Understanding the Congregation's Authority - by Jonathan Leeman

Understanding the Congregation's Authority by Jonathan Leeman is a short and yet quite thorough explanation and defense of what Leeman calls, "Elder-Led Congregationalism".  He does not advocate congregationalism nor Elder-Rule, rather he presents the concepts of 'congregational authority' as 'responsibilities' and the role of the pastors/Elders he presents as the God-given 'trainers/councilors' of the congregation. 

Each member of the congregation is responsible to prod one another to love and good works, building and discipling their brothers and sisters in Christ (which may involve correction) and coming to be discipled as well, to attend church regularly not making a habit of forsaking the assembling of their church family, and the congregation is also responsible to submit themselves to the elders of the church(the Elders do not make them submit), which Elders are to train up the congregation to fulfill their responsibilities by preaching/teaching the Word of God.

I thought that the author's overall premise was good and I thought that he argued most of his points very well, the things that I didn't feel comfortable with were his 'reformed' terminology, for instance referencing Christ and Christians as the 'true Israel', his referencing the observance of 'the Lord's Table' as being a time of Communion with the Lord and it also being a sign of the new Covenant.  I don't think that I agree that the church exercises the authority of the "Keys" through baptism and the Lord's Supper (a man is to examine HIMSELF as to his manner of living while taking the Lord's supper), I don't really see that in the Bible rather I see the congregation cutting off an erring member from fellowship because they are not living in a Christ-like way (not primarily cutting them off from partaking of the elements though that necessarily follows). But perhaps I didn't understand what he meant.  And lastly I didn't agree with a lot of his 'Priest-King' hermeneutic, that Adam was basically a priest-king mediating between God and creation and then applying the term to Abraham, Moses, David and then all Christians….it didn't make biblical sense to me.

Aside from the above and perhaps some other things, I really liked Leeman's argument and would recommend the book to other Christians as he does a great job at showing that if you're  a Christian, whether or not you are an Elder you  have a God-given job to do and you should take it seriously. 

I'll end with a quote from the book: "You, as a baptized Christian and ordinary member of a church, are responsible for protecting the gospel and the gospel's ministry in you church by discipline other church members.  Remember Ephesians 4:15-16.  The church builds itself up in love as each part does its work.  You have work to do to build up the church and part of that includes the ministry of words.  A few verses later, Paul says, 'speak the truth, each one to his neighbor, because we are members of one another'(V. 25).  Speak truth to them, and help them to grow. Our words should be 'good for building up someone in need, so that it gives grace to those who hear' (Eph. 4:29).  Also, make yourself available to be spoken to.  Are you willing to listen?  Basic Christianity involves building up other believers.  It is a part of fulfilling the Great Commission and making disciples."

Many thanks to B&H Publishers for sending me a free review copy of this book! - My review did not have to be favorable.

You may purchase this book at websites like Amazon and Christian Book Distributors

Disappearing Church: From Cultural Relevance to Gospel resilience - by Mark Sayers

Disappearing Church by Mark Sayers posits an interesting thought:  We live in a culture riddled with "liberal Christian residue", our seemingly secular culture is basically Christian liberalism without the label of 'Christian' and without being considered 'religious' .  By trying to be relevant by trying to appeal to the ever-changing culture around them liberal Christianity became so relevant that it's basic tenets became a part of the culture and thus the church 'institution' was irrelevant as the culture had already been won.  Sayers illustrates it in this way, "" Like a team of suicide bombers who obliterate themselves yet irrevocably change the cultural atmosphere, liberal Christianity has essentially destroyed itself as an ecclesiological, institutional force,  yet won the culture over to its vision of a Christianity reshaped for contemporary tastes."

The author explains that the modern 'church' has imbibed and taught a contemporary form of Gnosticism (his chart comparing ancient and contemporary Gnosticism to the Gospel is very interesting), "This new religion could be detected in an increasing obsession with the self, with personal development and the preference of spirituality over religion, and with therapy over communion with a transcendent God."  The discovery of self is the religion of the day, even in many Christian churches the goal is self-satisfaction, self-fulfillment, self-discovery, a follow your heart mentality…etc.  Sayers points out that it is no wonder people can leave church so easily without even finding another one as they can get the same teachings from the world. The book brings to light the idea of our day and age that personal spirituality is better and more holy than organized 'religion'.

Though I thought that Sayers insights into our modern culture were fascinating I do have some misgivings about the book. Sayers  says some things that imply to me that he may consider Roman Catholicism a legitimate/biblical type of Christianity, and thus the people who hold those doctrines are Christians, that concerns me.  He uses movie illustrations that I think were rather unnecessary and I didn't quite get what he meant by using the statement, "withdraw/return"…it's probably just me.

Overall though it was rather interesting, though I think it could have been better…it just seemed as though there was something missing, though I'm not sure what at the moment.  But again, it is a very interesting insight into the 'disappearing' institutional church of our day and is quite thought provoking.  I'll end, as I usually do,  with one of  my favorite quotes from the book:

"As Rolheiser comments, 'Our age tends to divorce spirituality from ecclesiology.  We want God, but we don't want church.'  However, the great flaw of our search for spirituality and faith  minus church is 'the unconfronted life.  Without church, we have more private fantasy than real faith….Real conversion demands that eventually its recipient be involved in both the muck and the grace of actual church life.'  More than ever we need the limitations and glorious messiness of church…The mere fact that God chooses it, in the same way that He chooses us, humble vessels, is part of His grace that fools the wisdom of the world."

Many thanks to MoodyPublishers for sending me a free review copy of this book (My review did not have to be favorable)

A couple of the places (among others) where you may purchase this book is at Amazon.com and also at Christian Book Distributors

Exposition of Romans chapter 11 - by Martyn Lloyd Jones

Martyn-Lloyd Jones' enthusiasm about this 11th chapter of Romans is evident in every chapter of this book.   My dad likes to point out that the most interesting messages are given by people who are actually interested in what they are speaking about.  Lloyd-Jones is definitely interested and excited about sharing what he has learned in God's word, and so this commentary(a collection of his sermons on this chapter)is very interesting.  In Romans 11 Paul is continuing his explanation of what is going on with the ethnic people God chose, namely the people of Israel, and whether or not God is done with them as an ethnicity.  The majority of Jews were rejecting the Gospel, while most of the people who were responding to the 'call' were  Gentiles.  

Despite his apparently Amillennial views, Lloyd-Jones emphatically rejects the view that the term 'Israel' is speaking of the 'Church' anywhere in this passage.  He explains that it is speaking of the ethnic people descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and refutes arguments against it.  Here is an overview of his view, he explains this passage as, God is not done with the people of Israel(Paul himself being evidence of this), God has a 'remnant' of Jews, in every age, who are believers.  Lloyd-Jones believes that the Olive tree in this passage is the people of God, and expounds on what Paul is saying in this passage  in his  speaking about how God has cut off the Jews because of their unbelief, and has grafted in 'wild olive branches'/the Gentiles. 

I liked his address of an objection some people might bring up in regards to Paul's warning the Christian Gentiles about becoming arrogant, and the statement, "if thou continue in His goodness: otherwise you too shall be cut off".   Some might think that this passage teaches that a person can lose their salvation.  Lloyd Jones explains that the only persons who will heed the warnings given to Christians are true Christians.  The people who do not care and do not heed the warnings of God prove that they are non-Christians.  I'll give an excerpt here:  "…these passages are ways in which God actually secures the perseverance of His saints and people……The only people who are ever frightened by a statement such as this are true Christian people.  Nobody else.  The whole trouble with these others who think they are Christians - temporary believers, temporary professors, call them what you like - the trouble with them is that they are always self-satisfied, they are perfectly happy, nothing ever disturbs them at all, and they can read through the warnings of the scripture without anything troubling them…..it is through passages similar to this that God ensures and secures the perseverance of His own people.  It is only to His own people He ways, 'Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling', One of the best tests of assurance is that we know something about fear and trembling.  'Knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men'.  This is God's way, then, of securing the final perseverance and the ultimate glorification of His people." 

Amongst other things, I disagree with his view that the only future plan God has for ethnic Israel is their spiritual salvation as a whole.  My problem is not with his view that there is coming a day when Israel as a nation will come to believe in Christ, and they will all be saved.  My problem is that he does not believe that when Israel is saved they will dwell in the land of Israel, and that there will be a Millennial reign of Christ on this earth.  "We have given an explanation of what is meant by 'all Israel' but what is meant by 'being saved'?  This is most important.   What Paul is concerned about is the salvation of 'all Israel'.  He does not say anything here about the future of the Jewish nation from any kind of governmental point of view, or even in terms of the land of Palestine.  That is not what he is talking about.  He is talking about its salvation and Jews are going to be saved in exactly the same way as anybody else."  He seems to think that all 'premillennialists' believe that the Jews will be saved by a means other than Christ's sacrifice.  Perhaps some do believe that way, but I do not.  The Jews will be saved the exact same way Gentiles are saved, but when the Jews are saved they will be given the land of Israel that was promised to them forever when they are a righteous people.  They will not become righteous on their own, God will have given them His own Righteousness through Christ, that will fulfill the requirement for their continued residence in the land promised to them(Isa 60:21; Ezek 37:21-28;Deut 32:43…etc.).  

He quotes Charles Hodge, speaking of the correct interpretation of prophecy, "'Great events are foretold but the mode of their occurrence, their details and their consequences can only be learned by the event'…Now history, you see, tells you not only about the great events it gives you the details….Prophecy tells us about the great events that are going to happen, 'but the mode of their occurrence, their details, and their consequences can only be learned by the event' - by when it happens."  He goes on to illustrate this by the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the Messiah, "All they knew was that there was a promise concerning a Messiah.  But you and I with the Gospels in our hands and the knowledge of the story, look back and read the Old Testament prophecies and see the amazing character of it all, the detailed information that was given: hidden of course at that time, but to us perfectly clear because we are looking at it in retrospect.  That is what Charles Hodge is saying.  He says you must not go to prophecy and expect it to be a sort of detailed account of what is going to happen…The principle, he says, of the interpretation of prophecy therefore is this, that it is concerned with the big things not with the details."  But there were some details given in prophecy, for instance, that the Messiah would be born of a virgin, would come out of Egypt, be born in Bethlehem, would perform miracles…etc.  Of course they didn't know how they would all work out or fit together, but these most definitely were details concerning the Messiah. It is the same with the Premillennial view, we know that Israel will be brought back to the land of Israel,  they will be saved by Christ's sacrifice, they will never disobey again, Christ will reign over them…etc.(Ezek. 37; Jer. 32:38-42; Jer. 31:31-37; Zech 12:10; Rev 20;…etc.)  These are details, we do not know exactly how or when they will happen, but we believe that they will happen. 

Despite the fact that his Amillennial views pop up in various forms throughout the book, despite the fact that he sometimes confuses me when he is citing a view that he is about to critique and at first I think that he is giving his own view, and despite some other disagreements(like his view that Paul changed certain quotations of the Old Testament by inspiration of the Holy Spirit), I still think that this is a good commentary.  I especially liked his review of the doxology at the end of the book.  I'll end with a quote from that section.  Here Lloyd Jones is critiquing people/churches who think that we should have a 'dialogue' with people of other religions, to deal with it as an intellectual debate,  to listen and learn from them.  Rather than being too dogmatic in our belief in the Scriptures as the source of truth, we should be open to their views:  "…Now that is the trouble with modern man.  It is that man, by nature, is sinful, has got a carnal mind, hates God, and the devil whom he unknowingly serves, has blinded the minds of them that believe not.  It does not matter how clever or able he is.  The devil has blinded his mind 'lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them'.  That, according to the Apostle and according to the whole of the scriptural teaching, is the one and only explanation as to why men and women do not believe.  Therefore what have I to learn from such a man?  What has a man who is blinded by the devil got to tell me about these matters?  Why should I have a dialogue with him?  No, no, I am sorry for him.  The man is blinded, he is ignorant, he knows nothing.  I have the knowledge which alone can help him.  It is not mine, it has been given to me, it has been revealed to me, and it is my duty to tell him.  I am doing him a disservice by letting him talk.  He is not capable of expressing an opinion.  He is in the dark, 'dead in trespasses and sins'.  That is the whole of the scriptural teaching.  But, the modern teaching denies this utterly and absolutely, and this is the spectacle by which we are confronted, that the modern church is paying compliments to the unregenerate man and says, 'Now we must preach less to you, we have been speaking too much, let us sit down, you talk, I want to listen, I want to learn from you'.  I do not hesitate to assert that this is a denial of Christ.  Not only do I not learn from the natural unregenerate man, I do not learn from the Hindu or the Muslim, the Confucian or the Buddhist; they have nothing to tell me.  The Bible, and the Bible alone, contains the knowledge and it is given by God….The greatest need in the world tonight is the authoritative proclamation of this one and only gospel." 

 

Many thanks to The Banner of Truth for sending me a review copy of this book!(My review did not have to be favorable)

This book may be purchased at Amazon and on the Banner of Truth website

The Expository Genius of John Calvin - By Steven Lawson

What is the best remedy for the issues in the Church today?  What will be the best means to focus Christians upon what really matters and who they really are?  Do we have grand, 1 hour period of inspiring music and  then a 30 minute exposition of the Bible? What is the best way to worship God in our Church 'services'?  How can we get a new reformation started?   As Lawson says, "there are no new remedies for old problems.  We must come back to old paths.  We must capture the centrality and pungency of biblical preaching once again." In this book, Lawson uses Calvin as an example of the right way to edify, grow, and convict Christians, by his preaching of the complete Word of God.  He puts forth Calvin's book-by-book, verse-by-verse method of preaching as the best way to exposit the Scriptures and to teach Christians.  "This verse by verse style - lectio continua, the 'continuous expositions' - guaranteed that Calvin would preach the full counsel of God.  Difficult and controversial subjects were unavoidable.  Hard sayings could not be skipped.   Difficult doctrines could not be overlooked.  The full counsel of God could be heard."  This is also what my dad(a pastor) has pointed out:  By preaching verse-by-verse through books of the Bible,  you will cover all kinds of doctrines/topics without having to do topical sermons.  You will hit Theology, Sanctification, Christology, Angelology, Soteriology and Harmatologythroughout several books of the New Testament,  and deal with things like relationships, brotherly love, how to Evangelize, prayer, the end times…etc.  These things will come up, and in the order the Apostles deal with them in their letters and with whatever emphasis they give them.

Lawson delves into Calvin's method of explaining the texts, the way he did introductions, whether or not he used quotes from other pastors, whether or not he used notes...  He points out that it took Calvin a long time(at least from our society's perspective), generally years, to finish preaching through a book of the Bible.   In his overview of Calvin's life, the author tells us that when Calvin first came to Geneva he started preaching through a book of the Bible(the book isn't given), while preaching through this book, he was kicked out of Geneva for three years.  When he came back, he started right where he had left off preaching, going right to the next verse. 

My problem with this book is that Lawson praises and extols Calvin too much.  He lauds Calvin throughout the book and quotes other people praising Calvin, such as Warfield, "No man ever had a profounder sense of God than he; no man ever more unreservedly surrendered himself to the Divine direction."  How does he know that?  What if an obscure Pastor had a more profound 'sense of God' than Calvin?  And this quote by Charles Spurgeon:  "Among all those who have been born of women, there has not risen a greater than John Calvin; no age before him ever produced his equal, and no age afterwards has seen his rival." All I can really say is, Wow!  So what about the Apostle Paul? Peter?  Quotes and statements like this by Lawson bothered me.  It seems almost like hero worship, to me it seemed that Calvin was put forth in an obnoxious manner.  Even the title I don't quite care for, I didn't see that Calvin was a genius, just smart in seeking the best way to teach Scripture.

But if you can look past Calvin and look to God's usage of him, this book is quite good.  Lawson encourages us to get back to Biblical preaching, verse-by-verse.  This last excerpt by Lawson is my favorite quote from this book, "Calvin believed that biblical preaching must occupy the chief place in the worship service.  What God has to say to man is infinitely more important than what man has to say to God.  If the congregation is to worship properly, if believers are to be edified, if the lost are to be converted, God's Word must be exposited.  Nothing must crowd the Scriptures out of the chief place in the public gathering."

Thanks to Ligonier Ministries who will be sending me a copy of this book in return for my review of the free pdf copy they sent me(the review does not have to be a favorable one). 

This book may be purchased at Amazon.com