Your First Days As A Christian

While I have some more work to do in organization before I can post more, I had a project put upon my heart by both my evaluation of the old blog and a couple of incidents that have happened here in person. While I haven’t gotten a formal post completed to replace the prior one, this post will lend a hint as to a direction I aim to take with this blog. Part of that seemed to lend to some good discussion, so I thought I would place this here. My hope is that it does…

Note that since I still have extremely limited time to tend to blog-related issues promptly, that I have set moderation on all comments. Those that know me from the old blog will know that (in the scope of this blog), I will allow just about anything as long as it’s not generally disruptive.

---

Think back to when you first became a Christian.

1. How prepared were you on the natural “What Now?” question after you opted to follow Christ?

2. Were there any questions you had that were largely unaddressed?

3. Were (are?) there any terms that you regularly heard in the course of a service/study/small group that were largely assumed or unaddressed as to their definitions?

Book Review: Growing True Disciples by George Barna

Growing True Disciples: New Strategies for Producing Genuine Followers of Christ. George Barna. WaterBrook Press, 2001.

In the course of dealing with the question of discipleship, churches tend to take the matter as an after thought. This is especially true in most modern church cultures, where the focus is “winning the world over to Christ” more than it is “teaching them to observe all things I command you”. People are converted to whatever it is (usually the church organization), and then left to their own agendas. Unfortunately, those agendas often have dangerous outcomes, where someone would come along and teach something different.

This disconnect is what George Barna intends to address with his book Growing True Disciples, which is addressed to church leadership. He points out in the book using the usual surveys and statistics that people are…listless, and then rightly connects that to why the church isn’t transforming the world.

Barna begins his book with this hypothesis: Ignite people’s passion for God and get out of the way. The author then provides a basic lesson on discipleship. After that, he presents the results of his surveys. First, he points out that there is a disconnect between the claims that people make and their willingness to put in the work to make spiritual change happen, noting that most people put many other things ahead of their spiritual growth as priorities. Then he points out that professed Christian believers really aren’t living *that* differently from the world. Barna then discusses some reasons he perceives that churches are dropping the ball when it comes to discipleship. Finally, the author describes what he believes was effective in the churches he surveyed and presents five models as examples of what he believes is ideal.

The idea to focus on people and not the organization (programs/policies/procedures) is laudable, especially since Scripture clearly portrays a Master/Disciple relationship and not organizational tools. Barna’s effort to point out that small groups (the Churchian fad) are ineffective without such relationships is very welcome.
However, Barna’s drift from people back to programs towards the end of the book is sadly predictable. This is doubly so, as I was waiting to hear ideas on how to bring people together rather than policy declarations. Furthermore, Barna’s choice to very generically focus on his five churches without providing specifics behind what they do that he sees as valuable is very disappointing.

Growing True Disciples is very valuable in terms of describing the current state of where people are as professing Christians. However, don’t expect decent answers to the issues at hand.

Rating: 8 out of 10.

Image Source: Amazon.com

Book Review: The Myth Of A Christian Nation by Gregory A. Boyd

The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church. Gregory A. Boyd. Zondervan, 2007.

Having picked up this book with the same interests as God’s Politics, I had interest in a more Scriptural picture of the proper role of the Church. While Boyd makes a much better effort than Wallis in describing the reasons that the United States was wayward in conflating the national agenda with Christianity, it is still a disappointing effort.

The book begins by defining the kingdom of God (the cross) versus the kingdom of the world. Boyd then points out the dangers of the Church confusing itself with the nation, creating an idolatrous civil religion, and the seduction of being able to take up the sword in the name of Christ. Then, the book addresses the common phrases in use in the United States, “taking America back for God”, and that it is a “Christian Nation” and “one nation under God”. Boyd then addresses the issues of moral guardianship and violence.

The author does an admirable job in pointing out the issues of civil religion as it exists in the United States. He points out that national motives are all too often made into “Christian” motives, including all the destruction that it has caused in the history of the Church. When describing the problem, Boyd will hit the mark. The problem comes, though, in the author’s theology. He bases much of the book on Luke 22:24-26. In using this, Boyd overly applies it to numerous other situations that are unwarranted.

For instance, the author argues that since people are not called to judge (the common misapplication of Matthew 7:1-5), that they should not call out sin when they see it. This minimizes the clear problem of evil in the hearts of men, and the standards God has set. Boyd then argues from an incomplete perusal of Scripture, missing that all the prophets addressed the surrounding nations as well as Israel – Jonah and Amos 1-2 being two examples of many. He states that the Church has no business addressing the world, or being salt and light in the world.

Boyd would be well reminded to remember in his theology that Jesus did not come to bring peace but a sword (Matthew 10:34-38). Proclaiming and following God’s ways, even before the Gentiles (Romans 2:14-16) will necessarily cause division. Boyd would also be well reminded that friendship with the world is enmity with God (James 4:4). The idea that the world can be loved into heaven is an unfortunate heresy that Boyd perpetuates in this book. Instead of promoting the declaration of the true state of man (Romans 3:22-24) and instructing the world to flee the coming wrath (Luke 3:7) through the good news of the Gospel, Boyd does different. Boyd calls making friends with the world “love”, missing that not caring for the eternal well-being of men (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10) is the very definition of unloving and should not exist in “kingdom people”.

While an instructive indictment of the civil religion in the United States, Boyd’s poor theology in instructing what the Kingdom of God should do in the world shipwrecks the book.

Rating: 4 out of 10.

Image Source: Amazon.com

Society of Phineas – The Best of 2012

I’m not one to usually do round-up posts regularly (or at all), but with it being the end of 2012, it seemed fitting to dig into the vault that is the site stats and pull out what is the most viewed posts. While this blog hasn’t existed for all of 2012, it has existed in nine months of that time so it should be a good reflection. That said, here we go, along with some summaries and reflections:

1. Single Christian Men Don’t Seek Christian Wives (#2) (08-03-2012)

This post, along with #5 came on a week where I was itching to blog, but really didn’t have a topic on my mind, so I pulled out the most common search term at the time (as explained on post #5) and used it on Google myself. Then I pulled out some observations about relationships and what is pushing single Christian men away from marrying. They have continued with consistent views ever since.

This one focuses on the church environment and the fact that church officials can’t seem to get past their blaming of men to see the factors that are on them to deal with that push men away from dating in church.

2. So You Want To Become A Pastor? (08-15-2012)

It’s hard sometimes to gauge where interest comes from for views, but this one was obvious. Two days after posting my observations in research on what it takes to be a pastor, the post was linked from the Captain Capitalism blog. Subsequently there were a large number of referrals. I never got around on this one to thank him for the linkage in a decent amount of time before the post got buried, so consider this that thank you.

3. Why Young Men Don’t Marry (05-20-2012)

This one is older than #1 and #5, but consistently receives views for the same reason. In this one, I continue after dealing with Albert Mohler’s man-up rant to describe some of the real reasons that young men aren’t marrying within the church.

4. Single Christian Men Just Aren’t Buying What Is Sold (08-05-2012)

This was the first post after #1 and #5 which was the result of some thoughts to express, ultimately coming from that exercise and answering an article. It compares the conditions of the dating market in terms of an economic exchange, and points out that you have the unique condition of the sellers in the dating market blaming the buyers for not buying the product instead of working doing a better job of providing the product and selling it.

5. Single Christian Men Don’t Marry (#1) (08-02-2012)

The story behind this one was described in #1. This post describes some of the attitudes of the single women involved which were quoted in the articles that came up.

I conclude this post by thanking all of you who have read this blog and those of you who have supported this blog by linking to it in your blog rolls and link fest posts. I offer the prayer of the hope that 2013 will bring much glory to God and blessing to all of those involved.

Single Christian Men Don’t Seek Christian Wives (#2)

In looking at the topic of single men and Christian marriage, the next item that caught my eye actually is from a secular dating site called YourTango, which is a site that is described as (take it for what it’s worth):

YourTango is a digital media company dedicated to love and relationships. As the thinking woman’s media brand, we are leading the conversation that is closest to women’s hearts.

The particular page at YourTango serves to address the popular meme of Churchianity to blame men for not seeking women to marry (or “man-up and marry the sluts” as you’ll see in the manosphere). These man-up rants have been brought up before, but the YourTango page brings up interesting points. It’s been stated in several way, but the basic theme is there.

The choice of marriage is up to the man, the man isn’t making the choice to marry for reasons that should be painfully obvious but aren’t, and he fully has the right to not marry out of his own wisdom and discernment.

This Focus On The Family article makes the point a different way, which while softer in tone is still equivalent to the “man-up” messages of Mark Driscoll, Kevin DeYoung, Bill Bennett and the like:

But many Christian men, Joel and Brian suggest, don’t take the initiative to find a wife.

“A common complaint I hear from single Christian women is that Christian men don’t do anything,” Joel says.
. . .
In short, both men agree that guys should get busy and initiate!

It keeps being repeatedly obvious as to why Christian men aren’t seeking single Christian women, but the answers aren’t being sought by the Churchian proctors (even when they’re right in front of them). The YourTango article is different than most in Churchianity because it seeks to answer the question in some way. The article asks “Why Won’t Christian Men Date Women Who Go To Their Church?”, and brings some truth to the table. This initial quote says it all:

“I’ve only gone out with a couple of girls at church, and I won’t do it anymore,” says Luke*, a 40-year-old Christian man living in Southern California. “At this point, I’m happily resigned to not ask a girl out at church ever again.”

Many (I’m sure) have taken the red-pill and gone MGTOW. Others however, are seeking outside of the church, maybe for women of the same values, but likely not. Given the existence of the man-up rants, the women are most certainly noticing, for reasons of reality or hypergamy:

When I was living in New York City, one of my female friends dropped a rather pointed allegation about the Christian male population: “They’re not pursuing us,” she said. “We’re all single, yet no one is being asked out. The men need to step it up.”

But as I mentioned, the author is seeking answers and speaking some truth. She begins:

They do want marriage. Their frustration with pursuing women at church has little to do with laziness, or indifference about dating. All the men I talked to were searching for love.

The fact is, most single Christian men really want to be married if the conditions are right. The problem is that they mostly aren’t. There are several factors that are unique to church situations, but also unique to what marriage has become.

Unique to church situations are the closed environment and the potential for gossip and the painting of the reputation of the man involved, especially when it comes to the white-knight defensiveness of the older men (some summarized into brackets):

The men from Bel Air Presbyterian agreed, and said they never want to be seen as “that guy”—the one who goes to church to prey on women.

If I find it doesn’t work out with that girl, then I can’t ask out any of the rest of [her friends] because they’re all off-limits.

[T]he men in New York complained of the potential drama and gossip that can occur when people either date or break up within their small church. Rather than voluntarily placing themselves in the center of it all, they learned over the years to avoid the gossip mill by dating women elsewhere.

To continue (can fit in the block of text above, but a different page):

“It’s not appropriate in a Christian environment for us to be human.”
…
The mere idea of flirting with someone, or of asking a girl for her number within the confines of the church walls was too “shady” of a prospect for them to even consider.
…
“It’s not guilt,” Mark answered, “it’s fear. There’s the fear of not only being rejected as a man, but shunned as an inappropriate Christian.”

The Churchian environment has in its place a huge magnifying glass on what people do, especially when it comes to dating situations. People do want to appear “Christian”. As well, they don’t want the gossip and drama that inevitably comes when trying to start a relationship with a woman. This is even without considering the nuclear rejection, which can be the death sentence for a man’s reputation in a Churchian environment. I’ve heard stories of tongues wagging even when a single man dares to talk to a single woman in any way. There’s always the other factors which are similar to the reasons why it’s not wise to date women in the workplace, which are equally applicable to those who are in steady church situations. It’s just not a smart thing to do.

Given the attitudes of people today, why is it that modern women realize that men are not interested in them, and then search for the flaw in the men to explain this? Why is it that the Churchian proctors can’t address what is really going on with dating instead of blaming the men everything, including scapegoating them for the problems the Churchian proctors created themselves?

When Churchian women are increasingly nothing more than entitlement princesses who believe that they are entitled to a husband, yet have nothing to offer a man other than anger and bitterness, and is unfit for Godly marriage is it any wonder why men don’t marry? And if these women and their Churchian backers throw up barriers and annoyances which discourage dating, is it any wonder that men don’t want anything to do with even trying to find a woman to marry under those conditions?

Marriage 1.0 (#8) – In The Church

In the continuing study of what Marriage 1.0 looks like (Biblically), we come to how the God-given hierarchy is expressed within the society of the Church. As one might recall, we are told:

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)

So if we take this out to fruition in a Christian society where everyone is following Jesus alone in a faithful way, each husband is the minister of his family. So naturally we would expect this to be preserved when walking into a group fully consisting of Christian disciples.

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

As we may recall, These are parallel passages (the 1 Cor 14 one is in a section that relates to prophecy, v29-35). As it states, in God’s hierarchy, women can serve in every place within the Church, except in places of authority over men or handling doctrine. As some are fond of pointing out as it relates to women submitting to men in general (those who are not their husbands), the converse is true when it comes to men. Women can speak in Christian gatherings to perform their other spiritual service, and perhaps even ask respectful questions. But there should never be a case in a true gathering of Christian disciples where a woman usurps a man’s God-given authority in any way, shape or form by teaching or holding authority over men.

Of course, there will be women who (successfully) will challenge this God-given authority:

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. (Genesis 3:16)

These women are as Eve in the Garden, who was told that she could eat of every tree in the garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:2-3), yet were deceived into doing it anyway. And any men who allowed them to teach and have authority follow in Adam’s footstep. God set up a similar situation when it comes to what women can do within the Kingdom, but they are deceived into partaking of what they should not.

The teaching of how women are to appear within the Church relates well to outer society as well.

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. (1 Corinthians 11:4-7)

Winter (p 292) explains the significance of the veil, along with other dress:

Second, by contrast first-century wives, both in statue types and literature, wore a distinctive dress which was made of a considerable amount of material. It was meant to convey the modesty that epitomised the married woman. In addition, they wore the marriage veil in public to distinguish themselves from others. Augustus had taken upon himself in his legislation to provide for distinctions in dress codes for the modest wife over against the adulteress and the prostitute.

So we can, with a reasonable degree of certainty, take the assumption that the head covering is a Roman cultural phenomenon. But if we read into the context of this to try to get the principle of the lesson, it’s saying that a wife should act in every way like she is married instead of single and available. She should honor the marriage in her actions everywhere she goes.

The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. (Titus 2:3-5)

This, along with being a Scripture to refute the Stanton Heresy illustrates that women do have a teaching role within the Church. While we are given more qualities to select potential wives by, we are also told that the older women are to teach and admonish the younger women to be proper wives in the sight of God.

As we know from current culture, there is much occasion given by Churchianity to excuse the world to blaspheme the word of God. A good witness before the world in the sight of God is a valuable thing, and a Christian wife should consider being a wife by the Lord’s rules to be part of her Christian witness. In the account of David’s sin involving Bathsheba we are told by the Lord that this matters:

And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. (2 Samuel 12:13-14)

The world can read Scripture and know what you claim to represent, especially if there are those searching for something better than the world. In simple terms, there are things of God that people of the world even know and know better not to do. Doing them, especially from those in leadership, drives people away from the Lord and leads these people to brand the Churchian group as hypocrites. There are those who place themselves in leadership that are trying to double-talk people out of looking at such things that exist within their environments and basing their actions upon them. These are indeed the hypocrites. Jesus had something to say about such people:

And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch? The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye. (Luke 6:39-42)

The admonishment is there to test those who claim spiritual authority. Are they right or are they blind? After all, one can not transcend past those they set out as examples here on earth.