Items tagged church

Re-ordering Friendship, Love, and Enmity: A Biblical Reflection on Church Membership

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:13:55 GMT

Membership should reflect a living commitment to a local church in attendance, giving, prayer and service; otherwise it is meaningless, worthless, and even dangerous. What does the lack of church membership say to the rest of the world about the church? To be a member is knowingly to be traveling together as aliens and strangers in this world as we head to our heavenly home. Dr. Dever will explore church membership from a biblical and historical approach, touching on the most difficult issues, which keep many Americans from committing to church membership.

Dever on Church Membership and Discipline

Sat, 01 Mar 2008 06:16:51 GMT

Andy Naselli has some audio and video of Mark Dever speaking on church membership and discipline at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

D. G. Hart: Oh, the Formality

Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:05:33 GMT

New on the WSC site is an essay by Darryl Hart asking Reformed folk to re-think how we plant churches and what sorts of churches we want to plant and be.

An Excruciating Case of Baptism and Membership

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:21:19 GMT

The blogosphere's recent roil over baaptism, membership and the Lord's supper has cooled a bit. That's probably good. It's the kind of conversation that requires reflection, not speed. But my wife passed along this personal situation involving baptism and membership. Obviously this situation is exceptional, but it's worth the read, prayer and counsel for our brother. For my money, make the local church's practice of baptism a higher priority than that of the parachurch organization.

"What is a Healthy Church?" by Mark Dever

Sat, 08 Sep 2007 22:52:37 GMT

Mark Dever takes the 9 Marks from the pulpit to the pews.

I spoke to Mark Dever just about a year ago and asked him if there were any books in his future. At that time he mentioned that he'd soon have a book out dealing with personal evangelism but that he had nothing planned after that. It seems that his plans changed! The book on evangelism is due for release in just a few days (September 11). It has been preceded by What is a Healthy Church and will be followed by The Church and Her Challenges. What is a Healthy Church? is a shortened, introductory version of Dever's previous book 9 Marks of a Healthy Church written primarily for people in the pews rather than the men in the pulpits. After all, church health is not the sole responsibility of a local church's leadership. "If you call yourself a Christian but you think a book about healthy churches is a book for church leaders or maybe for those 'theological types,' while you would rather read books about the church life, it may be time to stop and consider again exactly what the Bible says a Christian is." Said even more forcefully, "you and all the members of your church, Christian, are finally responsible before God for what your church becomes, not your pastors and other leaders--you." Despite this, we might rightly ask, How many Christians have ever read a book about church health?

If you are familiar with Mark Dever's ministry you know that he can be provocative, though always in a sanctified way. This book is no exception. Consider this, a portion of a short anecdote he shares: "If you call yourself a Christian but you are not a member of the church you regularly attend, I worry that you might be going to hell." Why would Dever extend such a warning and do so at the beginning of the book? "I want [the reader] to see something of the urgency of the need for a healthy local church in the Christian's life and to begin sharing the passion for the church that characterizes both Christ and his followers." Church health and church membership really are that important.

The book falls into three parts. In the first, Dever answers the question of "What is a healthy church," ultimately defining it as "a congregation that increasingly reflects God's character as his character has been revealed in his Word." In the second part he looks at the first few of the nine marks of a healthy church, defining three of them as essential: expositional preaching, biblical theology, and a biblical understanding of the Good News. In the final part he looks at the remaining six "important" marks, which are: a biblical understanding of conversion, a biblical understanding of evangelism, a biblical understanding of membership, biblical church discipline, biblical discipleship and growth, and biblical church leadership. Those who have read 9 Marks of a Healthy Church will recognize parts two and three as a summary of nine chapters of that earlier book.

My wife and I have been members of an unhealthy church in the past (though, thankfully, we are now privileged to be members of a distinctly healthy church) and I suppose the one thing I would wonder about a book like this is how likely it is to make its way into churches that may need it most! After all, pastors of unhealthy churches will certainly not be likely to commend it to the members. In a few locations, and most notably at the end, Dever urges caution to those who are members of unhealthy churches, urging them to proceed carefully and biblically in trying to bring about change. "Pray, serve, encourage, set a good example in your own life, and be patient. A healthy church is less about a place that looks a certain way, and more about a people who love in the right way." This is a valuable charge and one that clearly proceeds from a pastor's heart.

What is a Healthy Church? is a valuable little book and one I hope is widely distributed and widely read. Churches that truly seek to be healthy should be glad to distribute this among its members and to discuss it. I think it could make a valuable title for study and it will be at home in any personal or church library. Those who truly desire church health have nothing to fear from it, and certainly a lot to gain.

Those interested can purchase it from Westminster Books.

Choice Quotes

"It's impossible to answer the question what is a Christian? without ending up in a conversation about the church; at least in the Bible it is."

"When a person becomes a Christian, he doesn't just join a local church because it's a good habit for growing in spiritual maturity. He joins a local church because it's the expression of what Christ has made him--a member of the body of Christ."

"If you have no interest in actually committing yourself to an actual group of gospel-believing, Bible-teaching Christians, you might question whether you belong to the body of Christ at all!"

"A healthy church is not a church that's perfect and without sin. It has not figured everything out. Rather, it's a church that continually strives to take God's side in the battle against the ungodly desires and deceits of the world, our flesh, and the devil. It's a church that continually seeks to conform itself to God's Word."

"Friend, the church finds its life as it listens to the Word of God. It finds its purpose as it lives out and displays the Word of God. The church's job is to listen and then to echo."

Advertisement: Support this site! Visit Westminster Books.

The Blogging Church - a Belated Review

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:16:58 GMT

Here comes a review that is several months overdue. Awhile back the good folks at Leadership Network sent me the book "The Blogging Church" by Brian Bailey and Terry Storch to review, and I wanted to say thanks to them and offer my apologies for the tardiness of this review.

The subtitle and the first few sentences on the back give a good idea of who the book is good for. The subtitle is "Sharing the Story of Your Church Through Blogs," and the blurb on the back says this:

The Blogging Church offers church leaders a field manual for using the social phenomenon of blogs to connect people and build communities in a whole new way. Inside you will find the why, what, and how of blogging in the local church.

Those lines give you a hint at the audience for the book - pastors and leaders who may need a little convincing that blogs are a valuable tool and who need some info on how to get started blogging and how to use their blogs.

As such, I wouldn't put this on the must-read list for the veteran blogger. The veteran blogger will already know most of the stuff in the book. However, the veteran may get some encouragement to keep blogging as well as some new avenues for using the blog from interviews with people like Mark Driscoll, Perry Noble, Mark Batterson and others.

But the one who would really benefit would be a pastor or other leader who is skeptical about the value of blogs, or feels technologically challenged. This book will give that person a rationale for having a blog as well as enough technical info to get up and running.

Why Membership Matters (Part 1)

Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:22:54 GMT

The following is adapted from the Grace Church Elders’ Distinctives on Church Membership.

In a day when commitment is a rare commodity, it should come as no surprise that church membership is such a low priority to so many believers. Sadly, it is not uncommon for Christians to move from church to church, never submitting themselves to the care of elders and never committing themselves to a group of fellow believers.

To neglect—or to refuse—to join a church as a formal member, however, reflects a misunderstanding of the believer’s responsibility to the body of Christ. And it also cuts one off from the many blessings and opportunities that flow from this commitment. It is essential for every Christian to understand what church membership is and why it matters.

The Definition of Church Membership

When an individual is saved, he becomes a member of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). Because he is united to Christ and the other members of the body in this way, he is therefore qualified to become member of a local expression of that body.

To become a member of a church is to formally commit oneself to an identifiable, local body of believers who have joined together for specific, divinely ordained purposes. These purposes include receiving instruction from God’s Word (1 Tim. 4:13; 2 Tim. 4:2), serving and edifying one another through the proper use of spiritual gifts (Rom. 12:3-8; 1 Cor. 12:4-31; 1 Pet. 4:10-11), participating in the ordinances (Luke 22:19; Acts 2:38-42), and proclaiming the gospel to those who are lost (Matt. 28:18- 20). In addition, when one becomes a member of a church, he submits himself to the care and the authority of the biblically qualified elders that God has placed in that assembly.

The Basis for Church Membership

Although Scripture does not contain an explicit command to formally join a local church, the biblical foundation for church membership permeates the New Testament. This biblical basis can be seen most clearly in (1) the example of the early church, (2) the existence of church government, (3) the exercise of church discipline, and (4) the exhortation to mutual edification.

The Example of the Early Church

In the early church, coming to Christ was coming to the church. The idea of experiencing salvation without belonging to a local church is foreign to the New Testament. When individuals repented and believed in Christ, they were baptized and added to the church (Acts 2:41, 47; 5:14; 16:5). More than simply living out a private commitment to Christ, this meant joining together formally with other believers in a local assembly and devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, the breaking of bread, and prayer (Acts 2:42).

The epistles of the New Testament were written to churches. In the case of the few written to individuals—such as Philemon, Timothy and Titus—these individuals were leaders in churches. The New Testament epistles themselves demonstrate that the Lord assumed that believers would be committed to a local assembly.

There is also evidence in the New Testament that just as there was a list of widows eligible for financial support (1 Tim. 5:9), there may also have been a list of members that grew as people were saved (cf. Acts 2:41, 47; 5:14; 16:5). In fact, when a believer moved to another city, his church often wrote a letter of commendation to his new church (Acts 18:27; Rom. 16:1; Col. 4:10; cf. 2 Cor. 3:1-2).

In the book of Acts, much of the terminolgy fits only with the concept of formal church membership. Phrases such as “the whole congregation” (6:5), “the church in Jerusalem” (8:1), “the disciples” in Jerusalem (9:26), “in every church” (14:23), “the whole church” (15:17), and “the elders of the church” in Ephesus (20:17), all suggest recognizable church membership with well-defined boundaries (also see 1 Cor. 5:4; 14:23; and Heb. 10:25).

(To be concluded tomorrow)

Thoughts on the baptism/communion issue

Tue, 21 Aug 2007 01:45:31 GMT

Let’s think this through for a moment. There are a few things in all of this that have not been made very clear. What is the sign of the New Covenant (think carefully before you answer)? Let’s say for the moment that communion is the sign of the New Covenant then one must ask what signals entrance into this New Covenant. Most evangelicals understand that it is through faith in Jesus Christ and repentance from sin which ushers one into Christ thus making one His disciple. The sign that one has been made a disciple is baptism. Therefore should the sign of confessional (i.e., credo) baptism signal that one is ready for the communion table (and nothing else)? This seems to be the nexus of the debate that is swirling around blogville. What do you think and how would you answer?

Historical Reflections on Baptism and Church Membership

Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:16:13 GMT

Aaron Menikoff: "Maybe it [is] simply worth noting that there is a long history, first in England, then in the States, of Baptists addressing the question of whether the unbaptized should be accepted into the membership of Baptist churches." He's written a couple of blog posts (part 1, part 2) offering Historical Reflections on Baptism and Church Membership.

John Bunyan and the Grudem & Dever vs Piper Baptism Debate

Fri, 17 Aug 2007 03:05:27 GMT

John Bunyan has been brought in to butress Piper's posisiton which had suffered from the declaration of Dever for the other side. This remains a very good natured discussion, and demonstrates clearly the ability to be united around the gospel but disagree on secondary issues. Aaron Menikoff of the 9Marks Blog begins his post as follows -

Maybe it simply worth noting that there is a long history, first in England, then in the States, of Baptists addressing the question of whether the unbaptized should be accepted into the membership of Baptist churches. To put it in a less sterile way, should the church really be split over a difference in baptism?

The most famous account, and one that Mark has lectured on in academic circles, involved the famous tinker from Bedford, John Bunyan. The author of Pilgrim’s Progress defended his practice of allowing the paedo-baptists to join Bedford Baptist Church in Differences about Water Baptism No Bar to Communion (1673). Bunyan offered ten reasons to allow the unbaptized into membership . . .

Baptism, Church Membership and Congregationalism by mdever

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:11:20 GMT

OK, I'm on vacation with my family, but I took print-outs of the Piper/Grudem exchanges on baptism and chruch membership. 9Marks guys, can we weigh in on this? What would you add to, disagree with, nuance in this argument?

Baptism SHOULD be required for church membership:

1) Because Jesus clearly commanded baptism and to disobey this command is sin [whether intentional or not]. To continue in such an unbaptized state is unrepentant sin [whether intentional or not]. Thus, no careful paedo-baptist will follow John P's apparent "generosity" about membership. That is, they will never knowingly admit someone to the Lord's Table that they understand to be unbaptized (even if they took that evangelical Quaker or believing Salvationist to be their brother or sister in Christ). John P wants us to admit to the Lord's Table those that he and we all agree are not baptized. John has no doubt that infant baptism is not baptism. He is solid on that point. But I think that actually leaves his position unusually open to other difficulties--knowingly admitting the unbaptized to regular communion. I simply don't want to take the responsibility to so disregard Jesus' commands (not that John P intends to in anyway disregard Jesus' commands). I especially don't want to do this in what has been an area of relatively unanimous Christian agreement from Jesus til now. Baptism precedes the Lord's Table. MUCH more could be said on this, but it probably already has been.

2) Because according to the New Testament, it is not merely the elders, but the entire membership of the local church that bear responsibility for establishing and patrolling "border & boundary" issues of discipline (Mt. 18; I Cor. 5) and doctrine (Gal. 1; II Tim 4). I think John P recognizes the importance of unity among such a responsible body, but he understands [I think] the local congregation NOT to be this responsible body, but rather the active followers of the elders--but merely followers. A congregationalist on the other hand (as Baptists have traditionally been) understands that it is the congregation who must ultimately establish such issues. John P would NOT want such divisions on baptism in the body that he takes to be the final earthly adjudicatory--the elders--and neither would we Baptists. The difference is, we think that body is the congregation as a whole, led by elders, yes, but only with the necessary and Biblical consent and cooperation of the congregation. (So, in classic terms, John would be an independent, but not a congregationalist.)

Much more we could say here, but, reader, please keep in mind that this is written by one who loves John Piper, appreciates his ministry (see earlier blog post) and who is planning to have an Anglican Dean and a Presbyterian former Moderator of the General Assembly preach in his Baptist pulpit in the next few months. There is a great unity in active cooperation, honoring, encouragement and love that is not broken by our lamentable temporary separation over local church membership.

Guys, comments?

“You will think you have had enough…”

Fri, 10 Aug 2007 21:29:11 GMT

One of the most consistently disheartening experiences for both the members and pastors of Old School Presbyterian (OSP) church plants is the small size of the congregations. I can well remember one particular Sunday sitting and listening to one of the greatest sermons I think I have ever heard being delivered by one of the [...]

Building Old School Churches

Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:32:52 GMT

A blog about planting old school presbyterian churches.

Old School Church Planting

Fri, 10 Aug 2007 00:30:32 GMT

I've never met Andy Webb in person but we've corresponded for several years. He is a PCA church planter and he's started a new blog on planting Old School Presbyterian (OSP) congregations. I've learned from and benefited from his writing in the past and the blog looks helpful.

Andy is trying to offer an alternative to the way that church planting is often considered. It is widely accepted that, in order to plant a church we must conduct what might be called a "bait and switch." We're to pretend to be broadly evangelical, or "seeker sensitive," and even, in some cases, quasi-Pentecostal in order to attract people to a new congregation. There is tremendous pressure on church planters "to succeed." There is pressure to "produce numbers" in very short order.

As James Boice used to say, so I'm told, "what you use to get them in, you must use to keep them in." In other words, if we "market" our congregations as one thing, there's no reason to think that the folk we attract using such methods will be much interested in getting to know us as we really are.

Here's a pointed example: imagine a young women decides to attract a husband by dressing and acting like, what used to be called, "a girl of easy virtue," or "fast" or "easy." Let's say she meets a man and he agrees to date and marry her with the understanding that she's a certain sort of girl. Once married, however, the sleazy clothes go away and suddenly she wants to go to church weekly and pray at meals. The new husband has a right to ask, "Hey, this isn't what I signed up for!"

Why would we think that we can attract folks to our congregations, when we say we want to be Reformed, and convince them to be Reformed when we, by our actions, have demonstrated that we don't really believe it ourselves. We say we believe it, but we're willing to set it aside in order to get the church started.

It's like trying to start a family restaurant by convincing consumers (not the happiest metaphor) that we're a McDonalds.

Why do we feel such pressure? For one thing, the first thing anyone asks a church-planting pastor is, "How's your attendance?" They mean well and it's not as if thinking about how many folks are attending is unimportant, but the question serves to put pressure on the congregation to measure itself by attendance. We also feel pressure because, unless you live in Philadelphia or Greenville, SC or Grand Rapids, perhaps in a few other cities, you're probably not living in "Presbyterian Country" or "Reformed Country." We need to be realistic. It's probably not possible, in the ordinary providence of God, to plant a confessionally Reformed congregation in two years. It probably takes much longer than this. We should think in terms of 10 years, not 2 years.

I'm not defending mediocrity or failure. There are times and places to close works and to start over or to move on, but we have decide to plant what we want to grow: confessional Reformed congregations. If we plant something other that confessional Reformed congregations, we're not likely going to get confessional congregations.

All this is to say, it's great to see someone, who is actually doing it, writing about planting confessional Reformed churches.

Wayne Grudem's Response to Piper

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:05:06 GMT

(Author: Wayne Grudem)

Dear John,

Thank you for the kind, gracious spirit in your response!

And thank you for your friendship, which has meant so much to me for so many years.

And thank you for helping me to think more clearly about the details of what I have written. You write so persuasively! In fact, last night I printed out what I had written and your response, and gave it to Margaret, and before we went to bed Margaret informed me with a smile, “I agree with John.” Now what can I say to that??

Nevertheless, here are some responses:

(1) I do not see denial of church membership as “virtually the same as excommunication,” nor do any of the Baptist churches known to me.

Non-members who are clearly believers in Jesus Christ are welcomed as believers into many aspects of fellowship. They share in the Lord's Supper together with members (in all but a very few of the most strict Baptist churches). They participate freely in worship and prayer and fellowship. Sometimes a Baptist church will even have a Bible-believing Presbyterian or Episcopalian or Methodist or Lutheran pastor preach as a guest from the pulpit. That is far from “excommunication”!

And in varying degrees (in different churches) non-members are encouraged to minister to others in the church — they can become active members of home fellowship groups (and in some churches, such as my own Scottsdale Bible Church, they can lead such groups). They can become (in various churches) members of the choir or worship team, youth group workers, ushers, greeters, and so forth. These all give visible signs of treating this unbaptized person as a brother or sister in Christ. (I realize that Baptist churches and denominations have varieties of allowed participation in such things, but they all allow some measure of participation and treat unbaptized Christians as Christians.)

And surely a Baptist church would not give notice to the whole church that the unbaptized non-member should be “treated as an unbeliever from now on,” which would be done in the case of church discipline and excommunication. All these examples show that Baptist churches do not consider the refusal of membership to be equivalent to, or anything even similar to, excommunication. So I am not persuaded by that part of your thoughtful response to me.

(2) But there is a still a clear difference between members and non-members. Unbaptized believers are not members, so they cannot be elders or church officers. They cannot speak or vote at church business meetings. In other words, they can have no formal, recognized part in determining the ongoing policies and teachings of the church. And there will be other activities that each church decides, for various reasons, to restrict to members. There is considerable freedom for churches to decide what they think is wise in this area, in my opinion. And I have seen considerable variety in the Baptist and other believer's baptism churches that I have known. But there is a clear difference, which I think is right.

(3) There was an unexpressed assumption in my discussion, an assumption which your response makes clear to me. I did not express it because it is so commonly assumed in nearly all churches. The assumption is this:

Baptism is required for church membership.

I think I assumed this because, as far as I know, it has been the practice of all major denominations throughout history. Presbyterians believe that baptism is necessary for church membership (for they consider infant baptism true baptism). Episcopalians believe that baptism is necessary for church membership. Baptists believe that baptism is necessary for church membership. Pentecostals believe that baptism is necessary for church membership. Methodists believe this. The Evangelical Free Church of America (which allows both views of baptism) believes this. Independent Bible churches believe this. Even Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches believe this. Apart from some unusual groups that don't practice baptism at all (such as the Salvation Army), I think that the whole church throughout its history has held that baptism is necessary for church membership.

In the light of that assumption, which I have now made explicit by adding the words in boldface type, I think the section that you objected to makes good sense: [In this section I am explaining the problem that will arise if a church decides to allow both views of baptism to be held and taught:]

On the other side, those who hold to believer's baptism (as I do) would have to be willing to admit into church membership people who have been baptized as infants, and who did not make a personal profession of faith at the time they were baptized. But from a believer's baptism position, genuine baptism has to follow a personal profession of faith. So how can believer's baptism advocates in good conscience say that infant baptism is also a valid form of baptism? That contradicts what they believe about the essential nature of baptism — that is an outward sign of an inward spiritual change, so that the apostle Paul could say, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ,” Gal. 3:27.

For someone who holds to believer's baptism, and who holds that baptism is necessary for church membership [I just now added these words], admitting to church membership someone who has not been baptized upon profession of faith, and telling the person that he or she never has to be baptized as a believer, is really giving up one's view on the proper nature of baptism. It is saying that infant baptism really is valid baptism! But then how could anyone who holds to this position tell anyone who had been baptized as an infant that he or she still needed to be baptized as a believer?

(4) Now it may be that someone would want to start a new denomination in which baptism is not necessary for church membership. Or people may decide to change their church constitutions so that baptism is no longer required for membership. People are free to do that if they wish.

In that case, I suppose a (hypothetical) Baptist church could say to someone, “We require baptism for church membership, unless you disagree with our view of baptism. For those who disagree with us, we do not require baptism for church membership. Whether we require it or not depends on what you think of baptism.” I suppose a church could say that.

In such a church, they could allow an unbaptized person to be a member. If a godly, Bible-believing, born again Presbyterian (such as your examples of our friends Ligon Duncan or R. C. Sproul, or others) came and wanted to be a member, this (hypothetical) Baptist church could say to him, “We don't believe you have been baptized, but you can become a member anyway because we allow unbaptized people like you to be members.”

(5) But I don't think I could support such a practice in a church. I think the reason churches throughout history have required baptism for membership is that the New Testament so clearly makes baptism the public act that every believer undergoes at the outset of the Christian life. It is right there in the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19-20). There is no such thing in the New Testament as an unbaptized person being an active member of any local church. So how could we say today that we should start allowing unbaptized persons to be members of our churches? But that (it seems to me) is what my earlier position, and your current position, would have to say.

I do not think such a position is wise, or consistent with the New Testament, and I would not recommend any church to adopt it.

Thank you again for your thoughtful, gracious response, John.

Your friend,

Wayne

Wayne Grudem Changes His Mind on Baptism

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 08:36:22 GMT

Last year I intereviewed Wayne Grudem the leading systematic theologian of our day - at least in terms of readership of his Systematic Theology. He spoke about changing his mind about baptism from a position that it is fine for a church to have a compromise position about it. You can read what he had to say here. Justin Taylor now reports that the relevant section in Grudem's book has been rewritten for a new reprint. Justin has the whole new section on his blog, but here is an extract:

But the most serious difficulty arises when people begin to think about what such a “compromise position” implies about the views of baptism held by the people who go along with this compromise. For people who hold to infant baptism, they have to be able to say that it is acceptable for believing parents not to baptize their infant children. But according to a paedobaptist view, this seems close to saying that is acceptable for these parents to disobey a command of Scripture regarding the responsibility of parents to baptize their children. How can they really say this?

On the other side, those who hold to believer’s baptism (as I do) would have to be willing to admit into church membership people who have been baptized as infants, and who did not make a personal profession of faith at the time they were baptized. But from a believer’s baptism position, genuine baptism has to follow a personal profession of faith. So how can believer’s baptism advocates in good conscience say that infant baptism is also a valid form of baptism? That contradicts what they believe about the essential nature of baptism – that it is an outward sign of an inward spiritual change, so that the apostle Paul could say, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27).

For someone who holds to believer’s baptism, admitting to church membership someone who has not been baptized upon profession of faith, and telling the person that he or she never has to be baptized as a believer, is really giving up one’s view on the proper nature of baptism. It is saying that infant baptism really is valid baptism! But then how could anyone who holds to this position tell anyone who had been baptized as an infant that he or she still needed to be baptized as a believer? This difficulty makes me think that some kind of “compromise” position on baptism is not very likely to be adopted by denominational groups in the future.

However, we should still be thankful that believers who differ on the issue of baptism can have wonderful fellowship with one another across denominational lines, and can have respect for each other’s sincerely held views.

Grudem's Change of Mind regarding Differences on Baptism within a Local Church

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 01:11:19 GMT

While at a Christian bookstore today I noticed that Zondervan has retypeset Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, using the Minion font and a wider trim size. The result is quite attractive, with bigger margins for note-taking. (If you don't own the book, I'd highly recommend purchasing it right away. It's excellent.)

By and large the text (and pagination) are unchanged. But readers may be interested to know that Grudem completely rewrote section F1 (pp. 982-983) in the baptism chapter (ch. 49). Grudem previously argued for "allowing both views of baptism [i.e., paedobaptism and credobaptism] to be taught and practiced in denominations on both sides of the question." Grudem has since changed his mind. Here's the rewritten section:

Do Churches Need to Be Divided Over Baptism? In spite of many years of division over this question among Protestants, is there a way in which Christians who differ on baptism can demonstrate greater unity of fellowship? And is there a way that progress can be made in bringing the church closer to unity on this question?

Much progress in this regard has already been made. Christians who differ over baptism already demonstrate their unity in Christ through individual fellowship, Bible studies and prayer groups in their communities, occasional joint worship services, cooperation in city and regional evangelistic campaigns, joint support of many mission agencies and other parachurch groups, joint sponsorship of youth activities, pastors’ fellowship groups, and so forth. Although baptism remains a difference, that difference does not generally lead to harmful divisions. In fact, most Christians seem to realize that baptism is not a major doctrine of the faith.

A very few denominations have decided that they would allow both views of baptism to be taught and practiced within their denominations. The Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA) does this, for example, as a result of a “compromise” reached in 1950 when the denomination was formed from two different groups that had different views on baptism. The EFCA allows ordination for pastors who hold to believer’s baptism and for pastors who hold to infant baptism. And they allow into membership those who had been baptized as infants in a Christian church, without requiring them to be baptized as believers before joining the church. If some parents want to have their infant child baptized and the local pastor does not hold to infant baptism, the local church invites some other Evangelical Free Church pastor who holds to infant baptism to come and baptize the infant.

Although the Evangelical Free Church continues as a strong, healthy denomination today, there still remain some difficulties inherent in this position. One is that there can be a tendency to minimize the importance of baptism: since members disagree on this topic, it is easier not to talk about it much or emphasize its importance.

But the most serious difficulty arises when people begin to think about what such a “compromise position” implies about the views of baptism held by the people who go along with this compromise. For people who hold to infant baptism, they have to be able to say that it is acceptable for believing parents not to baptize their infant children. But according to a paedobaptist view, this seems close to saying that is acceptable for these parents to disobey a command of Scripture regarding the responsibility of parents to baptize their children. How can they really say this?

On the other side, those who hold to believer’s baptism (as I do) would have to be willing to admit into church membership people who have been baptized as infants, and who did not make a personal profession of faith at the time they were baptized. But from a believer’s baptism position, genuine baptism has to follow a personal profession of faith. So how can believer’s baptism advocates in good conscience say that infant baptism is also a valid form of baptism? That contradicts what they believe about the essential nature of baptism – that it is an outward sign of an inward spiritual change, so that the apostle Paul could say, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27).

For someone who holds to believer’s baptism, admitting to church membership someone who has not been baptized upon profession of faith, and telling the person that he or she never has to be baptized as a believer, is really giving up one’s view on the proper nature of baptism. It is saying that infant baptism really is valid baptism! But then how could anyone who holds to this position tell anyone who had been baptized as an infant that he or she still needed to be baptized as a believer? This difficulty makes me think that some kind of “compromise” position on baptism is not very likely to be adopted by denominational groups in the future.

However, we should still be thankful that believers who differ on the issue of baptism can have wonderful fellowship with one another across denominational lines, and can have respect for each other’s sincerely held views.

Notes

1. I realize that some readers will object to this sentence and will say that baptism is very important because of what the differing positions represent: differing views of the nature of the church. Many Baptists would argue that practicing infant baptism is inherently inconsistent with the idea of a church made up of believers only, and many paedobaptists would argue that not practicing infant baptism is inherently inconsistent with the idea of a covenant community which includes the children of believers.

I would encourage those who reason this way to consider how much they hold in common with evangelical believers on the other side of this issue -- not necessarily with those far from them on other matters as well, but especially with those on the other side who agree with them on most other aspects of the Christian life. Many Baptists do encourage and demonstrate a valued place for their children within their churches, and many paedobaptists do pray for the

salvation of their baptized children with the same fervency with which Baptist parents pray for the salvation of their unbaptized children. Regarding church membership, evangelical paedobaptists do require a believable profession of faith before children can become full members of the church (their term is "communicant members"; that is, those who take Communion). They also require a believable profession of faith before any adults are allowed to join the church.

When these procedures are functioning well, both Baptists and paedobaptists use very similar procedures as they seek to have a church membership consisting of believers only, and both love and teach and pray for their children as most precious members of the larger church family who they hope will someday become true members of the body of Christ.

2. I did not realize this difficulty when I first published this book in 1994. I have revised this entire section for the 2007 printing.

The Church

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 13:53:13 GMT

The FV’s doctrine of church is next set out. I will consider both paragraphs concerning the church proper. There is certainly less objectionable material here than in the previous paragraphs. One is primarily concerned with what is left out, rather than with what is there (although I still have some questions).

Positively, it is good to see the FV’ers affirm the visible/invisible church distinction, at least in name. However, given some FV’ers discomfort with the doctrine, it would have been nice had they been willing to admit that, in terms of the invisible church, non-elect members of the visible church are not members of the church at all. They are in the church (visibly) but not of the church (invisibly). I see more stress on the reality of the visible church, and such a desire to avoid a supposedly Platonic “the true church is the invisible church,” that the invisible aspect seems a bit downplayed. Of course, the visible church is the true church, provided the marks of the church are present. Word, Sacrament, and discipline (yes, I realize that discipline is a disputed mark) have to be there in at least relative purity for there to be a true visible church. This qualification is missing from the FV document. Of course, it is impossible to say everything. But is the Roman Catholic Church a true visible church? Of course, this is debated, especially with regard to the validity of their baptisms (I hold that it is a valid baptism if the formula is correct). But will any FV’er come right out and say that the Roman Catholic Church preaches the Word truly and administers the Sacraments purely? This is, of course, a separate question from whether or not there are true believers in the Roman Catholic Church. I would appreciated even a brief statement on the marks of the church. There doesn’t seem to be anything in the FV document that would guard against saying that there is really nothing wrong with the Roman Catholic church. The Reformers were a bit concerned about this aspect of the definition of the church.

I would hope that no one would deny the historical/eschatological description of the church as being helpful. Of course, it is not the same distinction as visible/invisible. The former is a chronological distinction, whereas the latter is not. They seem to acknowledge that, but only somewhat. They use the terms “generally corresponds to.” The problem is that it really doesn’t correspond. The eschatological church will be the most visible church there ever has been. Furthermore, there are plenty of Christians who are not part of the visible church, but are yet part of the invisible church. Quite simply, the v/i distinction is a synchronic distinction, whereas the h/e distinction is diachronic.

On Strategy and Other Men's Foundations by Greg Gilbert

Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:08:13 GMT

On a related note, Matt asked specifically if it’s “strategic enough” to plant churches in out-of-the-way places where the Gospel has not taken root. I think the answer to that question also is, Yes, that’s strategic. I would think if Paul had a choice between planting another church in Rome or planting one in a Spanish village, he’d take Spain in a heartbeat.

Which brings up another question, one I’d direct to my own denomination especially: If the biblical model and strategic thinking would tell us to plant churches in unchurched areas, why is that not happening? And why do we keep planting more and more and more churches where the gospel is already firmly established---or at least where there are already thousands of evangelical churches---when there are places in the country where there are almost none?

Take a look at this fascinating study done by the SBC’s North American Mission Board. I’ve only looked over it a little bit, but consider this: From 1990 to 2000, just to pull one statistic, the number of Southern Baptist churches in the 17 states of the South (including D.C.) rose from 30,690 to 33,119. That’s 2429 new churches in easily the most churched region of the country. With a population of 100.2 million, the South had one Southern Baptist church for every 3027 people.

Now take the six states of New England, population 14 million. From 1990 to 2000, the number of Southern Baptist churches rose from 112 to 157. Now, that’s a 40% increase, but it’s also a grand total of 45 new churches in ten whole years. All of which comes out to almost 89,000 people for every SB church in New England.

Quite a difference.

Now, I don’t want to speak rashly. There may be some very good reasons for all this, but it does just make me ask “Why?” Why, with that sort of disparity, are we still planting almost 250 new churches a year in the South, and only 45 a decade in New England? One possible answer I gleaned from reading the report is that even at that high rate of church planting in the South, we’re not keeping up with the population growth. So in 1990, there were only 2784 people for every Southern Baptist church (compared to 3027 in 2000). Apparently, we lost ground, and so goes the thinking I suppose, we should plant more churches to try to keep up.

Maybe. But even so, I wonder if our resources might not be better used in trying to knock that 89,000-people-per-church figure for New England down a bit, instead of planting another two thousand churches in the South (across the street from one another, presumably) in order to keep its people-to-churches ratio at 3027 rather than 3300 or something.

I'm sure this is a big discussion, and there may very well be good reasons for all this. But the report raised a few questions in my mind, questions which I have to hope are also being raised in the hearts and minds of NAMB leaders. In fact, I'd love to hear from someone who knows: What is the strategy behind continuing to plant so many churches in the relatively well-evangelized South, while basically leaving New England to itself? Is it that New England is too hard a place? Are churches just failing there? Is it a lack of interest among men who are wanting to plant churches? Is there some other reason? If anyone can throw some light on all this, I would really love to hear from you.

If the Root is Holy, the Branches are Holy Part 2

Mon, 09 Jul 2007 07:06:37 GMT

What do the top two church-planting churches in America have in common?

Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:05:13 GMT

According to a recent survey by The Leadership Network, the top two reproducing churches in America are Redeemer Presbyterian (New York City-pastored by Tim Keller) and Mars Hill Church (Seattle-pastored by Mark Driscoll). Both churches have planted over 100 new churches since their inception.

Along with a radical commitment to the gospel both of these churches are confessionally reformed (Calvinistic). There is a prevailing false idea that Calvinists are not committed to evangelism. Aside from this being historically inaccurate (cf. Spurgeon, Edwards, Carey, etc..) it is also out of step with what is occurring in our lifetime.

(ht: steve mccoy)

A Layman’s Guide to Church Planting – Part 1: Cultivate the Characteristics of an Effective Lay Leader

Sun, 01 Jul 2007 04:05:16 GMT

This is the first of seven installments to encourage laymen to take some initiative when a biblical church cannot be found in your area. I welcome feedback and ideas. For 13 years my family and I were members of a Presbyterian church while maintaining Reformed Baptist convictions. Though we appreciated the sound gospel ministry of our [...]

Church Government: Congregationalism

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:05:21 GMT

[NOTE: The following is a copyrighted excerpt from a forthcoming entry in the Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization (ed. George T. Kurian; Blackwell), authored by Andreas Köstenberger.]

At the heart of Congregationalism is the belief that local congregations are to govern their own affairs. This stands in contrast to both Episcopacy and Presbyterianism. Within the scope of Congregationalism there are a variety of ways in which the relationship between local church leaders (whether one or several pastors or elders or a combination of both) is construed. In this regard the spectrum reaches all the way from a full-fledged democratic model on the one hand to elder rule on the other, with various forms of church leadership and congregational rule or participation in between these two extremes.

In the congregational model, local churches sometimes have elders (as in Presbyterianism), yet there are no larger outside governing bodies. At the same time, churches adhering to congregational polity often opt to associate in form of conventions and to cooperate with outside agencies, though these hold no authority over individual congregations. This cooperation enables churches to engage in strategic ministry, demonstrating “in a visible way their belief in the oneness of the larger body of Christ” (Hammett, Biblical Foundations, 145). Among the churches practicing congregationalism are the Churches of Christ, Bible Churches, many non-denominational congregations, Baptists (including Southern and General Baptists), and churches carrying the title “Independent.”

In churches practicing congregational polity authority is vested in the church as a whole, although it is a matter of debate to what extent the church is able to delegate this authority to church leaders and whether or not church leaders’ authority is derived from the congregation or directly from Christ. Typically, in a congregational system the church does the following: (1) select, appoint, and, if necessary, remove church leaders; (2) (help) guard pure doctrine; (3) exercise church discipline and decide on church membership; (4) participate in major decisions affecting the entire congregation (Dever, Display of God’s Glory, 31–43). Usually, the congregation operates in democratic fashion by way of regular church business meetings at which each member has an equal voice and vote. It is often noted, however, that some of these procedures may owe more to the political democratic system than New Testament teaching.

In a representative form of the congregational model, an effort is made to balance authoritative leadership with genuine congregational participation. In this approach, it is the elders who have ultimate authority, not the congregation. The elders consult the congregation on important matters and involve them in the decision-making process, but in the end the elders’ decision obtains. It is recognized that the congregation’s participation in the selection of elders does not necessarily amount to an exercise of authority and that the New Testament teaches congregational participation but not necessarily congregational rule. It is also noted that elders hold positions of authority as church members, so that local elder authority with congregational participation is not based on a clergy-laity distinction but is consistent with the notion of the priesthood of all believers.

The two major models practiced in Congregationalism in a variety of permutations are: (1) single-elder or pastor; and (2) plural-elder leadership. In the single-elder model, the church votes into office one (senior) pastor who oversees the congregation (Akin, “Single-Elder-Led Church,” in Brand and Norman, Perspectives on Church Government, 25–86). While the congregation retains final authority, in practice the senior pastor wields considerable power due to his public teaching office. In addition, deacons are chosen to assist, and in some cases supervise, the pastor, though assigning to deacons authority over the pastor clearly conflicts with New Testament teaching. In the latter case, deacons form a “deacon board” taking the role of a body of elders.

In the plural-elder model, several elders and/or pastors are chosen to oversee the congregation. Within this model, there is considerable variety as to the way in which the authority of the elders and/or pastors is construed. Some take the notion of the priesthood of all believers to imply that no one should have authority over individual believers (pure democratic model. Others view the elders’ authority as derived from Christ, not the congregation, and believe the church is called in Scripture to submit to those serving in this office (White, “Plural-Elder-Led Church,” in Brand and Norman, Perspectives on Church Government, 255–96).

In certain cases there are two bodies—an elder board and the pastoral staff—that meet periodically to determine the direction of the church. Some churches have only lay elders while pastors comprise the full-time, paid staff of the church. In another scenario the elders include both pastors and lay elders, or a church may have only pastors but no lay elders owing to the belief that a special divine call is required. In some cases a corporate board model may prevail where the elder board rules the church, often without sufficient accountability to the church and without adequate congregational input into decision-making. In the plural-elder model deacons serve under the authority of the elders.

Adherents to Congregationalism build their case on the following considerations. (1) In the New Testament “there is no superior organizational level to which churches are accountable” (Hammett, Biblical Foundations, 146). No clear New Testament evidence exists to suggest that local churches were governed by an outside body. The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 should not be regarded as a permanent paradigm for regional authority. (2) The authority to exercise church discipline is assigned to the local church body rather than to regional elders or bishops (Matt. 18:15–17; 2 Cor. 2:6). (3) The New Testament local church chose qualified men to meet practical needs (Acts 6:1–6), commissioned Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:1–3), and was involved in the discussions and decision of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:4, 12, 22).

Objections to Congregationalism include the following. (1) Proponents of Episcopacy contend that Congregationalism does not take sufficient account of the fact that the earliest apostolic churches and those of subsequent centuries were hierarchically governed. Congregationalism reflects modern democracy rather than apostolic and post-apostolic tradition. (2) Advocates of Presbyterianism object that the New Testament vests more authority in elders than proponents of most forms of Congregationalism allow (Rom. 12:8; 1 Tim. 5:17; Heb. 13:7, 17, 24); and that (3) the Jerusalem Council did not merely issue suggestions but rules to be followed (Acts 16:4). (4) Against those who define Congregationalism as congregational rule, it is objected that many of the above-cited texts cited in support of Congregationalism only mandate congregational participation but not necessarily congregational rule.

The question of how the church should be governed in part hinges on whether sole authority is assigned to the New Testament or one holds to the dual authority of Scripture and church tradition. The New Testament stipulates two church offices: (1) elder (presbyteros) or overseer (episkopos) or shepherd (poimēn; authoritative); and (2) deacon (diakonos; non-authoritative). In the patristic period the authoritative office was gradually bifurcated into bishop and presbyter (priest), with the former being in authority over the latter. A clergy-laity distinction prevailed that was challenged by the Reformation notion of the priesthood of the believer. Over the centuries three major approaches to church government took shape: (1) Episcopacy; (2) Presbyterianism; and (3) Congregationalism.

These models differ as to whether the chain of authority moves from the top down (Episcopacy; in a modified form, Presbyterianism, plus hybrid models seeking to balance elder authority with congregational participation) or from the bottom up (Congregationalism). To advance their argument, proponents claim support from biblical teaching and, in the case of Episcopacy, also church tradition. It appears, however, that neither a strict hierarchical nor a thoroughgoing congregational model is entirely in keeping with New Testament teaching, which seems to favor a combination of authoritative leadership and genuine congregational participation. However one resolves the question of church government, there are important practical implications for the life of the church and the ministry of individual believers.

WORKS CITED:

Brand, Chad Owen and R. Stanton Norman, eds. Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity. Nashville: B & H, 2004.

Dever, Mark E. A Display of God’s Glory: Basics of Church Structure. Deacons, Elders, Congregationalism & Membership. Washington, DC: Center for Church Reform, 2001.

Hammett, John S. Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005.

The Visible/Invisible Church Distinction, Again

Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:15:06 GMT

In response to Wilson’s latest, I will say three quick things. Firstly, my argument was not that law and holiness were identical. They don’t have to be identical for my analogy to work. My point is that just as justice/holiness and mercy/love are equally ultimate in the mind of God, so also would those attributes manifest themselves on earth in equally ultimate categories. Those categories are Law and Gospel. Just as we could have no relationship with God unless He voluntarily condescended to reveal Himself to us, so also that relationship would be undefinable without the law. The basic relationship is defined by law. So, I do not (and actually didn’t say) have to say that law and holiness are identical. My point is that equal ultimacy in God means that God will reveal Himself as that kind of God, leaving no attribute behind or overshadowed by any other attribute. The characteristics of Scripture mirror the divine attributes.

Secondly, I am surprised that Wilson would not affirm the language of eternal life being dependent on personal and perfect obedience, since I was self-consciously using the language of WCF 7.2: “wherein (the covenant of works, LK) life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience” (emphasis added). I wasn’t trying to pull any trick here. But this is the language of the WS, which Wilson professes to uphold. Does he not agree with WCF 7.2?

I don’t think that it is all that profitable to keep on talking about the vote. The fact of the matter is that it passed, and we need to examine the fall-out from this decision of GA. As good Calvinists (I think this point has already been made), we need to acknowledge that it was God’s will not only that the report passed, but also by the margin it did pass. I do think that one’s view of Sproul’s comments will depend on which side of the fence one is on. But I think that it is completely unprovable what level of knowledge people had about the report. But others have commented that the presentation of the report was an admirable summary of the issues. The declarations and recommendations were all read aloud to the assembly and each one was discussed in the introducation, so that no one can claim that these other issues were not on the table. The whole report was passed.

Now, to continue on to the Visible/Invisible Church distinction. This has already been dealt with rather decisively in this post. I would perhaps point out that Wilson now believes that the historical/eschatological distinction is not the same distinction as the visible/invisible. I am not sure that he was thinking that when he penned pages 73-74 of RINE. But as he has acknowledged that those pages were not the most clearly written pages of the book, I will let the matter pass.

The Blood of Martyrs Was The Seed of The Church

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 05:20:05 GMT

The power of God is glorious, not only in preserving His church, in raising the spirits of His servants in their greatest affliction, but in increasing His church by them. If it is a wonder to be upheld in them, it is much more a wonder to be increased by them. "The more we are cut down, the more we persist", says Tertullian. The church never grew so fast as when it was under the most affliction. Sulpitius says of the Christians in primative times, that they were greedy of martyrdom, as in his time men were greedy of bishopric. The blood of martyrs was the seed of the church. Pliny reports of the lily, that it is increased by it's own juice that drops from it, and so is the church, which is the lily that grows among the thorns; the very blood that drops from it, multiplies it; the sufferings of one beget many to the love of the truth. ...

Sermon: The Holy Spirit's Effect on the Unelect

Wed, 06 Jun 2007 03:50:07 GMT

John 16:8 - And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment

A.W.Pink said of this verse that there is hardly a sentence in this Gospel which has been more generally misunderstood than the one just quoted. Many believe it defines the Holy Spirit’s work in the conscience prior to conversion. It is regarded as a description of His gracious operations in bringing the sinner to see his need of a Savior. So firmly has this idea taken root in the minds even of the Lord’s people, it is difficult to induce them to study this verse for themselves, to study it in the light of what precedes, to study it in the light of the amplification which follows, to study the terms employed.

Quote from the sermon: "You are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Just like the tabernacle in the wilderness during the Exodus was a constant reminder to the world that God was with the Israelites. Now the glory of God radiates from your life – as a constant reminder you’re your God is the true and living God. Christianity is a powerfully convicting force in the world, in society -- not only on those who are being saved, but also on those who hate our God." (Jason Robertson)

Video Indictment of the Market-Driven Churches

Wed, 30 May 2007 01:15:03 GMT

Pastor Gary Gilley of Southern View Chapel presents…

This video is the first part of a four part series on the damning indictment of the market-driven churches that are so popular today. This first video is an introduction to the church in the age of entertainment. Dr. Gilley contends that the church has sold out to our culture so that the influences of the culture have become the influences in the church. The most significant forces pressing against the church are entertainment, market driven philosophies and psychology. These three are largely absent from the Bible, yet are startlingly prevalent in evangelical churches. The leaders and issues he concentrates on most are Rick Warren and his book The Purpose Driven Church, Bill Hybels and Lee Strobel. In the fourth part of this series, Dr. Gilley will explain what the Emerging Church is and how it is dangerous to the Evangelical community.

Part Two Here

Part Three Here

Part Four Here

Who Is Israel?

Wed, 23 May 2007 12:34:42 GMT

by Michael Horton

The Banned Church Planting Video

Sat, 28 Apr 2007 17:05:05 GMT

Last year I spoke at a large church planting event along with a number of other church planters and church planting movement leaders. The event was held in Florida, went well, and did a very encouraging job of bringing together a number of denominations, networks, and organizations that otherwise would not have benefited from such a partnership.

This year I was invited back but declined because the few-day round trip from Seattle to Florida to give a very short message (last year it was less than twenty minutes) seemed like too much in light of other responsibilities. So, the sponsors of the event asked me to instead put together an eight-minute video on church planting that could be shown at the event and then handed out to each of the 1,500 attendees. So, in an effort to be helpful, the video crew from Mars Hill Church and I spent half a day in freezing weather at a military cemetery shooting scenes that were then edited for the video. Apparently the video was shown at the event, was well received by the attendees, and then criticized by Bill Hybels from the stage because it did not speak of women church planters. And, not wanting a bigger fuss, the organization hosting the event then made a decision not to hand out the video as they had promised, leaving the guys from our Acts 29 Church Planting Network who had hauled suitcases of the videos to Florida with thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of wasted effort. The leaders of the event are good guys whom I still consider friends, and I've never met Bill Hybels so I won't speak about him personally. But, I thought we should at least post the banned video online, so here it is:

Mark Driscoll Banned Church Planting Video

Sat, 28 Apr 2007 20:15:04 GMT

Marc Driscoll has been at the centre of controversy once more. This time it is about a video he shot for a conference which was aimed at stirring men to fight for the church. The video was publicly criticised from the stage of a conference by Bill Hybels. The video was then not given out as planned to the conference delegates. I am impressed with his restraint in his blog post on the subject. I

Massive Arrest of Chinese and American Christians in Xinjiang

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:30:09 GMT

MIDLAND, Texas, April 24 /Christian Newswire/ — China Aid Association has learned though credible sources that on April 19, 2007 in Akesu city, Xinjiang province, about 30 major house church leaders were arrested when they met with four American Christians. The four Americans were also arrested. Included among the arrested Americans are a senior pastor and an associate pastor of an American church. Sources tell CAA that the four Americans arrived at Akesu airport on April 17 and fellowshipped with the house church leaders on April 18 at a local church family house. At the time of this press release the four Americans are still being held for questioning in an undisclosed hotel. The translator for the Americans, Mr. Jinhong Li from Beijing, is also still being detained. On April 23, the PSB confiscated the luggage of the four Americans from the house of their host, a local church family.

Eight Chinese pastors were released on April 20 and at least 6 others have already received criminal detention papers for 30 days detention, accused as “suspects involved in evil cult activities.” The names of the accused are Pastor Xinglan Zhao, Pastor Xiurong Huang, Pastor Tianlu Yang, 41, Pastor Chaoyi Wang, 41, Pastor Cuiling Li, 48, and Pastor Sijun He.

The Chinese government may sentence the six accused pastors to 1-3 years re-education through labor because they were previously detained a couple of years ago for one month for organizing house church activities. Eyewitnesses told CAA that at least two of the arrested were seen with bleeding noses and bruises on their faces from torture at the interrogation site. They are being held at A Ke Su City Detention Center.

CAA has learned the US Embassy is intervening for this case.

“We urge the Xinjiang authorities to abide by both the Chinese and international laws in respect of religious freedom.” said Rev. Bob Fu, the president of CAA, “These Americans and Chinese Christians have done nothing wrong and the Police who are engaging in torture against theses Christians are to be held legally and morally responsible for what they have done.”

Issued by China Aid Association Inc. on April 24, 2007

Christian Newswire

Improving the church

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:55:07 GMT

The (PCA) church I currently attend recently solicited advice from the congregation. My church also has a Christian school. Below is a generic version of what I wrote back, along with some additional remarks that I didn’t make in my original reply:

One other thing before I jump in. I realize that a pastor must often choose what battles to fight. There are churches in which it’s a turf war between the pastor and one dominant family or rival power clique.

1. I think a church website should be used as an information clearing house.

i) In other words, this technology should be exploited as a general resource, with links to various weblogs and websites which offer church members access to sound theology and apologetics.

ii) It should also be used to post the pastor’s sermons or sermon outlines.

iii) It should have an annotated reading list on various topics in theology and ethics.

2. I have no idea what the curriculum is like at the school. But there are certain things it ought to include, whether or not it does a present, in order to prepare young Christians for challenges to the faith, whether ethical or intellectual:

i) A course in comparative religion and the cults.

Possible textbooks:

John Armstrong, ed. Roman Catholicism (Moody 1994)

David Baker, ed. Biblical Faith & Other Religions (Kregel 2004)

Francis Beckwith, ed., See the Gods Fall (College Press 1997)

Winfried Corduan. A Tapestry of Faiths: Common Threads Among the World’s Religions (IVP 2002)

_____, Neighboring Faiths (IVP 1998)

Elliot Miller & Ken Samples, The Cult of the Virgin Mary: Catholic Mariology and the Apparitions of Mary (Baker 1992).

Robert Spencer. Islam Unveiled (Encounter Books 2002)

Eric Svendsen. Evangelical Answer: A Critique of Current Catholic Apologists (Reformation Press 1999).

ii) On course on the historical Jesus.

Possible textbooks:

T. Desmond Alexander, The Servant King (Regent College 2003)

Darrel Bock. The Missing Gospels (Nelson 2006)

Ed Komoszwski, et al. Reinventing Jesus (Kregel 2006).

Lee Strobel, ed. The Case for Christ (Zondervan 1998)

iii) A course on the creation/evolution debate

Possible textbooks:

John. Byl. God & Cosmos (Banner of Truth 2001)

_____. The Divine Challenge (Banner of Truth 2004)

J. P. Moreland. Christianity & the Nature of Science (Baker, 1989)

Del Ratzsch. Science & Its Limits (IVP 2000)

Jonathan Wells, J. Icons of Evolution (Regnery 2002)

____The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (Regnery 2006)

Kurt Wise. Faith, Form, and Time (Broadman 2002)

iv) A course on higher criticism

Possible textbooks:

Paul Barnett, P. Is the New Testament Reliable? (IVP 2nd ed. 2005)

Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (2nd ed., forthcoming)

F. F. Bruce. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Eerdmans 2003)

Walter Kaiser & Duane. Garrett, eds. Archaeological Study Bible (Zondervan 2006)

V. Philips Long. The Art of Biblical History (Zondervan 1994)

John Walton. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (Baker 2006).

v) A course on apologetics.

Possible textbooks:

F. F. Bruce, The Defense of the Gospel in the New Testament (Eerdmans 1984)

John Frame. Apologetics to the Glory of God (P&R 1994)

Os Guinness, O. Long Journey Home (Waterbrook 2001)

J. Gresham Machen. Christianity & Liberalism (Eerdmans 1983)

vi) A course in Christian ethics.

Unfortunately, I don’t know of any ideal textbook presently in print. John Frame teaches a fine course at RTS. Perhaps Church Creek Pres could arrange with RTS to have access to the course materials.

vii) Courses in the foundational/central books of the Bible, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, and the four Gospels.

Possible textbooks:

GENESIS

Genesis 1:1-25:18 (EP Study Commentary)
by John D. Currid

Genesis 25:19-50:26 (EP Study Commentary)
by John D. Currid

The NIV Application Commentary Genesis
by Dr. John H. Walton

EXODUS

Exodus 1-18 (EP Study Commentary)
by John D. Currid

Exodus 19-40 (EP Study Commentary)
by John D. Currid

PSALMS

Prayer, Praise and Prophecy: A Theology of the Psalms (Mentor)
by Geoffrey W. Grogan

PROVERBS

Proverbs (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms)
by Tremper Longman

ISAIAH

The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary
by J. A. Motyer

MATTHEW

Matthew (New American Commentary)
by Craig Blomberg

MARK

Mark (The NIV Application Commentary)
by David E. Garland

The College Press Niv Commentary: Mark (The College Press Niv Commentary)
by Allen Black (Author)

LUKE

Luke (The NIV Application Commentary)
by Darrell L. Bock

Luke (New American Commentary)
by Robert H. Stein

JOHN

The Gospel of John Introduction, Exposition and Notes
by Frederick Fyvie Bruce

The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel: Issues & Commentary
by Craig L. Blomberg

Encountering John: The Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective (Encountering Biblical Studies)
by Andreas J. Köstenberger

3. As to the sanctuary and the worship service:

i) The organ rather than the piano should be used in hymnodic accompaniment. Pianos are only used to accompany hymns in nursing homes and storefront churches.

By design, a piano is basically a solo instrument. The piano is a very poor instrument for accompaniment, for it isn’t a very powerful instrument (except for a concert grand), and it can’t sustain the tone. The organ is a superior instrument for hymnodic accompaniment.

Also, in the age of digital organs, it’s much easier to transpose music using an organ than a piano.

ii) Presbyterian holdouts need to ditch the old Trinity hymnal for the new Trinity hymnal. There are several problems with the OTH:

a) It’s full of Victorian era hymns of the Ira Sankey ilk. This was not the great age of hymnody, either in terms of the lyrics or the hymn tunes. Hymns of that era are characterized by trite lyrics and amateurish accompaniment. There are a few exceptions, but they’re just that—the exception.

b) In addition, the technology of typesetting has improved since the days of the OTH, which is hard to read.

d) The OTH is also pitched about a full tone too high for untrained voices. Generally speak, untrained voices find it difficult to sing above a top D natural.

e) The OTH recycles too many of the same tunes. It’s useful for Christians to associate a particular tune with a particular text. That way, the tune functions as a mnemonic device, helping one to recall the text.

f) Some hymns have alternative melodies. In many cases, the OTH has reproduced the musically inferior alternative.

g) Then there’s the problem of the faux-Elizabethan diction.

Now, I don’t have any problem with authentic Elizabethan diction by a distinguished period writer, viz. Cranmer, Herbert, Shakespeare, Spenser, Vaughan.

I do have a problem with the merely quaint and mediocre archaizing of English, as if that’s supposed to be more reverent.

I’m not claiming that the NTH is in anyway a masterpiece. But it’s a distinct improvement over the OTH.

BTW, there’s a sense in which hardcopy hymnals are becoming obsolete. In the computer age it’s possible to cherry-pick from a variety of hymnals and reprint a hymn (complete with music) in the program. I knew a music director who used to do that.

For some distinguished exemplars, Ralph Vaughan Williams was editor of The English Hymnal as well as The Songs of Praise and The Oxford Book of Carols.

iii) The liturgy is too dry and wordy.

I once attended a Lutheran church (WELS) on and off which had a sung liturgy.

What they would do is to versify some of the liturgical material, like the creeds, and then set them to a familiar hymn tune. This is an improvement over reading aloud in a couple of respects:

a) Singing liturgy doesn’t drag the way reading liturgy does:

b) If you regularly sing a particular text (like a versified creed) to a particular tune, it’s easier to remember it.

There’s a reason we have so many songs in Scripture.

iv) There are too many sermonettes in the service. Every reading is prefaced by a sermonette. I appreciate the idea behind this, which is to give the congregation some contextual background.

But is the congregation going to remember these whirlwind introductions?

4. In terms of outreach:

The church should set up Bible clubs in the local public schools. That’s a great way to reach the young.

For the legalities, go to www.aclj.org

Other places where young people hang out, like shopping malls and beaches, are obvious venues.

I. Preaching

For purposes of analysis, I’ll distinguish between preachers and teachers. By a preacher I mean someone with natural speaking ability.

1.Preachers

Some men and women are naturally gifted public speakers. This can either be a strength or a weakness.

i) On the one hand, a great public speaker can reach some people (indeed, many people) in a way that wooden speaker cannot. To judge by contemporary reports—including hostile sources like David Hume and Benjamin Franklin—George Whitefield may well have been the greatest preacher in the history of Christendom.

ii) On the other hand, there are some obvious dangers. There’s the temptation to coast on one’s native facility. To wing it.

In addition, great oratory can disarm the critical faculty among many listeners. A great orator can be a great heretic. So it tells you nothing about the theology of the preacher, which may be good or bad.

In terms of oratorical ability, Charles Stanley, Billy Graham, Tony Evans, James Robison, Jimmy Swaggart and C. L. Franklin are, for better or worse, representative examples of very gifted public speakers.

iii) Then you have some men who are naturally wooden, but try to be great orators. They resort to melodrama. In my opinion, James Kennedy and W. A. Criswell are hammy preachers.

This isn’t a moral or theological flaw, so it’s a fairly trivial criticism. And Kennedy, for one, has done about as much good for the kingdom as any one man can do.

iv) It’s no secret that, in America, the two great preaching traditions are the black and Southern Baptist.

In terms of the stock, black preaching-style, C. L. Franklin is, perhaps, the paradigmatic example. And “Bishop” T. D. Jakes is, I suppose, the modern-day equivalent.

But, at another level, these are very poor role-models. What they do is pure showmanship. Anyone with a good ear and a bit of acting ability can imitate that style. And the style carries the message, even if the message is heretical, or pious nonsense.

A much better role-model is Tony Evans. He’s a gifted preacher, but he doesn’t work the crowd the way Franklin or Jakes do. He’s well-educated, evangelical, and orthodox.

v) Then you have white Pentecostal preachers who try to sound like black preachers. Rod Parsley and Paula White are two who come to mind. You might say that Rod Parsley and Paula White are to preaching what Eminem and Vanilla Ice are to hip-hop. All a-quiver with push-button passion and rhetorical gimmicks.

vi) Finally, although preachers in the charismatic tradition generally excel at histrionics, there are a few, like Rex Humbard and Benny Hinn, who succeed by cultivating a low-key, Marcus Welby bedside manner. Sometimes a smooth, soothing, oily sales-pitch is just as effective as the hard sell. It’s the difference between a mugger and a pickpocket.

2.Teachers

i) Since most clergymen are not orators, they should focus on being expository preachers. By “expository” preaching, I mean exegesis with application.

Unfortunately, a lot of what passes for expository preaching is very thin on exegesis. It merely uses the expository format to do topical preaching or systematic theology or psychobabble pep talks.

ii) Incidentally, there’s nothing wrong with topical preaching or systematic theology. But we still need to do exegesis. Application must grow out of exegesis. Systematic theology must grow out of exegetical theology.

iii) You don’t have to be a great orator to be a fine Bible teacher. Indeed, too much oratorical ability can get in the way of exposition. It’s better for evangelism than discipleship. Whitefield wouldn’t make a very good pastor.

However, to be a fine Bible teacher, a pastor does need to be studious. I often wonder how a lot of pastors spend their time. Clearly it’s not going into sermon preparation.

iv) Although you can’t turn a naturally inexpressive speaker into Tony Evans or Charles Stanley, even pastors with no natural talent for public speaking could benefit from professional coaching.

There are a number of Christian theatrical companies in this country, and seminaries should include some drama coaching in the seminary curriculum.

It would help a lot of seminarians improve their delivery. Lose some of their reticence. Eliminate distracting ticks or irritating mannerisms. Learn how to relax. Learn how to phrase and pace oneself for sense and emphasis. Gain some self-confidence in public speaking.

v) On a related note, there’s no reason that elders should do all the public readings of Scripture. Being an elder doesn’t make one a skilled public reader.

In this respect, Presbyterian polity is a bit antiquated. 400 years ago it made more sense for the clergy to do everything since the clergy were among the few members of the educated class. Among the few people who could read and write. Who even owned books.

But, nowadays, most of the laity are college-educated professionals.

One of the ironies is that high-church traditions, which are very top-down affairs, with a dogmatic lay/clerical division, nonetheless have a larger role for lay participation in the worship service than the traditional Presbyterian polity.

II. Art and Music

i) A number of one-time Evangelicals converted to Orthodoxy on aesthetic grounds. They got tired of the artistic mediocrity in so many Evangelical and fundamentalist churches.

While artistic scruples are no justification for adopting false doctrine, I would also say, at the same time, that there’s no excuse for so many Protestant churches to be so kitschy and tasteless.

ii) Contemporary Presbyterians seem to be rather schizophrenic in this regard. On the one hand, they’ve dumped the Puritan style of worship. On the other hand, they seem nervous about becoming too high-churchy, so what we end up with is a homogenous, nondescript style of worship that isn’t much of anything in particular.

In this respect, I think that Presbyterians and other suchlike need to shed their inhibitions and help themselves to the best of the Christian musical and artistic tradition, as long as that doesn’t glorify or underwrite false doctrine. We’re not going to reproduce the Assam-Kirche. But we can selectively mine the past, making critical use of Christian tradition.

The Solomonic temple was an artistic masterpiece, for the eye and ear alike.

iii) In terms of church architecture, we have the Byzantine, Romanesque, and Gothic. And some regions like the south have Colonial and antebellum churches.

Ugly can be just as pricey as beautiful. Why pay to dollar for ugliness?

iv) What about modern architecture? It depends on what you mean. Modern sometimes means modern for the sake of modernity. To break with the past at all cost. That should be opposed.

But men like Otto Bartning, Basil Spence, Le Corbusier, and Frank Lloyd Wright have created some stimulating church architecture.

v) I’m a classical music buff, so that’s where my musical sympathies lie. But as far as CCM is concerned, the most distinguished pop genre is jazz.

For a creative synthesis of classical and jazz, we have the Jacques Loussier Trio. It would be interesting to see that adapted to gospel music.

vi) While we’re on the subject of gospel music, I think that Marion Williams was the leading stylist of that genre.

The Keys to the Expansive Kingdom

Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:10:09 GMT

Several comments have registered discomfort with my (and the WCF’s) narrow construction of the kingdom of Christ. Some in fact have argued that the kingdom extends beyond the church.

I wonder if those who make such claims have considered what this view does to the doctrine of the keys to the kingdom. That doctrine is not explicitly taught in the Westminster Standards but it does come in the confessional tradition from which Kuyperianism sprung. And it takes seriously Christ’s teaching in Mt. 16 and 18 and John 20 that he gave his apostles the keys to the kingdom to forgive sins, to open up the gates of heaven, and to close those gates to those who will not believe and repent.

So if the church has the keys of the kingdom (namely, preaching and discipline according to the Heidelberg Catechism), then why aren’t ministers allowed to hold the keys to the expansive kingdom? Church officers would seem to have some responsibility and authority regarding the kingdom of Christ according to Christ’s own words. But now when the kingdom expands to politics, medicine or aerobics, suddenly those keys don’t work.

What gives?

Reply to Wilson

Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:35:05 GMT

His blog doesn’t like long comments. Therefore, I am going to have to post my response here.

Well, DW, I would have to say that a lot of the issue (it seems to me) depends on the definition of “visible.” Does the church have to be immediately seeable in the present in order to count as visible? We have lots of history books that allow us to see the visible church of the past. Therefore, the visible church is always visible to us, if not by immediate vision, at least with the eyes of history. Yeah, sure, it takes some digging and reading. But we can attain a vision of the visible church of the past. Otherwise, why would seminaries teach church history? Now, I know your next comment (maybe): “you used the term ‘history’ to describe the visible church: therefore ‘historical’ is better. The main problem with using (exclusively, for the distinction itself is perfectly legit) the historical/eschatological distinction is that it does not describe the present church as mixed. Now, to be fair, you have described the historical church with considerably more careful qualifications than other FVers have (I am especially thinking of Wilkins here). However, if one uses this distinction exclusively, the mixed character of the church will be obscured. Think of the parable of the dragnet, for example (Matthew 13:47-50). The term “historical” simply doesn’t capture the essence of that parable, imo. The terms “visible” and “invisible” do a much better job here. It describes explicitly the fact that there are fish now in the historical church, and that there is trash now in the historical church. The term “historical,” all by itself, indicates to me more the undifferentiated nature of the visible church, while the visible/invisible distinction (which is a different distinction, btw) indicates the mixed nature of the current church. Therefore, I would hesitate (to put it mildly) to use the term “clunky” to describe the visible/invisible church distinction.

DW, you have not dealt adequately with Andy’s point about LC 65: only members of the invisible church enjoy union and communion with the living God. They are, after all, special benefits. That word means “applying only to that particular group.” This is one of the most powerful arguments against the FV. Members of the visible church who are not elect do not enjoy union and communion with God.

The Visible Part of the Invisible Visible Church [Topic: Auburn Avenue Stuff]

Sat, 07 Apr 2007 20:55:06 GMT

On an earlier post, Green Baggins posted a link to his blog, marking a place where Andy Gilman had responded to something I had written on Scott Clark's blog. Andy had responded to it on yet another blog, and then sent a copy of it over to Green Baggins, and so GB came over here and asked me what I thought of it. Isn't the Internet great?

So here's Andy:

Doug Wilson posted something on Scott Clark's blog back in early January regarding the visible/invisible church distinction. Here's something I wrote to another forum after that exchange:

Doug Wilson:

[begin quote]

. . . if you want to have the invisible church existing "in history," in a way that is distinct from the visible church, then you are out of accord with the Confession. That is because the invisible church "consists of the whole number of the elect." A partial number of the elect is not the invisible church because it is not the whole number of them. It would make sense to speak of the whole number of the truly regenerate at this moment of 2007, but this is just a partial congregation within the invisible church. It is a subset of the invisible church, not the invisible church itself -- just as Christ Church here in Moscow is a congregation within the visible church; we are a subset.

If the invisible church includes the whole number of the elect, then it exists right now in the mind of God. I affirm this, as does Wilkins. If you want it to exist right now in history, then you have to do something about the "whole number of the elect," which includes current atheists who will be converted tomorrow and saints yet unborn. In short, you cannot have the invisible church, as the WCF defines it, in history. You can have a invisible congregation of the invisible church, but how helpful is that?January 4, 2007 [end quote]

Back to Andy:

According to the WCF definition, says Doug Wilson, the invisible church is an abstraction which exists only in the mind of God. "A partial number of the elect is not the invisible church because it is not the whole number of them." To speak of anything less than "the whole number of the elect" as the invisible church is contrary to the WCF definition of the invisible church. Yet when the WCF defines the visible church as consisting of "all those throughout the world that profess the true religion," or when the LC says the visible church is "made up of all such as IN ALL AGES and places of the world do profess the true religion," Doug seems to have no problem allowing the visible church to exist in history, and to be subdivided. He seems to have no qualms about referring to Christ Church in Moscow (which I'm sure he will allow is not "all those throughout the world that profess the true religion"), as a partial expression of the visible church, without doing injury to Westminster's definition of "visible church."

My point is that the "visible church" according to the WCF definition is no less an abstraction than is the "invisible church." If Doug is going to be consistent he will have to limit himself to talking only about "particular churches," like Christ Church in Moscow.

But if he takes that logical step, then he should be careful not to talk about the members of his "particular church" enjoying "union and communion" with Christ, because, according to LC 65, "union and communion" with Christ is reserved to those who are members of the invisible church, an entity which doesn't exist in history according to Doug's reading of Westminster. It would follow then that "union and communion" with Christ is occurring only in the mind of God, where also the invisible church actually exists. LC 82 and 83 speak of the "communion in glory which members of the invisible church have with Christ," IN THIS LIFE. So by Doug's reading of Westminster, we would have members of the invisible church, a thing which doesn't exist in history, somehow enjoying communion with Christ "in this life."

And now, back to me:

To review some of the essential issues here, let me just assert a couple things at the outset. I could cite numerous places where I have said these things in my published writing on this subject, but I have done this enough now that I think the average reader will just let me say them again.

1. I agree with the the substance of visible/invisible distinction. That is, I agree that there is a "whole number of the elect" and that the word Church is an appropriate way to speak of these people. I agree that there are professors of the true religion, together with their children, not necessarily elect, scattered throughout all ages, who also should be called by the name Church.

2. In agreeing with the doctrine set forth in the Westminster Confession, I have said that the terms visible/invisible are susceptible to misunderstanding at the popular level, and that I believe the terms historical/eschatological captures the same substantive meaning and are not susceptible to the same misunderstandings. That is my point. Okay so far?

Now, having said this, I agree with Andy's point about the definition of the visible church in the Westminster Confession. It is an abstraction. But this does not hurt my point at all -- it reinforces it. If my point is that the language of visible church and invisible church is clunky, how does it undermine my point to show another area where it clunks?

Andy said this, "My point is that the 'visible church' according to the WCF definition is no less an abstraction than is the 'invisible church.'" But Andy, Lane . . . anybody! Doesn't this reveal that according to this definition the visible church is just as invisible as the invisible church is? When we use a descriptive adjective like visible, it naturally raises the questions, "Visible to whom? From what vantage? When is it visible? Who can see it?" If the answer is that only God can see the visible church, and this is what we have set up by definition, wouldn't it be good to find a phrase that points to the same group of people, but does not mislead in this way? To define it in a way that combines the limited perspective of human eyes, but then extend it way past the point where human eyes can take it in, is, it seems to me, clunky. I say this while agreeing that the elect deserve the name of the true Church, the ultimate Church, the real Church . . . dare I say it? the eschatological Church. I say this while agreeing that there are people who do not have a connection to this ultimate Church, but who have professed the true religion and are attached to the Church in time and in history. Let's call them the historical church.

It seems to me the problem should be obvious. We could illustrate this problem, if we wanted, by speaking of the audible church and the inaudible church. Only God hears the inaudible and genuine cry of the heart, and hypocrites can join themselves to the church, and offer up their lengthy (and very audible) prayers. We are not accustomed to this kind of language, and we have to think about it. Isn't it obvious that it creates the problem of vantage point? Audible to whom? When?

Now if someone wants to work with the terms visible/invisible church distinction, and bring it down into history by means of stipulated definitions, that is absolutely fine with me. On these issues, I am not trying to grab anybody where the pants hang loose and frogmarch them out of the Reformed faith. What I am saying is that these stipulated applications of the Westminster definitions have to be carefully applied because the application is not nearly as easy as it looks. If the confessional definition of invisible church is "the whole number of the elect" and you bring it down to April 7, 2007, are you staying with the elect, or are you shifting to the regenerate? This is not a simple move, and missteps are common.

That said, I agree with Andy that the visible church in 2007 is a subset of the visible church as Westminster defines it. But I would prefer to use words to describe this that won't collapse when we put pressure on them. If I say the historical church in 2007 is a subset of the historical church generally, I don't have to change definitions of historical in mid-discussion. It means the same thing throughout. But the visible church in 2007 is a subset of the visible church throughout all ages, which is invisible to everyone except God. The visible church now is the visible part of the invisible visible church, because most of the visible church doesn't exist to be visible yet. But when I say historical church, it does not create these questions and situations, and, brethren, please believe me, I am referring to the same people. I just believe it is a more effective way to make the same distinction, and it is not subject to the same objections.