Category Archives: Ecclesiology

On Theological Discourse, Disagreement, and Division

The legacy of Donald Trump’s term as President of the United States will not be measured in terms of legislation passed, appointments made, or diplomatic accords achieved. It will not be counted by any advancements of the Republican party’s agenda, by any conservative causes that were championed, or by any national or international crises that were averted. No, the lasting influence of the 45th President will only be measured by the bitter division and caustic animosity that has absolutely engulfed our country. It is an insidious sickness that has pervaded every sphere of our public discourse, and sadly, the church is no exception. We are a people divided, perhaps more than ever, and this is much to our shame.

Nowhere has this mood been more evident than in the Christian blogosphere. Interactions between Christians on social media, whether via Twitter, Facebook, blogs, podcasts, etc., have become more and more antagonistic over the past several months. Whether the question has to do with CRT/Intersectionality, COVID restrictions, or with issues related to the role of women in the ministry of the church, Christians on both sides of these issues have been quick to vilify and condemn those with whom they are not in perfect agreement. This trend has resulted in an atmosphere online that is hateful, ugly, and disheartening.

Now, what we must affirm is that discussion, debate, and even disagreement are essential to the theological enterprise. The Scriptures affirm that “Iron sharpens iron, and one person sharpens another.” (Proverbs 27.17) It is through the fires of irenic debate that clarity is achieved, understanding is sharpened, and unity is hammered out. We can see this on vivid display in the Bible in the Book of Acts. In chapter 15, at the Jerusalem Council, the early church leaders met to consider the question of the Gentiles inclusion into the people of God. After hearing both sides of the discussion and airing out differences in reasoning and perspective, truth won the day and a foundation for unity was forged. It is a beautiful picture of the way that theological discussion and debate are beneficial to the church. However, in light of the current climate of anger and animosity, what we need most are clear Biblical principles for theological discourse, and in the space remaining I would like to recommend a few possibilities.

Of course, the Scriptures are replete with principles for how Christians should and should not speak to one another, and while an exhaustive examination of these principles would be beyond the scope of this medium, there is one that it is particularly helpful in the current discussion. In the Letter from James, we find an explicit warning about the power and danger of the tongue (and by extension our typing fingers). Quote:

And the tongue is a fire. The tongue, a world of unrighteousness, is placed among our members. It stains the whole body, sets the course of life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell. … It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With the tongue we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in God’s likeness. Blessing and cursing come out of the same mouth. My brothers and sisters, these things should not be this way. 

~James 3.6-10

We must agree with James, “These things should not be this way.” Luckily, James has also provided us with a clear prescription for how these things should be, as he writes in chapter 1, verse 19, “My dear brothers and sisters, understand this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger, for human anger does not accomplish God’s righteousness.” Quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger. If we would merely apply these three principles to our theological discourse, I believe that we could go a long way in helping to stem the tidal wave a anger and bitterness that has absolutely overwhelmed our theological conversations.

Quick to listen. Being quick to listen means listening to our theological opponents first and foremost for the purpose of clarity and understanding. Listening while only thinking of how to counter the point is not listening at all. This also means listening to the whole sermon, or even more than one sermon, reading the whole book or the entire article, not merely responding to one sentence or one segment. It means giving priority to the context in which statements are given, and giving those statements the benefit of the the doubt, assuming that the speaker is genuinely trying to be biblically faithful, Gospel affirming, and Christ honoring. Quick to listen also means seeking out the best proponents of a given position, reading the best scholarship on the issue, interacting with the best evidence and the most robust arguments.

Slow to speak. Being slow to speak means thinking carefully about our response, discerning whether our motive is to build up our opponent or to tear them down. It means refusing to label our opponents with identities meant to disparage rather than clarify. It means being careful not to caricature, misconstrue, or misrepresent the position of our opponents, not bearing false witness by assigning to them motives and agendas that they do not in fact support. Slow to speak also means humbly admitting our ignorance on some issues, acknowledging that we are not all-knowing on every theological issue or question that is raised. It means that we engage each other always out of a position of love, respect, and unity rather than out of anger and animosity.

Slow to anger. Being slow to anger means being slow to outrage, slow to alarm. It means understanding that every theological disagreement does not rise to the level of heresy or false teaching, that our opponents have not departed from the truth once for all delivered to the saints just because they do not see the issue the way that we do. It means discerning the relative importance of the issue at hand, understanding whether a disagreement is a first tier, second tier, or third tier question. It means refusing to malign the sincerity of our opponents faith over issues that are not orthodoxy defining. Slow to anger means refusing hold our opponents in contempt, refusing to criticize, refusing to castigate, refusing to condemn.

Of course, I am already anticipating the push back. You are probably thinking, “Wait a pretty little minute! We are instructed to call out error, to rebuke false teaching, to stand boldly for the truth.” More on this in my next post. However, at this juncture, I would say in response, “yes, the Scriptures do call us to this,” but the manner in which we address our theological disagreements speaks volumes about the Gospel that we profess. When we treat each other as adversaries to be defeated rather than brothers and sisters to be loved, then we betray the very faith we argue so adamantly for. And when the watching world sees nothing but a reflection of itself in us, then we sacrifice all our credibility in calling them to repent and believe in the Savior that we love. As the Apostle Paul would say, “May it never be!”

This post was also posted at SBCvoices, here.


On A Healthy Church Member … Gathers

Text
24 And let us consider one another in order to provoke love and good works, 25 not neglecting to gather together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging each other, and all the more as you see the day approaching.

~Hebrews 10.24-25

Title: A Healthy Church Member … Gathers
Series: A Healthy Church Member
Church: South Caraway Baptist Church, Jonesboro, AR
Date: January 31, 2021


On “Able to Teach” as a Qualification for Elders

If you have ever browsed pastoral job descriptions, then you know that for most churches Jesus himself wouldn’t measure up to their desired qualifications. After all, he was a single thirty something with almost no pastoral experience. But I digress. What you have probably also noticed is that almost every one of these descriptions makes some reference to the qualifications for elders mentioned in 1 Timothy 3.1-7 and/or Titus 1.6-9. In these passages, Paul lays out the character virtues that should be true of those who serve the church in the role of pastor/elder.

And this is the point that must be emphasized, that each and every one of these qualifications reflect a man’s character and not his achievements, skills, or experience. As God once told the prophet Samuel, “Humans do not see what the Lord sees, for humans see what is visible, but the Lord sees the heart.” (1 Samuel 16.7) Paul wants Timothy and Titus to understand this principle, that what matters in Christian service are the virtues of Christ-like character, godliness that flows outward from a heart that has been transformed by the Spirit. These are what make a person qualified to lead others down the path of Christian discipleship. As the old adage states, “it is impossible to lead someone down a path that you have never traveled yourself.” And so it is for those who would lead Christ’s church.

However, one of these qualifications seems to stand out from the rest, and that is where elders are called to be “able to teach.” (1 Timothy 3.2) Of course, a quick reading of the Pastoral Epistles makes it very clear that teaching/preaching is one of the primary duties of those who serve the church as pastors/elders. Time and again, Paul exhorts his young protégés, Timothy and Titus, to “ Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; rebuke, correct, and encourage with great patience and teaching.” (2 Timothy 4.2) The importance of teaching/preaching in the ministry of a pastor/elder almost seems to trump all other concerns, and understandably so, because “All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3.16-17)

Therefore, it would seem that an ability to teach is a primary qualification for those men who aspire to the noble work of pastoral/elder ministry. The problem, though, is that an ability to teach is more of a skill than it is a quality of godly character. It is almost out of place for Paul to include the skill of teaching ability in a list of what is otherwise qualities of Christ-like character. More than that though, in actual practice, we have come to the point where we exalt a man’s rhetorical ability over and above all other concerns when it comes to evaluating pastoral candidates. We have created a celebrity culture in the church where mega-church pastors who have remarkable speaking and teaching ability have become the standard against which all other pastors are measured. Style, personality, and delivery become the criterion by which we judge a pastor/elder. And so, in most cases, pastoral candidates are invited to preach in view of a call, and after a single hearing, the church is asked to vote on that candidate for pastor, a decision which more often than not boils down to mere stylistic preference.

If Paul prioritizes qualities of character over achievements, skills, and experience, then how can a congregation expect to evaluate a man’s character after only a few hours of interaction. This system is flawed, but that is a topic for another post. My concern in this post is to consider anew what the Apostle Paul meant by the phrase “able to teach.” Now, this three word phrase in English renders a single word in the Greek text, διδακτικός/didaktikos, and this word only occurs twice in the New Testament, here in 1 Timothy 3.2 and also in 2 Timothy 2.24. So, we have scant evidence within the New Testament to which we might appeal for a better understanding of this word. However, we do have a similar word that may shed some light on our text, and that is the word διδακτός/didaktos. This adjective describes someone who is taught or instructed (c.f. John 6.45, 1 Corinthians 2.13, 1 Thessalonians 4.9). So, what we have in our text is simply this same adjective with the ending -(t)ikos. This Greek suffix carries the meaning of “concerned with” and “having characteristics of.” In light of this evidence, we may conclude that the meaning of the word in question carries the idea of something like “having the characteristics of someone who has been taught.” In other words, someone who is teachable.

And in the context of both 1 Timothy 3.2 and 2 Timothy 2.24, the meaning “teachable” would seem to fit squarely with the argument that Paul is making. An elder/pastor “must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, self-controlled, sensible, respectable, hospitable, [teachable].” (1 Timothy 3.2) Likewise, he “must be gentle to everyone, [teachable], and patient.” (2 Timothy 2.24). This reading simply fits better with the contextual and linguistic evidence. The bottom line is that teaching/preaching ability is a skill that can be learned and honed over time. In fact, I would suggest that it is something that even the most prolific preachers continually work on, as they constantly seek to be better communicators of God’s truth. But being teachable is the fruit of God’s spirit working within to make us more like Christ. It is a reflection of godly humility that recognizes that we do not have all the answers, a reflection of the heart that understands there is always more to learn in the School of Christ.

Of course, we must hasten to add that the one directly affects the other, that is to say that being teachable is necessary in the work of preaching and teaching effectively, because the pastor/elder that assumes that he knows it all has already fallen headlong into the pride of human self-sufficiency. But godly pastor/elders understand that they have no sufficiency in themselves, nothing of value to offer; rather, they only speak as those who have been taught of God by the Spirit through the Word, and this is what makes their teaching and preaching effective, namely that it comes from God and not from themselves. This is in keeping with the example of our Lord Jesus who said, “For I have not spoken on my own, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a command to say everything I have said. I know that his command is eternal life. So the things that I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me.” (John 12.49-50)

This, I believe, is what Paul intended when he called pastor/elders to be “able to teach”, namely that they speak only as they have heard from the inspired Word of the one true and living God, that they eschew the temptations of originality, creativity, and novelty in the pulpit, that they accurately and faithfully deliver what was once for all delivered to the saints. As the Apostle Paul puts it,

When I came to you, brothers and sisters, announcing the mystery of God to you, I did not come with brilliance of speech or wisdom. I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. My speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not be based on human wisdom but on God’s power.

1 Corinthians 2.1-5

On Denominational Identity

denominations

In my last post, I considered the benefit and value of denominations within the body of Christ, and I concluded that denominations, in their noblest expressions and forms, are a beautiful mosaic of the diversity that exists within the one holy and apostolic church of our Lord Jesus Christ. However, the glaring reality is that in their  most ignominious of forms, they can be downright disgraceful, divisive, and even destructive to the cause of Christ and the mission of the church. This is especially true in the “Bible Belt” where denominational boundaries seem like firmly drawn lines in the sand which dare not ever be crossed and where denominational distinctives are seen more as fronts in the battle that must be defended at all costs than as opportunities to learn from each other in humility.

This more vitriolic and antagonistic form of Christian denominations is the direct result of placing our denominational identity before our identity in Christ. In other words, denominational affiliation is understood to be more primary and more determinative for our faith and practice than who we are in Christ. So, when we are asked the question “Who am I?” or “Who are we?”, more often than not, the first answer that comes to mind is whatever our particularly denominational affiliation might happen to be. We might answer, “Well, I am a Southern Baptist” or “Oh, I am Assemblies of God” or maybe “I am Roman Catholic” or insert your preferred denominational label here.

We actually sound a lot like those first-century Christians in the church at Corinth. It could be argued that the Corinthian churches caused the Apostle Paul more grief and heartache than all of his other churches combined, or it could be that we simply know more about their problems than we do any other church in the first century. Nevertheless, in the letter we know as First Corinthians, which was probably the second letter that Paul had written to them, he had this to say in chapter 1, verses 11-12:

For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers and sisters, by members of Chloe’s people, that there is rivalry among you. What I am saying is this: One of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” 

Obviously, this is unacceptable to the great Apostle; he said back in verse 10:

Now I urge you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, that there be no divisions among you, and that you be united with the same understanding and the same conviction.

Of course, Paul’s instruction here does not completely preclude the existence of denominations all together, but it does temper the extent to which we should emphasize the differences among us. In other words, denominational diversity in the body of Christ need not necessarily be the same as denominational division. As Paul explains later in that same letter, “For just as the body is one and has many parts, and all the parts of that body, though many, are one body—so also is Christ.” (12:12)

That is really the key, namely expressing our unity even in the context of our diversity. Christianity is united by its central and essential truths; these are the bounds of orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is grounded in the truths of the Gospel, and its contours are outlined by the historic councils, creeds, and confessions of the church throughout its history. These are the things that a person must believe to be called a Christian. Our unified identity as Christians must take controlling precedence over any and all of our denominational distinctives. As Paul went on to say, “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and we were all given one Spirit to drink.” (12:13)

Our identity as Christians, as those that are hidden in Christ, must come first, and our  denominational affiliation must come second or even third in order of importance. It is this unity expressed in diversity that gives the church its prophetic witness in the world, because in this they are see firsthand what life in the Kingdom of God under the rule King Jesus looks like. We are Christians first, and we are members of the body of Christ, which is the church. And our mission is to build that body through evangelism and discipleship, not to prove ourselves right in every obscure point of Christian theology.


On the Benefit and Value of Denominations

-murbrd02-21-2012dnj1a00320120220imgsouthernbaptistnam31ci11a.jpg

Last week (June 12-13, 2018), we all watched with bated breath as denominational leaders and messengers from local churches across the nation met in Dallas, TX for the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention. To be quite honest, the weeks and months leading up to this year’s annual meeting were trying to say the least. We watched in horror and sadness as several of our top leaders resigned or were removed from their positions due to moral failings. We endured divisiveness and contention in social media outlets as various groups argued over their particular theological and ministerial soap boxes. And we questioned how, or maybe even if, it would possible for our beloved denomination to move forward in its primary purpose, i.e. the proclamation of the Gospel.

Now, looking back, we must say that there is great cause for hope for the future of the Southern Baptist Convention. Many good things were both said and done by our delegates in Dallas, and it seems, in hindsight, that Godly wisdom prevailed. Oh sure, there were some vocal minorities who continued to clamor for their particular pet agenda, but for the most part the Gospel was prioritized, Christian love and unity was maximized, and our churches were energized. However, this raises another question, namely, what is the benefit, the value, of denominational entities? Are they still useful and beneficial for the cause of Christ, or are they more like distractions that divide the body of Christ?

It is no secret that most of the mainline denominations in our country are on the decline, and, over the past 20 years or so, we have seen the exponential proliferation of “non-denominational” churches across the Christian landscape. Some groups even refer to themselves as “pre-denominational” as if they have thrown off the baggage of denominationalism and gone back to the nobler and more biblical way of being and doing church. Still others point to the numerous theological, ministerial, and organizational differences that separate and divide Christians from one another. “Can’t we all just get along?” seems to be the sentiment of the day. After all, didn’t Jesus and the New Testament authors teach us that our unity and love for one another is a primary means by which we display and proclaim the truth of the Gospel?

Living and ministering in the Bible Belt, I am uniquely sensitive to these critiques. Growing up, denominational divisions were like hard lines drawn in the sand which could never be crossed. There seemed to be constant argument over various denominational distinctives. So, it would be very easy for me to succumb to the temptation of believing that denominations are ultimately ploys of the enemy meant to divide us. However, I do believe that denominations are still good and useful in the body of Christ, so in what follows, I want to provide just a few reasons why I believe that denominations are still beneficial and valuable.

First, denominations allow us to embrace our cultural, theological, and ministerial distinctives. There is great diversity within the body of Christ when it comes to how we express and practice our faith in Christ. This diversity is a good thing, because it helps us to realize that the Gospel transcends the particularities of time and place. The simple fact of the matter is that no one person, group, or tradition can claim to have an exhaustive and complete knowledge of God’s word, God’s will, or God’s ways. Differences in belief and practice among Christian denominations are vivid indications that people and churches are grappling with the inspired Word and how God has revealed Himself to us through that Word by His Spirit. So, distinctives should be embraced, cherished, and held dear by those who have done the hard work of studying to show themselves approved.

Secondly, and this follows on the first,  denominations force us to listen to, learn from, and love those with whom we differ on the non-essential facets of belief and practice. An oft quoted but wrongly attributed quotation expresses this thought succinctly, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”  There are certainly beliefs and practices that are essential to the Christian faith. These essentials define Christian orthodoxy, and any person, group, or church calling themselves Christian must adhere to these essentials.  These are most clearly defined in the classic creeds of the church. However, beyond these first order essentials, there is room for discussion, or even passionate debate, all the while grounded in humility and Christian love for one another. There is a great many things Christian denominations can learn from each other, or as Proverbs 27.17 says, “Iron sharpens iron, and one person sharpens another.” Or we might say, “one denomination sharpens another.”

Finally, denominations allow people and churches of like minded belief and practice to pool their resources for the church’s primary mission, namely, the advancement of the kingdom. This is one hallmark of the Southern Baptist Convention that stands out in particular distinction among the many denominational bodies that speckle the Christian landscape. Southern Baptist churches across the country designate a portion of their undesignated receipts to the Cooperative Program, and through this Cooperative Program, the Southern Baptist Convention funds its six seminaries, the International and North American Mission Boards, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Lifeway, and Guidestone. Through this Cooperative Program, smaller churches with limited financial resources are able to join with churches across the nation in a participation that advances the global cause of Christ.

Ultimately, as good and beneficial as denominational bodies are, we must remember that

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you too were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:4-6)

We are all part of the body of Christ, and as a part of that body, we all have our part to play in the advancement of the Kingdom of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. So, let us embrace our unique theological and ecclesiological distinctives, even as we join together for to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ.


On Partaking of the Lord’s Supper

UnworthyCommunion.jpg

So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sin against the body and blood of the Lord.  Let a person examine himself; in this way let him eat the bread and drink from the cup.  For whoever eats and drinks without recognizing the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.  This is why many are sick and ill among you, and many have fallen asleep. (1 Corinthians 11:27-30, CSB)

Certainly, no one wants to partake of the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy way, especially if the consequences are sickness and/or death! But because of our western cultural predispositions, especially toward individualism and toward feelings of guilt rather than shame, we usually read Paul’s warnings here as if they concern our individual relationship with God. In other words, when Paul speaks of partaking of the elements in an “unworthy way,” we typically think of that which makes us feel unworthy before God, namely unconfessed sins. Moreover, when we read that “a man should examine himself”, we primarily think of some kind of moralistic introspection. Practically speaking, this usually entails a time of “prayerful self-examination and confession” prior to the distribution of the elements.

The problem with this is that rather than drawing the believer to celebrate anew the glory of God’s forgiveness in the Gospel through the observance of the Lord’s Supper, we end up heaping more feelings of guilt on the believer who truly desires to confess ALL their sins before partaking of the elements. Besides, who could ever be certain that they had confessed 100% of their sins, and thus could partake “worthily”? And what about the forgiveness that we have already received when we placed our faith in the Gospel at conversion; was it not once-for-all? So, in order to understand Paul’s warning here, I think we must reevaluate Paul’s instructions light of the social issues which they were meant to address.

The text of 1 Corinthians chapter 11 is relatively clear; obviously, there were some problems in how the Corinthians were practicing the Lord’s Supper, so much so that Paul’s comments on this issue are very sharp. He minces no words so to speak, and the reason for Paul’s outrage is simply this: The behavior of the Corinthian Christians at the Lord’s Table denies all that the Gospel stands for. In verse 20, Paul says that when they come together, they aren’t eating the Lord’s Supper. They may be sharing a meal together, but it looks nothing like the Lord’s meal. In other words, their behavior at the Lord’s Table is based in the values of the surrounding culture and not in the values of the Gospel. But in order to understand how this is so, we must consider the significance of meals in Paul’s world.

For them, the purpose of meals was much broader than simply eating food and consuming the necessary nourishment for the day’s tasks. No, in the first century, sharing a meal with someone was the primary gesture of companionship and community. Table fellowship was the principal means for establishing, enriching, and reaffirming relational bonds between groups of people, whether those groups were familial, religious, or secular in nature. Sharing meals together was the primary means for developing relationships. On the other hand, though, the table could also be the place where divisions according to honor, status, and affluence were publicly displayed and reinforced. In other words, mealtimes in the first century reinforced social divisions between the social elites and the lower classes, between the wealthy and poor, between the “haves” and the “have-nots”.

It is this latter function of meals that explains the practice of the Corinthian Christians. They are eating in a way that reinforces and perpetuates the divisions that exist among them. In chapter 11, verses 18-19, Paul says, “For to begin with, I hear that when you come together as a church there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. There must, indeed, be factions among you, so that those who are approved may be recognized among you.” And this is why their coming together is not for the better but for the worse. Apparently, the more well-to-do and affluent members of the congregation were arriving at the meeting early, gorging themselves on the best foods and the best wine, and they were getting downright drunk. Then, when the poorer day laborers arrived later in the evening, there was nothing left for them to eat, so they went hungry.

For Paul, this is an explicit denial of the unity that they should be sharing in Christ. Listen again to the words of Paul in chapter 11, verse 22, “Don’t you have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you look down on the church of God and embarrass those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I praise you? I do not praise you for this!” Obviously, Paul is outraged, and as a corrective, he reminds them of the Lord’s Supper tradition. In other words, he reminds them that in the Gospel, cultural values like honor, status, and wealth are no longer relevant. All people stand or fall on their response to the Gospel no matter who they are. And the gospel not only transforms our relationship with God; it also transforms our relationship with others. We no longer see people as the world sees them; instead, we see them as Christ sees them. We relate to people according to the values of the Gospel, because the ground is level at the foot of the cross. We all stand equally in need of Jesus.

So, in order to understand Paul’s warning in chapter 11, verses 27-30, we must remember that the central issue at stake for Paul is not moral or ethical; rather, it is primarily communal or social. The question is not about one’s individual worth before God. Rather, it is the quality of our relationships with each other. In other words, it is primarily social in nature. The self-examination that Paul envisions is an attempt to evaluate one’s attitudes toward others in the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So, we might ask ourselves these questions:

Am I showing Christian love to the members of this community equally?
Am I reinforcing or breaking down worldly social distinctions by my actions?
Am I jockeying, competing, or striving for social advancement at the expense of others?Am I selflessly giving of myself, my time, my money in order to benefit others?
Am I evaluating people according the values of the culture or the values of the Gospel?Am I engendering unity or disunity within this community by my actions and behaviors?

If we will examine ourselves in this way, by honestly answering these questions, then we will be rightly discerning the body, and we will partake of the Lord’s Supper worthily. The Lord’s Table is where anyone who believes in Jesus Christ can come to receive the promise of pardon and forgiveness and bask in the grace and love of God the Father poured out through God the Son by the Holy Spirit. Let us celebrate this table together as one body of united believers in Jesus.

 


Slow To Write

"let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger."

lovegavehope

Just another WordPress.com site

Jared Cornutt

Pastor | Speaker | Writer

Denny Burk

A commentary on theology, politics, and culture

G3 Ministries

Events + Resources for the Local Church

Biblical Reasoning

Biblical and Systematic Theology According to the Scriptures

RetroChristianity

Reclaiming the Forgotten Faith

SBC Voices

Southern Baptist News & Opinion

Lucid Theology

Thoughts on words, books, theology, and life.

Baptist21

A pastor-led voice for Baptists in the 21st century

Center For Baptist Renewal

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers

The Pastor's Well - Pastor Well

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers

Articles - AlbertMohler.com

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers

The Gospel Coalition

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers