<blockquote>
Here at St. Mark, we are celebrating the miracle of new life that God brings to our midst with the safe arrival of Cohen James Bryan, and Thea June Carman.
God is so good to our congregation and our mothers and fathers for the gift of these precious little ones. We love little children, and that is why I often say we are pro-life in more ways than one. For while we oppose the taking of unborn life, we also support our mothers, pray for them, encourage them, and love them. To be fully pro-life is to love these precious little lives, to bring them to the waters of baptism, to bring them to the Lord’s table to be nourished with Christ’s body and blood, to instruct them in the ways of the faith, and to pray for them as they grow, that they may one day also be warriors for life.
As we now begin to see the lives of these little ones, and as they grow in the faith, look to them to be instructed in your own faith (even as we already do with all the little ones around us now). Remember Matthew 18: “Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, ‘assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.’”
</blockquote>

The SMRC Weekly Perspective

New Birth and Pro-Life

Over the Christmas/New Year break, my brothers-in-law and I were discussing aspects of cultural decline here in the west. One of my brothers-in-law brought up a book he had recently been reading which discusses the fact that most instances of cultural decline were accompanied by sexual promiscuity, debauchery, and confusion. This has led to me doing some ruminating.
It's difficult, sometimes, to say what are causes and what are effects. In the case of cultural decline being associated with confused sexuality, I'd posit that there's a bit of both cause and effect going on. As our culture abandons Godliness and Biblically grounded moral principles, God gives up our culture to our lusts and desires.
I am going to quote at length Romans 1:18—32, to which I am alluding above. I recommend reading it in its entirety. This is the New King James Version. All emphasis is mine:
<blockquote>
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
</blockquote>
There's so much that could be said about that passage and how it relates to what we see around us today (for instance, I would like to do some writing about the last three sometime, which I think are very prevalent in our culture right now, "unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful"), but for this article, I'm going to focus on God giving a people over to sexual immorality as inspired by the conversations I mentioned.
I think it's a given among anyone interested in reading something I'm writing, that if Romans 1 is part of a cultural map, then, "YOU ARE HERE" is plastered right there in the, "God gave them over to a debased mind" section. So I won't spend much (or any, probably) time trying to convince you we are. One only needs access to any news of late to see it.
I will instead just talk practically about the relationship of sexual debauchery and cultural decline.
<h2>The Standard</h2>
Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 gives us the starting place for the plum line of God's design for sexuality. God made Adam. He didn't want Adam to be alone, he created him to have a life-long companion. And so He created Eve and blesses their "one flesh" union. And He commanded these first love-birds to be fruitful and multiply (have lots and lots of sex), and take dominion over the earth.
God created sex, and he created it for the intimate relationship of a husband and wife. And if that weren't enough for us, he also gave us an entire book of the Bible to tell us about sexual love (Song of Solomon). God's design is clear, and it is good. God made sex to be used properly, rightly, and joyfully within marriage.
God also created the sex drive (both male and female, but I'll be talking mostly of the male drive since that is what I'm familiar with). The sex drive is not something that is wrong. It's not something to be ashamed of. It's not something to be put aside and not considered (the Apostle Paul speaks to this when he says don't burn [with passion] but get married [to fulfill it]).
Sex, sexual drive, intimacy are all very good things that God created for us to enjoy and take pleasure in. It is to find it's fulfilment in the one flesh relationship of a husband and wife. That's the standard set forth in the scripture.
<h2>Controlling the Passions — The first real test in self-control</h2>
The sex drive is, in my estimation and 30 years of living with mine (puberty at 11 and I'll be 41 in a couple of days, which I understand is a bit early for males, but that when it started for me) one of the strongest drives placed in man. It is unquenchable and very difficult to tame. Even when controlled and tamed, it is a life-long struggle to stay away from sexual sin. It never ends and one must never for a moment take for granted that they are in control of these urges.
As I've said, when in the context of marriage, this is one of God's great gifts to man. But when much is given, much is also required. Namely, in the case of sexual drive, no small amount of self-control. One must gain mastery and maintain mastery over the sex drive if one is to amount to much in life. That's just a fact.
If Godly wisdom and training has been taking place in a young child's pre-pubescent life, the adjustment to living with sexual urges will be much easier. But, regardless, the real test of one's ability to exercise self-control comes upon young boys. When a society is governed by God's rules and God's values and morals, there are many societal helps and peer pressures to aid here, not to mention the biblical counsel, wisdom, and discipline of Godly parents.
But less and less, we are not living in a society that values sexual self-control. In fact, lack of sexual self-control is expected in the young. Multiple sexual partners during adolescence and before marriage is expected. The consequences have been ruinous and deleterious to our society as a whole.
<h2>What's the cause? What's the effect?</h2>
This leads us again to ask, what is the cause and what is the effect? Is our societal lack of sexual self-control caused by our society beginning to largely abandon Godliness? Or is our abandoning Godly principles causing sexual chaos?
I'd like to suggest they are one and the same. When we abandon Godly principles, one of the first to go is those pesky sexual guide rails which prevents us from experiencing whatever pleasures we want whenever we want, and with whomever we want.
All this leads to a break-down of self-discipline and self-control. I posit that learning to controls one's sexual urges immediately is part of what leads to a more self-disciplined life. The reasons for God's morality can be multi-faceted. And I think that when one learns to master that very strong drive at a young age, it positions that person to be in a far better position of self-discipline throughout all of life.
Why is cultural decline and sexual debauchery so closely linked together? I would say because cultural decline is caused, in part, by a people who have no self-control.

Sexuality and Cultural Decline

<blockquote>
The holidays have come to an end, the decorations are coming down, the diets are… well, maybe not back on track, but many of us feel the urgent need to get back to some, let’s say, simpler foods. Perhaps new resolutions have been made for the year, and it may be that you’re feeling a little down, what with all the fun and excitement in the rear-view mirror.
But be encouraged! Christmastide culminated in Epiphany on January 6th, which we celebrate today. But what is Epiphany? It is the celebration of Christ revealed to the Gentiles in the visit of the Magi. Isaiah makes reference to this in chapter 60:2–3:
<blockquote>
For behold, the darkness shall cover the earth,
And deep darkness the people;
But the Lord will arise over you,
And His glory will be seen upon you.
The Gentiles shall come to your light,
And kings to the brightness of your rising.
</blockquote>
This is the glory of the coming of Christ. For, from the Jews comes the salvation of all people, Jew and Gentile alike. And, as Paul later expounds in Romans 11 where he uses a tree to illustrate His people, we Gentiles were then grafted into that tree so that there is now neither Jew nor Greek (Gentile), for we are now one in Christ, and Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise (Galatians 3). This is what we celebrate today. Praise be to the incarnate Lord Jesus Christ!
</blockquote>

The SMRC Weekly Perspective Written by Yours Truly

The Meaning Behind Epiphany

Larson Hicks and Rich Lusk started a podcast a few months ago and it's been fantastic. Allow me to recommend it to you.
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/@got-a-minute/videos">Got a Minute? on YouTube</a></li>
<li><a href="https://gotaminute.podbean.com/">Got a Minute? On PodBean</a> (a more traditional podcast format, subscribable in your favorite podcast app, which is how I listen and keep up with the podcast)</li>
</ul>
<h2>Dating vs. Courtship</h2>
I'd say my favorite episode so far has been <a href="https://gotaminute.podbean.com/e/dating-vs-courtship/">Dating vs. Courtship</a> (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3B_PjdBZWc">YouTube</a>). That's because, in the '90s and '00s (at least in my circles) we went through "a phase" and things got really weird regarding courtship, dating, betrothal, you name it. But the end goal of all the weirdness sometimes got lost in the shuffle. Oh, we would talk about the end goals sometimes, solid marriages, avoid divorce, don't give yourself away to someone before the vows are made, sexual purity, etc. etc. But courtship (or betrothal in some circles) became an end unto itself. If you didn't follow the formula, things were bad, you were a sinner, you were probably getting a divorce later, and you had committed much sin.
Larson and Rich point out a lot of the pitfalls and talk about the troubles surrounding courtship and such — including (and I found this an especially salient point) that often these alternative methods of young people finding their spouses were explicitly designed to give the parents of those involved in the courtship all or almost all the control. But if you think about it for two seconds and remember that these are young adults that we're about to turn loose (at least in the common case, I realize there are and could be long-time adults entering into relationships — but we're mostly talking about the common case here in the illustrations), if they're not capable of being the front-runner on choosing their own spouse, things aren't gonna be great for that couple regardless of the method for getting there.
But, though my thinking and approach has changed a lot on this topic in the last 18 years, my view of the end goal has not changed. That's why I like Rich's emphasis on Christian Dating. And what I think he means by that based on his explanation, and what I certainly mean, is that we don't want to do the casual dating and sleeping around of the world. Dating is not an end unto itself. We don't enter into these kinds of relationships with someone with no intention of ending in marriage, or just for the fun of it. When a man or woman begins "dating" someone, it should be with the end goal of marriage. You should be in a relationship with someone to evaluate spending the rest of your life with them. And of course, there are off-ramps: we're not right for each other, there's significant sin in someone's life, they're not mature enough yet, turns out I'm not mature enough yet, and in a Christian context I shouldn't need to say that the other person must be a faithful Christian. But as the relationship progresses, it should more and more surely as it moves forward lead to marriage.
The word dating becomes a placeholder word for beginning a relationship with the opposite sex for the purpose heading toward marriage.
I want to say here, too, something about emotional attachment. When I was coming up through the ranks, there was a big emphasis on detaching your emotions during the "courtship." One was not to become emotionally attached or involved during this phase in case things didn't work out. That is probably the shakiest part of the whole deal in my experience. Every single human relationship involves emotion on some level — even the most casual friendships. To not form emotions or some sort of investment over the course of the relationship is a). impossible for most, b). is actually a mental health issue, c). I would argue is not in the least desirable. Yeah, sometimes hearts are broken, Guess what, that's life! Ideally, reasons for breaking off a relationship are discovered early and much pain can be avoided. But humans are designed by God to be communal. We form attachments to others in our lives. And in preparing for marriage, the strongest human bond possible, it is both natural and desirable to form a deep emotional connection with the one who will be your spouse.
I remember, because of all the teaching in my life about courtship, trying to understand my feelings toward Rachel right before and right after we were engaged. All the teaching confused me and told me I shouldn't love Rachel yet. But after wrestling for some time, I came to the conclusions that I both loved Rachel deeply, and that this was right and proper. I then told her so, and she expressed some relief since neither of us had ever said it and it gave her some pause about whether I really loved her. It seems silly from my vantage point now. Of course I loved her (and still do more and more every day). How could I not? We were made for each other, which is what we had been discovering over that season of our relationship, we had been in a relationship for over a year forming attachment (whether we thought we were or not). If I did not love her, something would have been seriously wrong with me.
So, anyway, yes, go listen to this episode, it's really good.
<h2>Church Membership</h2>
My second favorite episode thus far is <a href="https://gotaminute.podbean.com/e/does-church-membership-matter/">Does Church Membership Matter?</a> (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNkxjZUeTYU&#x26;t=2886s">YouTube</a>). I would say, of course it does, but Larson and Rich get to the why. It's a very important topic in our day of maverick Christianity. We know from numerous Biblical passages that Christians are required to submit to the elders and authority of the local church. But what does that mean? Who's in, who's not? We call that, "membership" these days. But all it means is drawing the boundary so that elders know who is under their care and members can know who's care they are under.
Give it a listen!

Got a Minute? Dating vs. Courtship and Church Membership

Great stuff from my friend, Tim Gallant.

Tim Gallant — Stop Closing Your Eyes for Communion

Stop Closing Your Eyes for Communion

<blockquote>
Our church year begins today as we usher in the season of Advent. How fitting, now as we turn our attention to that expectant and watchful season, that we do so here in the U.S. on the heels of our season of Thanksgiving. While Thanksgiving is not a church calendar holiday, it is a good and right celebration when we gather with friends and family to give thanks for all our Lord has done for us. And while we are, of course, thankful for all things, especially during Advent we remember and are thankful for the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. He took on flesh and blood for us, His people. As we enter Advent, the Book of Common Prayer has these words for us to use in our own prayers:
<blockquote>
ALMIGHTY God, give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness, and put upon us the armour of light, now in the time of this mortal life, in which thy Son Jesus Christ came to visit us in great humility; that in the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious Majesty, to judge both the quick and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal; through him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, now and ever. Amen.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Recall the words of Jesus from John 8:12, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.” And we now walk in the light because of the incarnation of the light of the world.
</blockquote>

SMRC Weekly Perspective Written by Yours Truly

Advent Begins

I am very busy with several projects that are all urgent and should not be writing on my personal blog right now. But I need to take five minutes and write about this anyway.
A video has been making the rounds by Victoria Osteen. Victoria is wife to the (in)famous Joel Osteen. She had some stuff to say. Here's the video, and below some key quotes from what she said.

<blockquote>
I just want to encourage every one of us to realize when we obey God, we're not doing it for God—I mean, that’s one way to look at it — we're doing it for ourselves, because God takes pleasure when we're happy. That's the thing that gives Him the greatest joy this morning
So, I want you to know this morning: Just do good for your own self. Do good because God wants you to be happy. When you come to church, when you worship Him, you're not doing it for God really. You're doing it for yourself, because that's what makes God happy. Amen?
</blockquote>
Well, well, well. Someone has not studied the Westminster Catechism. Not surprising of course — most modern "Christians" don't have much use for something like that. But it sure would help with some general education here. The first question in the Westminster Shorter Catechism asks, "What is the chief end of man?" and answers it thusly: "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever." Note that the answer is not to be happy or to do things for our own selves. It is not "be happy because that's what makes God happy." No, the key issue here is that God is to be glorified and that is our chief end. That is our created purpose.
The answer is not without its scriptural support. 1 Peter 4 has some things for us to look at. Let me quote a couple verses from the beginning of the chapter for context, then move to the key verse.
<blockquote>
Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.
</blockquote>
So the context here is that Christ suffered for us. We should no longer live in the flesh and the lusts of men, but we should live in the will of God.
Now verse 11:
<blockquote>
If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
</blockquote>
Notice what the purpose of all this is. That God may be glorified in all things. Our happiness is immaterial. God is concerned with His glory, not our happiness.
1 Corinthians 10:31 again reminds us to do all for the glory of God (not our own happiness):
<blockquote>
Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
</blockquote>
1 Chronicles 16:29 says:
<blockquote>
Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come before him: worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness.
</blockquote>
We are to give the Lord glory because it is due to Him. We come before Him to worship and that is all. We do not come because God is happy when we are happy so we should come and be happy. We come and worship because it is due to Him.
Victoria Osteen would have us believe that worship is about us, about ourselves and God is secondary. But God must not be secondary in anything, ever. Let me ask these questions for you (and Victoria) to think about.
Who is worship for?
Here are three hints:
<ul>
<li>It's not about you.</li>
<li>Think about what the word Worship means, and who is being worshiped.</li>
<li>What is the chief end of man?</li>
</ul>
What does worship do?
Here are three hints:
<ul>
<li>It’s not about you.</li>
<li>Think about what the word Worship means, and who is being worshiped.</li>
<li>What is the chief end of man?</li>
</ul>
What is the chief end of our Worship of God?
Here are three hints:
<ul>
<li>It’s not about you.</li>
<li>Think about what the word Worship means, and who is being worshiped.</li>
<li>What is the chief end of man?</li>
</ul>

Some Questions About Worship

Follow the link for the audio recording of the service. My Pastor gave a REALLY great message. Go listen!

Heritage Church

The Baptism of Kaylee Marie

Kaylee's Baptism in Pictures


<blockquote>
True, those times alone with Christ in the secret place are invaluable. But I have to confess to you that I am doubtful that our Lord meant those should be our only times of worship! Are we not commanded to worship alongside others in Scripture (Hebrews 10:25)? How then shall you fulfill the dozens of "one another" texts in Paul's epistles if not in the context of a local church like those to whom Paul originally wrote? Is not the first word of the Lord's Prayer the plural possessive, "Our"?
You mentioned that the Greek word "church" does not mean a building, nor does worship require any certain number of people in order to be authentic. You even quoted Matthew 18:19 when the Lord exhorted us that "where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am among them." But come now Eugene, surely you don't think that your reluctance to submit to church membership or the body of elders is justified by this text, do you? In context, my brother, this passage is in regard to church discipline; a "severe grace" of God that I am afraid is quite difficult to impose upon oneself!
</blockquote>
This is really good. You need to be a member of a local congregation submitting to the authority of Elders and partaking in communion and community.

An Open Letter to Stay-at-Home Christians

Stay-at-Home Christians

<blockquote>
As I read the book, I found it a fascinating illustration of the reality that what we believe will necessarily impact what we do and how we do it. In this case, it shows that what we believe to be true about children will inevitably shape the way we “train them up.” It concerned me to see that many people follow Michael Pearl’s technique even though they believe very different things from what he believes. It is for these people in particular that I write my review. I write it not to condemn you, but to provoke you to consider what Pearl really believes about children and how this has shaped his book and your children.
</blockquote>
…
<blockquote>
Pearl’s training is not moral or spiritual, which means he believes that the mandate of Proverbs 22:6 is not fulfilled by instructing your children in Biblical truths. In the book’s opening pages he writes, “we are not talking about producing godly children, just happy and obedient children. The principles for training young children to instantly obey can be applied by non-Christians as well as Christians.” Training in godliness will come later in a child’s life and is outside the scope of the training he teaches here. This training is applied to children between birth and approximately twelve years of age and can be done by Christians and non-Christians alike.
</blockquote>
This is not a Godly approach to child training. I don’t care whether you are Baptist or Presbyterian like me (would that all were covenantal Presbyterians, but I stray from topic), this is so wrong on so many levels.
Challies continues his review in a <a href="http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/how-not-to-train-up-a-child-part-2">second article</a>:
<blockquote>
Pearl denies the doctrine of original sin and thus believes that children have no need to be justified and, further, until they are older cannot be justified.
</blockquote>
This is straight up heresy.
<blockquote>
He believes that children are born sinless and unformed just as Adam and Eve were. Their younger years are a context for spiritual development that allows the parents to train them for when they become personally accountable to God somewhere around their early teens.
</blockquote>
The doctrine of the age of accountability is in full play here, but taken to extreme. Much as with the Arminian vs. Calvinism (and the age of accountability is actually related), the doctrine of the age of accountability is not heretical when held as most hold it just as what we often call Arminianism is not heretical when held in view as most hold it in the Church today. But when taken to the extreme that children are born without sin, denying original sin and the fallen state of humanity, it is indeed heresy. It is the heresy of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism">Pelagianism</a>
<blockquote>
Understand this: If you heed Pearl’s counsel, you are following a technique that denies the sinfulness of your children and their need to be justified by the work of Christ. It passes by their hearts in order to condition their behavior.
</blockquote>
…
<blockquote>
Do you see what he has done here? He has taken all the language of the gospel and applied it to a parent’s spanking. A parent who strikes his child with a rod removes the child’s guilt, cleanses his soul, instructs and strengthens him, and gives him assurance that his debt has been paid. Here is where Pearl’s child-rearing technique comes home to roost. Now we see whipping as something that takes the place of the cross. Now we demand that a child satisfies for his own sin. Instead of teaching a child that he is a sinner in desperate need of God’s grace, we are to teach the child that by inflicting a measure of pain on his backside we have cleansed him of his sin and absolved him from all guilt.
</blockquote>
This is dangerous heresy and I’m sorry to say at one point in my life a while back I believed there was some good in Pearl’s book. How blind and foolish I was. I recommend at this point that this book be thrown in the trash.

(How Not) To Train Up a Child

Tim Challies reviews 'To Train Up a Child'


<blockquote>
Recently Dan Cathy (the current CEO) was asked about his stance on same sex marriage. He did not issue any inflammatory remarks. He did not attempt to call anyone by any derogatory names. He was not hateful in his comments. He did not say that people who are gay would not be hired and/or served at Chick-Fil-A restaurants. He simply stated that he holds to the traditional/biblical view of marriage (which is his right as an American citizen.) And it seemed the world lost its mind.
</blockquote>
I know this kerfuffle has died down and I’m late to this party, but I’ve been busy and I’m just now getting around to this. So deal with it.
I don’t agree with everything he says here but my quibbles are minor. I also don’t know much in general about Perry Noble, but the piece is worth a read.

Posts tagged “Church” from the blog