9 Marks of a Healthy Church

9 Marks of a Healthy Church was published by Crossway and written by Mark Dever, pastor of Capital Hill Bapist, Washington D. C., and the executive director of 9 Marks ministries.

Perhaps one of the more troubling facts regarding the current state of most evangelical churches in America is the dire state of their overall spiritual health. I am almost embarrassed to admit it, but I am a late comer to Mark Dever’s 9 Marks of  a Healthy Church.  Not only do I verge on shame, I’m actually twinged with regret as I have no doubt that Dever’s words of wisdom would have strengthened my many weaknesses and failings in my previous pastoral posts had I read his work earlier.

Dever has accomplished much for the church with this book.  Rather than sit on the sidelines in perplexity at the problems facing too many churches, Dever challenges us to contemplate and (re)commit ourselves to nine of the most fundamental catalysts for church health.  While so many things could be said of this book, I will limit our discussion to a brief summary of each of the nine marks:

1.  Expositional preaching: This is the supreme mark of a healthy church.  God brings spiritual life through the expositional preaching of His word.  Expository preaching is preaching that draws its main point from the main point of a particular passage.

2.  Biblical theology:  A healthy church has a biblical understanding of God’s character and ways.  Dever summarized the main thrust of the Bible’s teaching on God when he noted, “that He is creating; that He is holy; that He is faithful; that He is loving; and that He is sovereign” (p.60).

3.  The Gospel:  A healthy church recognizes the centraility of the work of Christ (death, burial, resurrection) for all those who would repent of sin and believe in His atoning sacrifice.  This repentance and believe is not simply out of tradition but actually changes the way the believer lives.  True repentance and faith is not just a one time thing but is a lifelong characteristic of the believer.

4.  A biblical understanding of conversion: A healthy church understands that conversion is an act of God.  Just as no one can “born themselves” physically, neither can a person be born again spiritually without the initiating and efficacious working of the God the Holy Spirit.

5. A biblical understanding of evangelism: A healthy church is actively evangelistic, but not necessarily in a programmed sort of way.  Rather, evangelism is the natural overflow of Christian worship and fellowship.  Simply put, the church is the evangelistic program.

6. A biblical understanding of church membership: A healthy church emphasizes and requires faithful membership for the sake of purity, accountability, and mutual edification.

7. Biblical church discipline: A healthy church disciplines blatanly sinning members for the sake of the sinner, the ones offended (other believers and God), and the unbelieving world.

8. A concern for discipleship and growth: A healthy church disciples new believers, as well as more mature believers, with the word of God and in mutual accountability around God’s word, most easily done through covenanting together around a common statement of believe such as a church covenant.

9. Biblical church leadership: A healthy church seeks out leaders based not on secular qualifications but on biblical qualifications of godly character and trustworthiness.  Both pastors and congregations will be held accountable for what is being taught from the pulpit.

May the Lord continually purify His church and may His church continually submit to His sanctfiying work so that every local body of Christ will be spiritually healthy for God’s glory.

For His Glory,
Jeremy Vanatta

Slippery Little Fellas: 10 Common Signs of False Teachers

It seems most natural for man to fear serpents.  All the world over snakes find themselves the repeated targets of panicked ophidiophobics (snake-fearers).  Two memorable occasions stand out in my experience that prove my point.  One was watching a “macho” fifteen year old boy run out of the tobacco field screaming like a lady and cussing like a sailor because he saw a rattlesnake.  The other was observing twenty or so African men in Zimbabwe, along with a few Americans, gathering  around a puff adder with rocks in hand.  I imagined in that moment what it must have felt like to be the woman caught in adultery or Stephen who was martyred for his testimony about Jesus Chirst.  As with Stephen, the puff adder died for his testimony–the adder’s testimony being, “Yes, I am an adder.  Here I lie!”

In some ways, man’s fear of serpents is unwarranted and more often rooted in frenzy rather than fact.  Serpents, however, can be dangerous creatures depending on the ones you encounter.  Perhaps one of the reasons that man has such difficulty with snakes is because they are simply so stealthy.  Yes, most snakes bite and/or coil, and some snakes use venom on their prey.  But at the end of the day, these predatory features are only as useful as a snake’s slipperiness.  They accomplish such stealth via their God-cursed ability of slithering from place to place.

We can draw many parallels between serpents and the perennial enemy of God’s church.  Satan, with false teachers under his direction, have always posed a threat to the health of the local expressions of Christ’s body.  While we all freely admit that false teachers are dangerous for the church, it is their slithery character that catches us off guard.   Jude reminds us of this dangerous aspect of false teachers when he writes, “Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.  For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (Jude 3-4).   Notice that they “crept in” (the verb literally means, “to go down into” or “to come alongside”).  The implication of the word is saturated with creepiness and stealthiness.  False teachers are indeed slippery little fellas.

Well, since false teachers are so dangerous, what exactly are the dangers?  I will attempt to answer this question only briefly and partially using Scripture as our guide.  False teachers may have one, more, or all of these ten dangerous characteristics:

Dangers of False Teachers

1.  They disguise themselves as sheep but are really ravenous wolves (Matthew 7:15)

2.  They will bring destructive heresies into the church secretly (1 Peter 1:21)

3.  They lead many astray (Matthew 24:11)

4.  They are spoken well of by “all” (Luke 6:26)

5.  They attack true believers (1 Corinthians 11:26)

6.  They preach a form of works-righteousness rather than grace (Galatians 2:4)

7.  They stray from core Christian beliefs (1 Timothy 6:3-4)

8.  They are arrogant, though this may be hidden beneath sheep’s clothing (1 Timothy 6:4)

9.  They are greedy and liars (1 Timothy 6:5-10; Titus 1:10-16)

10.  They seek to please man rather than God (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

Therefore, Christians ought to be on the lookout for such Slippery Little Fellas.  Prayerfully, these ten dangers will remind us of their character and tactics.  May God continue to protect His church and His truth from the wiles of the Serpent and all his brood.

Church Planting Is for Wimps

The book Church Planting Is For Wimps is not, as you might guess from the title, your typical approach to the topic of church planting.  As his subtitle notes, the author, Mike McKinley, admits that he is a messed-up person.  Immediately, the (honest) reader can relate.  McKinley served on the staff of Capital Hill Baptist Church, Washington D.C.  In 2005, God called him to revitalize Guilford Baptist Church, Sterling, VA.  This book is a recounting of how God used McKinley to accomplish this feat.

McKinley writes openly and honestly, with humor and insight.  He has a knack for keeping the reader involved in the story.  Of course, the title communicates much sarcasm since the book is the story of a church revitalization as opposed to a fresh plant; but McKinley in no way communicates disdain for church planting.  The book is a must read for those praying about church planting or revitalization.  While there are plenty of wisdom nuggets to be found in the book, I want to share the following three:

1)  Beware of contextualization: while certain aspects of contextualization have their place, it does seem to be the newest catchphrase for the “homogeneous unit principle”–you know, the “pick your social demographic and appeal . . . to them” (p.20) model.  This form of contextualization is problematic for at least two reasons: it caters to the flesh rather than the spirit, and it steers God’s people away from a gospel-centered unity.  As McKinley noted, “People favor people who favor them.  They favor goods and services tailored to their tastes and how they want to perceive themselves.  Niche marketing works.” (p.17).  But, as he went on, “if you look at what the Bible says on this subject, you’ll see that one of the glories of the gospel is that it reconciles people that could never be reconciled without it.” (p.18).

2)  The preaching of God’s word must be central: McKinley reminds us that if we fail to preach the word of God, then we fail altogether.  He wrote, “the one thing that Christians and non-Christians need is the Word of God.  It is alive and powerful, and it’s what our churches need.” (p.53).  He encourages the church planter to never allow the the preaching of the Word to be decentralized by a plethora of pragmatic and administrative details.

3) Beware of “obessing over church size”: McKinley spoke plainly on this point, “Let me be straightforward.  The obsession with church size is killing many church planters.  I used to drop in occasionally on a gathering of local church planters.  There was a running tension in the group–everyone either subtly bragged about the size of his church (while trying to seem like they weren’t) or made excuses for it.” (p.107).  He warns us of the clear and present danger of numberitis.

While these three points fall short of all that Church Planting Is For Wimps relates to the reader, they do serve as a launching point for those interested in further helps in the arena of church planting and revitalization.

For His Glory,
Jeremy Vanatta