Maybe Next Time He’ll Think Before He Speaks

December 5, 2008

You will enjoy this little video I came across. All too often we pastors only talk about our wives as sermon illustrations. We should love and respect them more than that!


Guy Fawkes Day

November 5, 2008
Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
I can think of no reason
Why the Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.
Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, t’was his intent
To blow up the King and Parli’ment.
Three-score barrels of powder below
To prove old England’s overthrow;
By God’s providence he was catch’d
With a dark lantern and burning match.
Holloa boys, holloa boys, let the bells ring.
Holloa boys, holloa boys, God save the King!

Today, for all you who do not know, is Guy Fawkes Day! On November 5, 1605, a plot was foiled to blow up the Houses of Parliament by a number of Catholic conspirators including Guy Fawkes. Hardly remembered anymore outside of the United Kingdom, it should be the ever present reminder to Christians for God’s providential preservation of order in a world that craves chaos.


The Danger of Umbrellas

October 24, 2008

In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity. This quotation, although falsely attributed to Augustine (although I believe he would have agreed with it essentially), is one that is thrown around commonly in Christian circles. The intention is, that in the core essential teachings of Christianity we are to be united, but in the non-essential issues there can be liberty or diversity, and that ultimately in all things we must be charitable to one another. How often though do we truly live this out in the real world? How often do we say or think these thoughts and then turn around and live as all non-essentials are essentials; that those who do not share my particular theology or label can hardly be part of the church?

Back in my old days, I often felt that everyone who did not agree with me theologically could hardly be saved. Thankfully the Lord has removed that hurtful thinking and I am trying to look past labels to the theology behind it and embrace the essentials and look past the non-essentials.

I had been thinking of this slogan as of late in serving with a non-denominational mission group, Slavic Gospel Association. While we do not have a denominational label, if you looked at our doctrinal statement you would see we are essentially Baptist. Even though we are Baptistic in our theology we recognize that there are those outside of the Baptist camp who are genuine believers, also Baptistic, and conservative theologically. We believe there is a core group of teachings that are fundamental to the very essence of Christianity. We would hold those dearly and fight in earnest for them! But we acknowledge that there are things that fall outside of the essentials of the faith that good men differ on. True believers can have different positions on issues of the end times, the ministry of the Holy Spirit, understandings over election and free will, mode of baptism and many other issues. Does that mean SGA does not have a position on these issues? Far from it! Does that mean that the believers in the former Soviet Union we work with do not have a position on these issues? Not at all! My simple point is that there are many of us who hold to some theological positions very tightly that can never be open to working together with a brother who might not view things exactly the same way. Even more than that, there are those who hold to a particular label that would not consider associating with those who would believe the same as they do yet not maintain their label to the nth degree.

Doctrinal precision is extremely important. We must not be sloppy in our understanding of God’s Word. That is why as pastor’s we must be rigorously trained in the exegesis of the Word of God and of Systematic Theology. God spoke to us in propositional revelation for it to be understood. We must be willing to study the whole counsel of God to better understand God and our responsibility to Him. And, I am just as responsible to do this. After years of seminary and personal study I have very carefully held theological beliefs. For instance, I am a 5 point Calvinist. I believe that the Scriptures teach this to be the most accurate expression of the relationship between God and man in salvation. I am a dispensational premillennialist. I believe that this approach to reading the text and understanding the end times is one that is most accurate. Does that mean that we cannot work together with the person who is an Arminian or a postmillennialist? Far from it! For what constitutes a Christian? One who has placed their faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and affirms core doctrinal teaching (i.e., the fundamentals of the faith). That means that there are those I might disagree with in the non-essentials (that which is not required to be believed to be saved) that I can still serve with for the furtherance of the work of the Gospel. Again, even more, there are those who might agree with me but use different labels than I would who would not associate with me because we do not share the same labels. That hurts! A label is only as good as the belief that it represents. If in the process of study we adjust our theology to be better reflective of our thinking, we can adjust the label. But in reality, a label is simply an umbrella over all that we believe. And while it is good to have an umbrella over our heads, it can prevent us from getting close to one another. Picture everyone with their umbrellas over their heads. Some are black. Some are red. Some are big. Some are small. But umbrellas make it difficult for us to come together. Once we lower our umbrellas we will often see clearer what we hold in common and only then can we come closer together.

For some reason we wrongly assume that to protect doctrine and the testimony of Christ we feel we must pull in on ourselves and make our camp as small as possible under our label or umbrella. Is it not possible brethren to partner together with other churches who might not agree exactly as you do on every theological jot and tittle for the sake of the Gospel; those who might have a different coloured umbrella? And I must be careful here: I am not advocating embracing unbelief for the sake of being on the same side of an issue. I am not prepared to side with Roman Catholicism on the issue of abortion. But even as I say that are the issues that clear? What do I do if conservative evangelicals are not speaking out on an issue like abortion and the only one who is the Roman Catholic priest? Yes, they disagree with evangelicals on the issue of biblical authority and justification but they solidly affirm the sanctity of life. What do I do then? Is it simply as black and white as many make it out to be? And here is my point.

I am seeing it more and more difficult to reach out and connect with people who are so absolutely tied to their rigid umbrellas or detailed labels. For instance, some Reformed churches, regrettably, want to only work with Reformed people who only think like they do. Some Arminian churches only want to work with other Arminians. What happened to the transatlantic revival of the 18th century where Baptists worked with Congregationalists who worked with Anglicans who worked with Methodists and so on for the sake of revival? These people were not advocating different religions. They affirmed the essentials!

Even though the believers we work with in the CIS are Calvinistic and that the churches we for the most partner with here in Canada are Calvinistic it is hard to get some people to join with us because we do not dot our “i’s” just as they do. Because we, or those we serve, might not have the same umbrella, some people hesitate to join with us or other ministries. What concerns me is that we as Calvinists are more excited to get together and talk about our theological position which we have done many times before instead of talking about how our theology applies in the real world in the life of the church. How does my Calvinism influence my view of missions? How do we put our Calvinism into practice? But more important, how do we apply all of our theology practically in a worldwide church that is much bigger than just Calvinism? My call to everyone is, remember the church is bigger than you think! And God is calling you to work to further the Gospel all around the world. Therefore, do not only think you must partner with an exact same organization that has the same label as your own before you can help. Look past the non-essentials and partner together with solid Christian churches across Canada to reach out; to see churches planted; to see pastor’s trained; to see men and women saved and added to the church. There is much to do and we need the help of all Christians. We need the help of all believers and churches who are committed to the essentials and will be unified in those essentials for the work of the Kingdom.

No one church can hope to reach the entire former Soviet Union. No one church can hope to reach one city, one community, one country, or even the whole world. It will take all of us together. All of us who call on the name of Christ. Is there not a time and place for all those who hold steadfast to the fundamental doctrines of the faith to put aside our theological pride and embrace other brothers for the sake of the Kingdom. Christ is looking for soldiers and warriors. Not everyone in the Army of the Lamb will be exactly the same. Will you take up your standard and sword and fight for Christ together with those who might not be exactly the same as you? The church is bigger than you think and we must all seek to serve Christ by serving our brothers and sisters. Beware your umbrella. Beware the inclination to not embrace your fellow soldier for the mission. When you hold your umbrella it is hard for your fellow soldiers to get in close and protect your back and sides. As the Roman phalanx did centuries before, believers should pull in close and tight to one another despite doctrinal differences that do not make us fundamentally different. We are all fighting for the same army.


Pastor Lunches

October 6, 2008

You are invited to attend one of three pastor’s lunches being held to hear about the ministry of Eugene Bakhmutsky, National Youth Director for the Russian Union of Evangelical-Christians-Baptists. Three lunches (provided free of charge) are available for you:

October 31, 2008 – 12:00 PM – Benton Street Baptist Church, Kitchener, ON

November 3, 2008 – 12:00 PM – Fellowship Baptist Church, Cobourg, ON

November 4, 2008 – 12:00 PM – Richmond Hill Baptist Church, Richmond Hill, ON

Below you will find a PDF attachment giving more information about Brother Bakhmutsky and the challenging messages he will be providing for us in his session titled, “While There’s Still Time.” Please RSVP to Allen Mickle by October 24, 2008 at allenm [at] sga [dot] org.

three-pastors-lunches-with-eugene-bahkmutsky


Unplugging from Technology

July 22, 2008

Many of you know, that my wedding is on July 26. That is this coming Saturday. Tomorrow I drive down to Pennsylvania to help with the final wedding plans before the big day. I made a promise to my soon-to-be wife that I would make sure I unplug from technology for our honeymoon. We’re headed to Florida and I promised I would not bring my laptop. I will have my cell but will only use it for emergencies. So, no updates here my friends. No Facebook updates. No answering e-mails. Nothing! So, this will be my last post for just a little while. Perhaps you too should unplug from technology for a little bit, and go enjoy your family! See you soon… with a new wife!


Penal Substition and God’s Love

June 5, 2008

“Furthermore, if the true measure of love is how low it stoops to help, and how much in its humility it is ready to do and bear, then it may fairly be claimed that the penal substitutionary model of atonement embodies a richer witness to divine love than any other model of atonement, for it sees the Son at his Father’s will going lower than any other view ventures to suggest. That death on the cross was a criminal’s death, physically as painful as, if not more painful than, any mode of judicial execution that the world has seen; and that Jesus endured it in full consciousness of being innocent before God and man, and ye of being despised and rejected, whether in malicious conceit or in sheer fecklessness, by persons he had loved and tried to save–this is ground common to all views and tells us already that the love of Jesus, which took him to the cross, brought him appallingly low. But the penal substitution model adds to all this a further dimension of truly unimaginable distress, compared with which everything mentioned so far pales into insignificance. This is the dimension indicated by Denney–‘that in that dark house He had to realise to the full the divine reaction against sin in the race.’ Owen stated this formally, abstractly, and non-psychologically. Christ, he said , satisfied God’s justice ‘for all the sins of those for whom he made satisfaction, by undergoing that same punishment which, by reason of the obligation that was upon them, they were bound to undergo. When I say the same I mean essentially the same in weight and pressure, though not in all accidents of duration and the like.’ Jonathan Edwards expressed the thought with tender and noble empathy:

God dealt with him as if he had been exceedingly angry with him, and as though he ad been the object of his dreadful wrath. This made all the sufferings of Christ the more terrible to him, because they were from the hand of his Father, who he infinitely loved, and whose infinite love he had had eternal experience of. Besides, it was an effect of God’s wrath that he forsook Christ. This caused Christ to cry out… ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ This was infinitely terrible to Christ, Christ’s knowledge of the glory of the Father, and his love to the Father, and the sense and experience he had had of the worth of his Father’s love to him, made the withholding the pleasant ideas and manifestations of his Father’s love as terrible to him, as the sense and knowledge of God’s excellency, no love to him, nor any experience of the infinite sweetness of his love.

And the legendary ‘Rabbi’ Duncan concentrated it all into a single unforgettable sentence, in a famous outburst to one of his classes: ‘D’ye know what Calvary was? what? what? what?’ Then, with tears on his face–‘It was damnation; and he took it lovingly.’ It is precisely this love that, in the last analysis, penal substitution is all about, and that explains its power in the lives of those who acknowledge it.”

J. I. Packer, “What Did the Cross Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution” in J. I. Packer and Mark Dever, In My Place Condemned He Stood: Celebrating the Glory of the Atonement (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007), pp. 94-96.


John Gill (1697-1771) on Marriage – In Preparation for my own Marriage

May 11, 2008

“Marriage is honourable in all”, (Heb. 13:4) it being an institution of God, and that of God in paradise; by whom our first parents were directed to it, in a state of purity and innocence; God made the woman for an help meet, and brought her to the man, proposed her to him, whom he approved and accepted of, and she became his wife, (Gen. 2:18, 22-24) it was the Lord’s act and deed, and to him Christ ascribes the act of marriage (Matthew 19:6). Christ honoured it by his presence, and at such a solemnity wrought his first miracle, and manifested forth the glory of his Deity, (John 2:1, 2, 11) and what makes this state yet more honourable is, that the marriage of Adam and Eve was a type and emblem of the conjugal union of Christ and the church, (Eph. 5:32) Adam was a figure or type of Christ, and, among other things, in his marriage; and Eve, the mother of all living, was a type of the church; Adam was first formed, and then Eve; Christ was before the church, and, indeed, before all things; Eve was formed from Adam, from a rib taken out of his side; the church has her original from Christ, and her subsistence by him; all her grace, blessings, and happiness, are from him; her justification and sanctification are from him, signified by the blood and water which sprung from his pierced side. Eve was brought by the Lord to Adam, not against her will, but with it, and by him presented as a proper match for him, which he approved and accepted of; and the church was brought to Christ, and given to him by his Father, to be his spouse and bride, whom he liked, accepted of, and betrothed to himself; and her consent is obtained by the drawings and influences of his Father’s grace: and though this is no direct proof of, yet it has a favourable aspect upon, and may serve to illustrate the “supralapsarian” scheme; that Christ had an interest in his church, and she in him, and was espoused unto him before she fell in Adam; this marriage transaction between Adam and Eve being before the fall. Moreover, marriage is honourable with respect to the ends of it; which even before the fall, and supposing Adam had stood, hereby he would have had an help meet; and the first law of creation would have been carried into execution, increase and multiply; a godly seed, a legitimate offspring would have sprung from hence; families formed and built up, and the world peopled with inhabitants; and since the fall the ends and uses of it are to preserve chastity, to prevent incontinence, and to avoid fornication; as well as to answer the other ends: and particularly this state appears honourable.

A Body of Practical Divinity – Book 4 Chapter 1 – Of the Respective Duties of Husband and Wife


Gill on the Pactum Salutis

May 5, 2008

My good friend Mark Jones, who is doing his PhD alongside me on Thomas Goodwin’s Christology at Leiden University, has noted that the work of the Spirit in the pactum salutis is an area that still needs to be explored in PhD work here.

Now Mark knows that the grand Particular Baptist theologian John Gill (1697-1771) is one of the few who have made a contribution in this regard. Richard Muller, has noted this contribution in his article, “The Spirit and the Covenant: John Gill’s Critique of the Pactum Salutis,” Foundations 24 (1981): 4-14. I would suggest any pursuing the idea of the Spirit’s role in the pactum salutis check out Muller’s article and the go directly to the source to Gill to see how he approached the issue.

Mark is right, it is an area that needs to be explored. Let’s not forget our Particular Baptist brethren though as we look at this issue. Often scholars fail to see the Baptist contribution to Reformed thought. Muller, has argued that Gill carries the 17th century Reformed legacy into the 18th century (see his “John Gill and the Reformed Tradtion: A Study in the Reception of Protestant Orthodoxy in the Eighteenth Century” in Michael A. G. Haykin, ed. The Life and Thought of John Gill (1697-1771): A Tercentennial Appreciation [Leiden, Brill, 1997]). Let’s not forget that!


A Blight on Evangelicalism

October 15, 2007

29208.jpg

 

Joel Osteen – A Blight on Evangelicalism

 

Evangelicals: Want to know why thousands of us are looking toward Rome? How bad can Marian dogmas and purgatory be in comparison to a movement that has tens of millions of people hailing Osteen as the great Christian proclaimer of our age? From Graham to Osteen. God help us. You cannot help but feel dirty.

 

Check out the full critique of the recent 60 minutes program on Osteen here.


Editing Services

October 15, 2007

Looking for an editor or proofreader for a paper, article, thesis, dissertation? Check out my editing site here at: Editing Services.

I have experience with this and in fact do the copy edit for Eusebeia: The Bulletin of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies. Pass around the information to others who you think may need the help!