While preparing a message from 1 Cor 1.18-25, I came up with a number of questions to ask myself and the congregation in the application section of the sermon. The main question was “What defines you?” A partial list of subsidiary questions follows:

• Can Christ be seen in what you say, write, think, how you live?
• Do you read your Bible Christocentrically (to know a person)?
• Does your Facebook or Myspace page demonstrate that you value Christ above all or is it just about you?
• Does your blog demonstrate an adherence to a particular theological position and your being right or does it magnify Christ above all?
• Does your use of time and money reflect Christ’s supreme value?
• Is your life stamped by Christ – is everything tainted by Christ?
• Could you lose all individuality (the minor things with which we define ourselves), be defined by Christ, and be ok with it?
• Is the cross all over you?
• To the teachers present, have you exalted other doctrines or teaching methods so much that Christology has become a neglected understood?

I concluded the sermon with these words:

What I am arguing for is a life that is so radically Christ centered that everything you do, say, and think is tainted with a recognition of the supreme value of Christ. Christocentricity is not for theologians only. Radically define your life by Christ – live like nothing else matters – there is no power elsewhere.

One phrase stood out to me that demanded more reflection in my own life: “neglected understood.” I can point to times in my life where Christ was a neglected understood theologically and practically. I assumed His presence and power but did not live in his presence and power. I have lived, spoken, preached, taught, thought, etc. as if Christ was a sub-point in theology and life when He is truly the main point. I have taught and preached under the assumption that those who were listening not only understood the Gospel and its power, but were living accordingly.

This action of assuming the most basic and most important facts about the Christian life is all over the church. I will speak from my own experience in the church. I grew up in Fundamental Independent Baptist circles. Because Fundamentalists have assumed that their people knew doctrine and lived in the Gospel, they began emphasizing other things (like Bible versions and hair styles and music and how women dress). They assumed the fundamentals of the faith and created new fundamentals. As a result, people came out of church (I’m emphasizing the fact they view “the church” as a meeting or a building – another assumption) holding the “right” Bible version, with the “right” haircut, having sung the “right” music, while wearing the “right” clothes with no Gospel. From my observation, Fundamentalists are not the only guilty party. Charismatics and Pentecostals have assumed Christ and the Gospel and emphasized the sign gifts. The MegaChurch movement assumed Christ and the Gospel and emphasized contemporary music and dress. I’ll stop name calling and get to my point.

For me the neglected understood is a reference to both Christ and His Gospel. The church has done a pretty good job at believing and acting as though believers in the church know Christ and understand His Gospel when they truly do not. If the church does not know Christ or understand His Gospel, non-Christians definitely do not.

Jon and I have been extremely busy with teaching,  pastoring and school work lately, but we are ready to get this blog going again! We look forward to some interesting discussions and hope we can continue to provide a safe forum to do so!

Grace and peace,

Rick

I know this sounds like a “no-brainer” but think about it for minute.  There is no such thing as “accidental holiness.”

I think that to an extent, we buy into the idea that once we become believers in Christ, all of our past sinfulness dematerializes.  But that is simply not true.  You never just wake up one morning to discover that all the things you’ve struggled with for years have suddenly vanished overnight.  Like marriage, we carry certain baggage into this new relationship.

I know that all that are in Christ are “new creatures” (2 Cor. 5:17), but it is not an instantaneous process.  Theologians call this idea progressive sanctification, or, the day-by-day re-creation into Christ’s image.  And part of this reforming is up to us.

God does the work, but He does not force the work.  We must be willing to let Him work.

What does this mean?  It means we have to make daily conscientious choices to pursue holiness in every aspect of our life.  It may mean the refusal to surround ourselves with that which is considered to bring about “unholiness.”

A habit.

An attitude.

Maybe even a person or group.

Whatever God through the Holy Spirit and scripture shows you to remove in order for true holiness to occur, please be willing to do so.  It won’t happen overnight, but if you’re committed to holiness it will happen.

Just make the choice.

Grace and peace,

Rick

I know this may be not what you expect to be reading on a blog such as this one, but think about it for a minute.  These people have breakfast decoration down to an art form.  They may have a few squares dedicated butter and a few to various flavors of syrups.  The more daring may even strategically have a few squares set apart for peanut butter.  However you slice it (no pun intended) these confectionery concoctions (nice use of alliteration) are sure to give the “waffle-artist” a plethora of tastes all in one waffle.

But I appear to rambling, so back to the series.

The first step in understanding what radical holiness is would be defining the word holiness itself.  A compilation of online dictionaries gave me this exhaustive definition:

Holiness, or sanctity, is the state of being holy or sacred, that is, set apart for the worship or service of God or gods…spiritually whole or sound; of unimpaired innocence and virtue; free from sinful affections; pure in heart; godly; pious; irreproachable; guiltless; acceptable to God.  It is most usually ascribed to people, but can be and often is ascribed to objects, times, or places.  The word holy is related to the word whole.

I hope to use this entire definition in this series of posts but for now I want to pull out the last sentence.

“The word holy is related to the word whole.”

I think this sentence truly changes our modern definitions of holiness.  A related word here would be integrity.  Integrity has as its root the word integer which is a whole number in math language (in which I am much less than fluent).  So the idea is that integrity is who you are wholly or completely.

In essence, the gospel is “holistic”.

Have you ever noticed how good you are at putting the things of your life in neat little compartments?  I mean who you are around these people may be drastically different than who you are around those people.  One location may dictate your actions, words and even mannerisms that would be totally different at another location.  We have almost become “waffle-ized” in that we can place various toppings in each of our little squares without having them overlap.

In my opinion, we need more “pancake Christians”.

Like a pancake becomes saturated with syrup or whatever topping you choose, a “pancake Christian” becomes saturated in the gospel of Jesus Christ in that it directly affects every aspect of his or her life.  There is nothing in the life of a “pancake Christian” that is off limits to the dynamic life-changing power of the gospel.

It affects how you act.

It changes how you speak.

It alters how you think.

Everything changes.

That’s what Jesus wanted for us anyway, right?

Grace and peace,

Rick

If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell (Matt 5:29-30, ESV).

If you have arrived at this blog you’re either a Christian, thinking about being a Christian, playing the part of a Christian, or antagonistic of Christianity and looking to find something to add to your arsenal.

Whoever you are, this series is for you.

I want to talk about a huge problem for Christianity.  In my opinion (which may not matter much to you) it is the problem Christianity must deal with if it is to mean anything to anyone in this generation.

I want to transcend denominational differences for a while.

I want to put aside doctrinal preferences for a bit.

I want to go beyond regional worship styles and culture.

I want to move past socio-economic status.

I want to speak straight to your heart.

Because the heart is where the problem lies.

As I am writing this, the American church has gone through some huge scandals due to impropriety and immorality among its prominent names.  I’m not going to name names because it is not my intention to lower others in order to raise myself.  I simply want to remark on the underlying problem that causes catastrophes of faith.

A lack of personal holiness.

When you hear the word holiness, what comes to your mind?  What emotions well up in your heart?

Some of you may see the holiness and think of a religious icon or symbol.  You may hear the word and immediately think of a person that has personified that word for you.  It may be a parent, teacher, pastor or mentor that has manifested the true walk of a disciple of Jesus.

Still others may see this word and reflect on some negative emotions that it stirs up within.  It may be that this word strikes the cords of legalism, haughtiness and the like that (all to truly) have often been named among those who bear the name of Christ.  For whatever reason, holiness has become a word that is sometimes synonymous with uptight, strict, legalistic and sometimes hypocritical religion.

But allow me to make an attempt to change your opinion if you please.

The point of this series is to show that holiness is not just something to be hoped for, rather, it can be sought after and to some extent attained in the Christian life.

Furthermore, holiness is not a negative, no-fun characteristic.  Instead, holiness frees rather than restricts the follower of Christ to serve Him wholly (no pun intended) and without fear.

Please join me in the coming weeks and maybe months as we explore this idea of radical holiness.

I’m convinced we all need it.

Grace and peace,

Rick

In my previous posts I have sought to define my beliefs and positions by using such terms as “emerging”, “missional”, “conservative” and “Biblicist”.  Today I want to continue this “labeling” of myself with “reformational”.

Instead of using the word Protestant, I choose to use the word Reformational because I feel that in today’s Christian circles some have made the mistake of adding to the gospel things that should never be added.  Whether it be a specific tradition or preference, I feel that anything that takes the uniqueness away from Christ and His redemptive work on the cross is quite simply sin.  It is because of this that I feel Reformational is better to be used due to the constant need the Church has to maintain its Christological center.

In saying that I am Reformational, I declare that I hold strongly to the 5 “Solas” or “alones” of the Reformation.  These statements of faith hold that salvation is by…

• Sola Gratis – Grace alone
• Sola Fide – Faith alone
• Solus Christus – Christ alone
• Sola Scriptura – Scripture alone
• Sola Gloria Deo – The glory of God alone

Using these Latin phrases, the reformers outlined a biblical foundation for the salvation of mankind that can be exquisitely captured.  Essentially, salvation, according to the reformers, is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, as revealed through Scripture alone, for and to the glory of God alone.

This is why I call myself Reformational.

For those who are unclear about what I mean, biblical separation is the concept that believers in Christ are to be separate from the world in conduct.  Also, we are to separate ourselves from those who claim to be a believer, yet do not prove it by their behavior (1 Cor. 6).

But the question that my friend had was where does one draw the line?  How far does one go to separate his or herself?

Opinions on this issue are passionate on both sides.  Some feel that separation is equal to isolation in that a believer must cut all ties with non-believers in order to walk in absolute holiness, while others believe that this type of isolationism would produce no conversions so we must merge ourselves with the non-believer as much as possible in order to reach them.  Still, there are some that seek a balanced approach to this issue in some form or another.

So, what is “biblical” separation?  Is it corporate as a local body, personal to the individual believer or both?

What is included in biblical separation?

What are the passages that support your view?

Grace and peace,

Rick

Grace and peace,

Rick

For example, at the current time, I (Rick) am reading:

Respectable Sins by Jerry Bridges

The Disciple-Making Pastor by Bill Hull

Morning and Evening by Charles Spurgeon

Comeback Churches by Ed Stetzer

Humility by C.J. Mahaney

The Reason for God by Timothy Keller

So how about you?  What are you reading (or even have recently read) and how is (was) it?

I think that millennial views need not be among those doctrines that divide us. . . . I am suggesting that what you believe about the millennium—how you interpret these thousand years—is not something that it is necessary for us to agree upon in order to have a congregation together. The Lord Jesus Christ prayed in John 17:21 that we Christians might be one. Of course all true Christians are one in that we have his Spirit, we share his Spirit, we desire to live out that unity. But that unity is supposed to be evident as a testimony to the world around us. Therefore, I conclude that we should end our cooperations together with other Christians (whether near-ly in a congregation, or more at length in working together in missions and church planting and evangelism and building up the ministry) only with the greatest of care, lest we rend the body of Christ for whose unity he’s prayed and given himself. Therefore, I conclude that it is sin to divide the body of Christ—to divide the body that he prayed would be united. Therefore for us to conclude that we must agree upon a certain view of alcohol, or a certain view of schooling, or a certain view of meat sacrificed to idols, or a certain view of the millennium in order to have fellowship together is, I think, not only unnecessary for the body of Christ, but it is therefore both unwarranted and therefore condemned by scripture. So if you’re a pastor and you’re listening to me, you understand me correctly if you think I’m saying you are in sin if you lead your congregation to have a statement of faith that requires a particular millennial view. I do not understand why that has to be a matter of uniformity in order to have Christian unity in a local congregation.

HT: JT