Would we fly to such a newcomer and welcome them with sincere and genuine love, or would we inwardly hope that maybe next time “they’ll clean themselves up a bit” before they visit (if at all)? Would we remember that maybe we once had more “acceptable” sins, or at least a better facade, but that at one point, regardless of appearance, we were as lost as they were? Would we continue to welcome such a one to our services and events, loving them and evangelizing them, and praying for them even if other churches began to wonder about our “testimony” in allowing such a person to be among us?

After their time with us, if they left and their lives were essentially the same, would they be able to honestly look back at their interplay with us and admit that they had been exposed to God’s love and His saving truth?

Are we there yet?

The test of a congregation, apart from personal holiness, is how effectively members penetrate the world. American churches are filled with pew-sitting, spiritual schizophrenics, whose belief and behavior are not congruent.

The Disciple-Making Pastor, Bill Hull

That Fall, I made a new friend(an OPC pastor) who introduced me to Road Cycling. I described my bike to him, and he said, “so when can you ride?” Cracked 23 y.o. gumwall tires and all, we went for a 15 mile ride, and I started getting hooked. We rode throughout the Fall, and the next Spring he encouraged me to start training for a “Century”–a 100 mile ride.

"Vintage" Bike

At first, I thought he was joking, but then he pulled out the brochure, and said: “see, if we register on the day of the event, it costs us $5 more, but if it’s raining, we don’t have to do it, and we’re not out the registration money.” So, by the time June 2008 rolled around, I had done some 50 mile rides, and felt queasily confident about entering. The day of, I found out the ride was divided into three 30-some mile sections, with food breaks along the way. The weather was great, so I couldn’t back out. It was hard, it was a bit grueling–I hadn’t trained quite enough–but I was hooked on distance road cycling.

Since then,

• I have replaced the tires (kevlar-laced tires $25 each),
• I added a high power rear blinking light ($35),
• I made gel-based padding upgrades to the handlebars (of my own design),
• I added three H2O bottle holders (N/C),
• I installed Crank Bros Mallet Clipless Pedals ($16 lightly used on Ebay–which then required $40 Diadora shoes & cleats),
• My cycling friends helped me adjust seat/bars for better riding position.
• Some kind Christian friends gave me a Cateye bike computer (measures & displays mph, cadence, max speed, avg speed, etc.)
• My wife bought me some gel-based gloves and cycling shorts etc.

So, as far as money “put into” the bike, it’s about $143. This bike weighs 32 lbs–I know of ways to lighten it, but this will cost more $–might still do it but not right now. My “weight reduction” has been focused more on the engine, and not so much on the bike.

FYI, for a ride of 20 miles at 15+ mph, the kilocalories burned is roughly 1000. Pretty cool. Even a half hour ride is ~800 Kc. I make rides down to my wife’s family 30 miles south of here and it works out to somewhere around 1500 – 1800 Kc, depending on how much I push it.

I just got back on it after 5-6 weeks off, and I realized how much I missed having the wind blow through my hair– whistle in my ears on a 35+ mph downhill!

When people ask me why I cycle (beyond answering about the wind in my err umm hair), I tell them that it helps me with my health and ministry as a pastor. The comment I make bothers some, but I then say: “And you know what is worse than a fat Baptist preacher preaching against sin? [Pause] Nothing!”

Every time I ride it I thank God for the physical ability to still do something like this, and pray that He will empower me to do something like this until I am too old/decrepit.

Pastor or Christian in the pew–I cannot imagine many biblical, allowable reasons for allowing our bodies to be grossly overweight or to be adversely affected by health complications due to our eating/exercise habits. Lifelong health problems, aches, pains and a poor testament of God’s Good News await those who allow sloth, overeating, unwise eating, busy-ness, or_________ to get in the way of taking reasonable care of our health. The costs of engaging in results-producing, interesting, and challenging exercise are low, the benefits are high, and in many cases our failure to seek health and wellness is likely a matter of sin and is displeasing to our Creator. We need to let the longer term benefits of working at our health outweigh the instant gratification of gluttony or laziness. Christ is pleased when we remove as many obstacles to our message of Good News as is possible. I have known many pharisaical types who make much of their “standards” when around the Lost, but their inability or unwillingness to exhibit self-control tears down the effect of their Good News witness, and the “testimony” of their “standards.”

May God help us all in our striving for godliness!

I am trying to say all of this without tooting my own horn–after all, it’s been 6 weeks since I was on the bike which also means 6 weeks of no significant exercise. (I did saw and haul 2.5 full cord of wood, but that is different exercise, and I am not trying to count it. Mapmyfitness.com did not have “sawyering” and “wood processing” as a fitness category, so I will not claim any significant exercise in the last 6 weeks. At the present time, I am trying to find a magnet or fluid-based stationary trainer to use in the off season. Craigslist here I come–I am hoping some people get one for Christmas, and either get sick of it, or are selling their old one as they upgrade to a new trainer… We’ll see. I can fall back on running, but at 47 y.o., it’s getting harder to convince my knees that pounding the pavement is good for them!

“Hey Haters…”

This is the kind of language I expect from a guest on the Tyra Banks show, or a pimply-faced Lady Gaga-idolizing teenager who has been told by her Christian school that she can’t wear some immodest outfit to a school event–not the kind of words I’d expect from a minister of the Gospel.

When he says: “we’re done with…the way you sling blame and shame in the face of anyone who doesn’t say what you say and see what you see, and read what you read, and think what you think, and do what you do…We’re sick and tired of your pervasive propensity to pick a fight and hide the light–nitpicking every little single pixel of God’s brilliant picture–seeing only your side in only black and white.” Does this kind of freedom he expresses include the need to be free about orthodox, biblical necessary doctrines such as the Trinity?

Why mention “Trinity?” Well, why would anyone claiming Christianity, and possessing the power to influence so many people promote the teachings of TD Jakes (who holds the heretical views of Modalism)?

Because, (although he released his little video rant in March 2011) Furtick has continued his promotion and encouragement of a man (Jakes) who (along with the other errors and falsity which are part and parcel of Word of Faith theology) refuses to proclaim the Triune God as the Scriptures have described Him–well-described at Chalcedon. (Google it). [One of THE most important moments in Christology and Theology since the launching of the Church in Acts.]

Is God’s Triunity a “nitpicking” thing? Is battling (and wanting to discredit the teachers of)  clear biblical errors of Word of Faith teaching a mark of being a “hater?”  A neophyte Bible student with an English Bible and a Greek & Hebrew lexicon can expose and successfully argue against the various errors of Word of Faith doctrine. And Paul, James, and Jude [for starters] thought exposure of heresy and heretics an essential task.

Is “nitpicking” include the voicing of concern for SF’s embracing and promoting Joel Osteen who is not only purposefully agnostic on the homosexual issue, but more importantly cannot even commit himself to publicly defending the Gospel on Larry King, etc? And it is not as though he was afraid of saying it–his gospel is distorted in many of his other presentations of it–but especially when he is called to make an apologia.

Do I have it all figured out? No. I know that–come to our church, and you’ll pick that up real quickly. But, with some careful study, it is not hard to conclude that the Triunity of God is the best interpretation of the relevant Scripture passages. It is understandably a basic tenet of the Christian faith. Sadly, this and other fatal errors of Charismaticism’s Third Wave are washing through our churches–giving us ungodly views of the hope for holy living, and worse, drawing people away to “another gospel” which is no gospel.

And, you know what, we should hate that kind of teaching, and speak against those who promote it. We should pray that God would lead all of us to His Truth! However much Furtick might say “you’re full of opinions, but low on the Spirit–Because the Spirit is love…peace…kindness.” This is true, but if we are going to quibble over the Spirit, over Pneumatology, the Spirit is umm, well, He is [Pause for effect] “Truth.” And from the two examples of Jakes and Osteen, the Spirit’s Truth needs to temper how willing we are to extend “Christian” fellowship and recognition to those who bandy the words of the Spirit about as though truth is immaterial. If someone wants to say this post is unkind because of all the “gospel” work that Furtick, Jakes and Osteen do, let me say it this way: all of it matters–Orthopraxy and Orthodoxy. To bring up numbers of “saved” (or fill in the blank) people as the reason for ignoring their errors is no argument. I’ve heard it umpteen times in Fundamentalism, and even by some who might read this. While no one is perfect in our faith and practice, pastors of all people should be glad when others are striving for orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

May God save our churches from these things, and may He keep false prophets from the Lost ones we know. Show them Christ!

The applications of these ideas are going to work out differently in each person’s life and church differently. The danger comes when we (in the name of fundamentalism or in the name of something else) begin to see our own applications of philosophy and doctrine as being normative and the only proper metric for others (individuals and churches.) Mebbe they are, mebbe they ain’t.

Recently, Kevin Bauder wrote a section of a book Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism–representing a Fundamentalist separatist point of view. I hope to purchase the book. Kevin makes a claim to be a Fundamentalist Christian and has written a great deal of his thought about the matter here.

Someone who also claims to be a fundamentalist has taken exception to the notion that Bauder is an acceptable spokesman for “Biblical Separatism.” If you want, you can look this guy up and see why he thinks that Kevin Bauder is wrong, and not just wrong, but that he is no friend of real Fundamentalism. Basically it boils down to the fact that Bauder does not practice separation the way that this particular critic thinks is “authentic Fundamentalism.” The rest is details.

Meh.

It appears that “Fundamentalism” for this particular critic includes the use of misleading untruths for the greater good. This is and has been a practice by Fundamentalist bullies for a good long time. I have seen friends bulldozed by pastors who re-manufactured information for their own benefit under the guise of protecting a ministry when it basically protected the bulldozer. Just because it is part of our history does not make it right–some traditions must be broken. At the blog in question the following is included as one of the “For Related Reading” links:But, here’s the thing–this link, as it appears on the page linked above, is a lie. It links to an article written by an itinerant preacher who disagrees with Kevin Bauder, and thought he would tell us so by making it appear as if Bro. Clearwaters wrote the letter. In the original, the pseudonymous nature of the “letter” is obvious. The method itself is an interesting rhetorical device, and in a sense it hearkens to the John Ploughman letters of C.H. Spurgeon. In respect for C.H.S. I will end any other speculation of similarity. The similitude ends at the method chosen.

The point is, R.V. Clearwaters has not written a letter to Kevin Bauder–at least not one that has been made public. It is untrue to promote a link with the idea that he has.

Is this a Fundamentalist way to stand “In Defense of the Gospel?” (Is it biblical and ethical?)

Do I really need to ask?

After greetings were exchanged, I was asked how it was going for us. I said we had had the opportunity for some spiritual/Gospel conversations with the people walking by. Then this question was posed to me: “any arguments?” I replied that I generally do not get into a lot of arguments with people at the Fair. Whereupon, my booth guest proceeded to try to start an argument with me; attempting to get me into a discussion about eschatology, and the other matters which were emblazoned on the banners, books & brochures at the Author’s booth. This comment, or something like it was made to me: “it’s amazing to me how settled people can be about their view of end-times to the point that they will not want to hear your viewpoint on the matter.”

I said “yup.”

The person kept trying to start something, but (as much as I like a good argument) I wasn’t buying.

After some more tries, my would-be foil gave up and went to patrolling the aisles of the building we were in. Every time I overheard the Author in a conversation with others, my booth visitor was red-faced, and quite vehement about something.

I wondered how many times I was perceived this way by others–be they believers or unbelievers. The whole thing has given me pause.

Can we purpose to hold our (non-Gospel) convictions with some kind of charity without pugnaciousness? It’s not that we cannot discuss them, but think about it, is focusing on our favorite conviction all we ever do when we speak with others? (Dave’s post about obsessiveness seems apropos.)

Admittedly, as soon as I was asked “any arguments?” it  reminded me of a famous comedy sketch, and I began giggling inside: (I’ll leave it to you to find it…) How often in our rightness (especially on secondary doctrines) do we resemble this?

“Is this where I come for an argument?”

“I’ve told you once…”

“…Look, this isn’t an argument!”

“Yes it is”

“No it isn’t. It’s just contradiction!”

“No it is not.”

“Yes it is. You just contradicted me.”

“No I didn’t”]

“Oh, you did”

“No, no, no, no, no, no no!”

“You did, just then.”

“No, nonsense.”

“Oh, look–this is futile.”

“No, it isn’t.”

“I came here for a good argument.”

“No you didn’t. You came here for an argument.”

“Well, an argument’s not the same as contradiction.”

“Can be.”

“No it can’t…” etc.

Quote from a commenter at Mark Snoeberger’s weblog “Systematic Theology Matters: ” The difference [between Reformed-influenced views of sanctification and Keswick views of sanctification] simply boils down to an ‘inevitable’ view of faith versus a responsible faith.”

This is a fine example of the logical fallacy of petitio principii or “begging the question.” In order to garner support and sympathy for one’s own argument, he resorts to labeling his own argument with superior terms–in this case the word “responsible” was chosen. Thus in this case, the opponent’s argument whatever it is, is not the “responsible” or more desirable view. At this point, the author’s argument itself should lose credibility in the reader’s mind because he cannot properly defend his own POV, nor fairly label his opponent’s argument.

The value of our own statements and arguments depend upon our willingness to be honest brokers in our discussions.

Prosit!

http://prpbooks.com/blog/2011/08/5-free-copies-of-growing-up-christian/

Dear Lord! accept a sinful heart,
Which of itself complains,
And mourns, with much and frequent smart,
The evil it contains.

There fiery seeds of anger lurk,
Which often hurt my frame;
And wait but for the tempter’s work,
To fan them to a flame.

Legality holds out a bribe
To purchase life from thee;
And discontent would fain prescribe
How thou shalt deal with me.

While unbelief withstands thy grace,
And puts the mercy by;
Presumption, with a brow of brass,
Says, “Give me, or I die.”

How eager are my thoughts to roam
In quest of what they love!
But, ah! when duty calls them home,
How heavily they move!

Oh, cleanse me in a Saviour’s blood,
Transform me by thy pow’r,
And make me thy belov’d abode,
And let me rove no more.

[En passant,  the original poster's weblog ]