"I don't think that the Lord judges anybody"

'The Hills' T.V. star Holly Montag, sister of Heidi Montag Pratt, recently defended her sister's decision to be photographed in Playboy Magazine.

When asked if posing for Playboy isn't exactly a very Christian thing to do—and we all know how much Heidi loves Jesus—Holly said, "I don't think that the Lord judges anybody. It's only between her and God. I don't know. She's not doing it nude. She's gonna do it very tastefully. I don't think it's a problem at all. I think it's going to be gorgeous."

Years ago, Danny Wuerffel refused the honor of being named to the Playboy All-American Team because he refused to simply appear in a group photo for the pornography magazine. Even if Heidi refuses a nude photo display, there are still serious problems with her appearance in the magazine.

Even more concerning is her sister's statement, "I don't think that the Lord judges anybody." Really? What on God's earth has "American christianity" become? This strange unbiblical notion that clear moral convictions constitute "judging" others has now been applied to God Himself. Apparently she conceives of a god so tolerant to moral confusion, that not even he judges anyone. She must have cut her theological teeth on Robert Schuller and Joel Osteen.

High Profile Bogus Degrees

I'm certainly not trying to root out bogus degree holders on purpose, but since my previous post on this theme, I found another bogus school who lists some of their "alumni."  This list includes people like: T.D. Jakes, Frederick K.C. Price, Clarence E. McClendon, and even Taebo creator, Billy Blanks!

I only recognized a few of the names, but Jakes, Price, and McClendon are mega-church pastors in Pentecostal and African-American contexts.  Click and look at the names in the left column.

If these are the pastors and "doctors" and "degrees" the lost think represent Christianity, no wonder they feel so free to laugh at us.  I'd rather see these guys list their elementary school than to insult our intelligence by claiming to be something they are not.  Sadly, it doesn't seem that their thousands of congregants even care.

CP Funding and the Idea of Efficiency

Churches affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention are often statistically measured and evaluated by their CP Giving (Cooperative Program). Not all giving to Southern Baptist causes and work is counted in this figure, only those undesignated funds sent to the State Convention are considered CP Funds. Some have raised an objection to this narrow classification and have argued that other Southern Baptist gifts should count as "Cooperative" since this figure is often used to measure just how cooperative a church is.

Ken Hemphill makes some good points why designated giving to convention-related causes should not be counted as CP Giving in the SBC. However, in the process, he makes two points that concern me.

First, he warns that first-person missions efforts by local churches may threaten our overall missions strategy. "If we allow short-term mission projects to be funded at the expense of our long-term mission strategy it will have tragic consequences."

Now this may be true, because it is already stated in such terms as "at the expense of," but we need to be very careful here. It is the churches that are commissioned to world-wide evangelism, not a "convention." The convention is only the relationship of these local churches together.

If we allow the idea of maximized fiscal efficiency to become an idol at the expense of personal Gospel obedience in the churches, it will have other tragic consequences. When a local church thinks of missions simply as an earmark for funding, there is already a serious problem, and the resulting disconnect from missions itself will evidence over time in decreased funding. I agree with Hemphill, however, funding for church-based missions should not be counted as CP Giving.

Second, Hemphill disparages designated giving, saying that it is "not as effective or efficient as unified giving." Comparing it to the old "societal" method that predated the CP, he urges us to consider how unified, cooperative giving is "the most effective and efficient way of funding missions." Is it assumed that the most effective and efficient way is necessarily the most biblical and faithful way? I'm not saying that efficiency should not be a concern, but it certainly should not be a pragmatic idol or "trump card" when considering the work of our denomination.

Furthermore, where do the Annie Armstrong and Lottie Moon offerings figure into this? These are major streams of designated giving, and we have been repeatedly told that these are the most efficient and direct means of supporting missionaries. Hemphill's thesis would seem to argue against these offerings, which account for the majority of real missions support within the SBC. These designated funds are not "unified."

Somehow, in addition to regular CP calculation, these two offerings need to be used to help complete the picture of just how cooperative a particular church is.

1904 Washington Church Covenant

Baptist historical study has suggested that many of our churches experienced a doctrinal and methodological decline by the turn of the twentieth century.  We Baptists stopped caring so much about truth and fidelity to God's patterns for church life, and instead, started focusing more on how our programs and organization could bring great "progress."  While this turn definitely did occur throughout Baptist life, I recently found a 1904 amendment to our church covenant that evidences a slight strengthening of older Baptist principles rather than a weakening.  The fact that FBC Washington not only consciously maintained their historic church covenant, but even improved upon it, shows a strong sense of continuity from 1827 to at least 1904.  The 1827 form was posted here.

COVENANT
– OF THE –
WASHINGTON BAPTIST CHURCH

In the name of the Lord Jesus, we do voluntarily and jointly separate ourselves from the world; and voluntarily give ourselves to the Lord, who hath promised to receive such, and be their God, holding ourselves henceforth to be His, and no longer our own.

We also voluntarily and mutually give ourselves one to another, and voluntarily and mutually receive one another in the Lord, meaning hereby to become one body, jointly to exist and act by the bonds and rules of the Gospel, each esteeming himself henceforth a member of a spiritual body, and in matters spiritual, accountable to it, and subject to its control.

And as we believe the word of God to be the only rule of faith and practice, we do further voluntarily and jointly engage, the Lord enabling us, to keep up a Godly discipline, and to deal faithfully with those (if any) who shall depart from the faith once delivered to the saints, either in principle or practice – which faith we think includes the following sublime and important doctrines, that is to say: The being of a God; a trinity of persons in the Godhead; the fall of Adam and the imputation of his sin to his posterity; the corruption of human nature, and the impotency of fallen man to do that which is spiritually good; the everlasting love of God to His people; the covenant of grace; the doctrine of election; particular redemption; justification by the righteousness of Christ imparted; pardon and reconciliation by His blood; regeneration and sanctification by the influences and operations of the Holy Spirit; the final perseverance of the saints in grace; the doctrine of believers baptism (and that by immersion); the communion of the saints; the resurrection of the body; the general judgment; the eternity of happiness of the saints in Heaven and torment of sinners in Hell.

Finally, we agree, the Lord enabling us, to do all things whatsoever He hath commanded us, particularly, to deny ourselves and take up our cross and follow the Lord; not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together; but to attend our church conferences, and to meet to worship God as often as we can – to watch over one another in love – to know, honor and maintain those who shall have the rule over us in the Lord as far as we shall find it our duty in His word, and to contribute of our means, as the Lord may prosper us for the world-wide spread of the gospel – that we may be blameless in the sight of God and man, that we may live as brethren, and submit one to another as it is fit in the Lord. Amen.

Amended and Adopted October 2d, 1904.

(Printed “COMPLEMENTS WILKES COUNTY NEWS”)

Corrective link on Missing Link

Did you catch the media buzz about the supposed "missing-link" found in human evolutionary theory? Sounds impressive, doesn't it? Not. Check out this article that explains the actual findings rather than exaggerated summaries:

http://answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-link

HT: Tim Ellsworth

Worship Letters (5)

Then Moses said to Aaron, “It is what the LORD spoke, saying, ‘By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, And before all the people I will be honored.’” So Aaron, therefore, kept silent. (Lev. 10:3 )

The tragic story of Nadab and Abihu illustrates the insanity of approaching God according to our own inventions. From God’s perspective, their worship failed to treat Him as holy and failed to honor Him appropriately.

So, what pleases God in worship? The answer, of course, is found only in Scripture because we have no other sure way of determining what pleases God except His own revelation in Scripture.

As I was saying last week, Baptists have a heritage of following the ‘regulative principle’ of worship. On a basic level, this principle simply means that we should worship God only in the ways and through the means that He has commanded us.

Unfortunately, most of us have never even heard of such an idea, much less considered its consequences. The Philadelphia Baptist Confession (1742) put it this way:

But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way, not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.

We may be free to honor God in many and diverse ways, but when we gather for corporate worship on the Lord’s Day, we must carefully conform to the regulation of Scripture. Since pleasing God is our utmost priority, we must listen carefully to what He has said about what pleases Him in worship. The regulative principle looks to the Word of God to define and direct pleasing, acceptable worship to God.

What does all this mean? Well, rather than talk about what we like or what we think others will like, we need to talk about what God likes and what God has said about worship. We need to search the Bible for instructions and examples in biblical principles of worship.

This doesn’t mean that worship will or should look exactly the same in every church. Culture does influence how we appropriate the biblical principles of worship. But, rather than being culture-driven as is common today, we need to be Scripture-driven in our pursuit of worship.

In this way, the culture of biblical worship rises above the conflicting cultures of the assembled worshippers. We need a worship that is just as transcendent as our God, rising above the petty differences and preferences of man.

Secure in the Certainty of His Grace,

Pastor Klay

Example of Bogus Degrees

A few years ago, there was a scandal at FBC West Palm Beach, FL because their new Senior Pastor had been exposed by a checkered history and a bogus educational resume. Ministerial misconduct via bogus or substandard education is a major problem, yet many unaware congregations continue to call these men, often bypassing those who have legitimately paid the price for study, preparation, and scholarship.

In the course of researching some other subjects, I recently stumbled upon a graduation list from the Landmark Baptist Theological Seminary. In 2005, a student named Ryan Snow graduated with the following "degrees": Bachelor of Theology, Master of Theology, Doctor of Ministry, Doctor of Theology, and Doctor of Philosophy.

These degrees, legitimately earned, would require 15-20 years of full-time study, but amazingly "Dr. Snow, Th.M., D.Min., Th.D., Ph.D." was able to handle the bulk of it in a single year.

If a church knows what to look for, it can quickly eliminate from consideration a majority of the resumes it receives from aspiring candidates. Here's what churches should know:

1. A resume should include the graduation year as a minimum, but often also the years of study. If a resume of interest does not contain these, by all means request them.
2. Know the approximate years of full-time study required for each degree: Bachelors, 4 years; Master of Divinity, 3-5 years; Master of Theology, 1-2 years beyond M.Div.; Doctor of Ministry, 3 years; Doctor of Philosophy, 3-5 years. Do the dates provided and the employment history locations match up with the education information?
3. Do an internet search of all schools listed and locate their website. Check under accreditation for a regional accrediting body such as SACS (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools). Even bogus schools claim to be accredited by bogus agencies, so be sure the accreditation body is itself legitimate. The seminary referenced above boasted: "Landmark Baptist Theological Seminary is proud to be a member in good standing of Accrediting Commission International, one of the foremost accrediting agencies of religious institutions." WRONG! ACI is a bogus fraud.
4. On the school website, look up the requirements for the degree listed. Was it all distance or correspondence? Does the website evidence a "legitimate" institution of higher education?
5. Know that there is a difference between a Doctor of Ministry (D.Min.), which is a "professional degree," and a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), which is an academic, research degree. When most people think "doctorate" the respect they attach to it is based on a Ph.D., not a D.Min. Unfortunately, many folks simply do not know this distinction. This certainly does not mean that a D.Min. is illegitimate; it's just different. Sometimes, a D.Min. may be perferable, because it deals with the actual conduct of ministry, not just academic study.
6. If you get serious with a candidate, call his schools for verification of degrees granted. You call references, why not schools? It is perfectly normal for potential employers to double-check educational credentials. Simply ask for the Registrar, explaining you need a graduate verification.
7. Remember, you might not need a pastor with a earned doctorate at all. However, you certainly don't want a pastor who cut corners to attain questionable credentials. A legitimate BA and M.Div. is far preferable to the countless "pastors" who have racked up bogus or substandard degrees.
8. Even with legit undergraduate and seminary degrees, some pastors are tempted to go bogus to earn the "Dr." in front of their name, thus unaccredited schools are used for their last degree. Is this the kind of guy you want?

1827 Church Covenant - FBC Washington, GA

I recently found our church's original church covenant and rules of decorum, established under Pastor Jesse Mercer in 1827.  

The first two paragraphs are nearly an exact duplicate of the so-called 1732 Church Covenant published by Morgan Edwards. I will look for more history on the transmission of this document.

The remaining paragraphs take a form that was common to churches in this region, including a brief sketch of fundamental doctrines. This particular sketch, however, was not copied from any other source, but was likely outlined by Mercer himself and the early founders of the church.

The Church’s Covenant

In the name of the Lord Jesus, we do voluntarily and jointly separate ourselves from the world; and voluntarily and jointly give ourselves to the Lord, who hath promised to receive such, and be their God; holding ourselves henceforth to be His, and no longer our own.

We also voluntarily and mutually give ourselves one to another, and voluntarily and mutually receive one another in the Lord; meaning hereby to become one body, jointly to exist and act by the bonds and rules of the Gospel; each esteeming himself henceforth a member of a spiritual body; accountable to it, and subject to its control, and no otherwise separable therefrom than by consent first had, or unreasonably refused.

And as we believe the Word of God to be the only rule of our faith and practice, we do further voluntarily and jointly engage, the Lord enabling us, to keep up a godly Discipline, and to deal faithfully and tenderly with those (if any) who shall depart from the faith once delivered to the saints, either in principle or practice, which faith we think includes the following sublime and important Doctrines, that is to say:

– The being of a God;  
– A trinity of persons in the God-head; 
– The fall of Adam and the imputation of his sin to his posterity;
– The corruption of human nature, and the impotency of fallen man to do that which is spiritually good;
– Particular redemption;
– Justification by the righteousness of Christ imputed; 
– Pardon and reconciliation by his blood;
– Regeneration and sanctification by the influences and operations of the Holy Spirit 
– The final perseverance of the saints in grace; 
– The doctrine of believers baptism (and that by immersion); 
– The communion of saints; 
– The resurrection of the body; 
– The general judgment; 
– The eternity of happiness of the saints in heaven, and the torments of sinners in hell!  

Finally we agree, the Lord enabling us, to do all things whatsoever he hath commanded us; particularly to deny ourselves and take up our cross and follow the Lord; not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together; but to attend our Church Conferences, and to meet to worship God as often as we can; to watch over one another in love; to know, honour and maintain those who shall have the rule over us in the Lord as far as we shall find it our duty in his Word; that we may be blameless in the sight of God and man; that we may live as brethren, and submit one to another as it is fit in the Lord. Amen.

How Great is the Father's Love

While listening to a wonderful sermon today by Sinclair Ferguson, I was struck by the greatness of the Father’s love toward us. Here is what he said—“The Father loves us, not because Jesus died for us, but Jesus died for us because the Father loves us.” Oh, what a difference it makes in our enjoyment of the Father’s love when we understand this.

How prone we Christians are (almost akin to the wicked servant who buried his master's talent for fear of him) to think of the Father as a hard man. Like the servant in the parable of the talents, we question our Master's goodness. And how do we question his goodness? We do so when we think of the Father’s love as something that had to be won for us at Calvary. While we confess the Father loves us, it seems that many of us find it easier to believe the Father is wrathful than to believe he loves us. This is not the fault of the Bible's teaching; it is the fault of our weak faith in the Father's goodness. Strangely, our doubts about the Father's goodness may come out in our thinking precisely at the place where we do in fact trust his goodness, namely, the Cross. In other words, if we see the glorious wrath-bearing work of Christ on the Cross as that which makes it now possible for the Father to love us, we cannot help but doubt that he loved us before the Cross.

Yes, considered in our fallen condition, we were under the wrath of God. But let us not think that is all, for the Father also considered us from the beginning as objects of his great mercy. Christ did not die to wrestle from the Father’s hand his mercy, as though the Father was reluctant to show mercy. The truth is this--the Father is merciful toward us, therefore, Christ died for us. Do we see the implications? Do we see how much the Father delights to show mercy? Do we appreciate the difference this truth makes in our fellowship with God?

Read very carefully the following quote from John Owen. Referring to the saints' lack of knowledge of the Father's love, Owen writes--

“Unacquaintedness with our mercies and our privileges is our sin as well as our trouble. We hearken not to the voice of the Spirit who is given to us that we may know the things that are freely bestowed on us of God. This makes us go heavily when we might rejoice and to be weak where we might be strong in the Lord. How few of the saints are experimentally acquainted with this privilege of holding immediate communion with the Father in love. With what anxious, doubtful thoughts do they look upon him. What fears—what questionings are there of his goodwill and kindness. At the best many think there is no sweetness at all in him toward us but what is purchased at the high price of the blood of Jesus. It is true that alone is the way of communication. But the free fountain and spring of all is in the bosom of the Father.”

The Father himself loves you. When we think of the Cross, let us not think of it as the moment the Father began to love us; instead, let us think of it as the high point of his love—a love he had for us before the world began. May this sweeten our communion with him.

"I had to bite it" - interesting illustration for fighting against sin

Sin is aggressive and progressive. It pursues, ensnares, and easily entangles. Like the Serpent who introduced the original temptation, sin seeks to coil itself around us and choke the life out of us. Thus we must ever be vigilant and vigorous in our fight against sin. Sometimes, we must bite back.

Last week, a Kenyan man demonstrated just this kind of grit in his own life-and-death struggle with a dangerous python. The serpent wrapped him in its coils and dragged him up a tree during a fierce three-hour engagement. Rather than give up in defeat, as the man said, "I had to bite it."

Read the story here.

Lucado Thankful Jesus Died for "Mistakes"

I just heard "America's Pastor," Max Lucado on Fox & Friends explain that Jesus died for our "mistakes."

Great, I guess those misspelled words, dropped balls, etc. are covered. Folks, unless we call "sin" by name, why do we think people will even see a need for a savior?

I know what Lucado was attempting to do. However, how ironic that he was commenting on the Newsweek article about the decline of Christianity in America. Seems to me that a reticence to use biblical language about something so basic and essential as "sin" is a proof-positive sign. Perhaps Christianity is on an outward decline because we have long been on an inward decline.

Worship Letters (4)

Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. (Leviticus 10:1)

If worship is not primarily about our own tastes and preferences, but is concerned with pleasing God, the obvious question comes, “How can we know what pleases God in worship?” And this, brothers and sisters, is truly one of the most critical questions we can ask.

If you visit churches of differing denominations and traditions, you will see a great diversity in both liturgy and architecture. By liturgy, I mean the inclusion and ordering of various components within the worship service. By architecture, I mean both the layout and adornment of the space used for corporate worship. It is often helpful to "learn" from other traditions, because observation of others may help identify weaknesses within our own structure of worship. This kind of "cross-pollonization" can be a helpful means for worship renewal.

However, not all differences should not be chalked up to simple differences of taste or emphasis. Sometimes they evidence radically different approaches to worship.  Historically, Christians have followed either the ‘regulative principle’ or the ‘normative principle’ in answering the question of what pleases God in worship.

The normative principle says that we are free to worship God creatively in any manner that is not prohibited in Scripture. For example, since skateboarding is not forbidden in the corporate worship of God, we would have the freedom to worship God in skating services if we so pleased. While this approach to worship is clearly the most dominant in current Christian expression, it is sadly deficient.

Nadab and Abihu seemed to follow the normative principle of worship because they felt free to offer to God according to their own creativity and design rather than by God’s own command. The result?

And fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD. (Lev. 10:2)

The regulative principle, however, rightly holds that we must worship God only as He has commanded us, carefully basing all that we do on the instructions, principles and examples we see in the Bible. As the Lord said, Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it (Deut. 12:32). 

Baptists have a heritage of following the ‘regulative principle’ of worship, though without even knowing it, many have drifted into following the ‘normative principle’.  Having forgotten why our tradition shunned images and manmade innovations, Baptists have begun drawing closer to the model of Nadab and Abihu, buring strange fire before the Lord. 

We'll pick it up here next time.  See you in worship this Lord's Day!

Secure in the Certainty of His Grace, 

Pastor Klay

H2O Trinity Illustration - Corrected & Improved

For years I have used  H2O as an illustrative analogy to the Trinity.  Water, ice, and steam are three distinct subsistences but one and the same substance.  But, noting how all analogies ultimately break down, I have explained that the Trinity would be represented as water, ice, and steam all at the same time in equal relation to one another, which is impossible in the natural order.

I was wrong, partly.  A deacon and former high school teacher approached me after a recent evening service and suggested that I look up the "triple point" of water where H2O exists in all three states (liquid, solid, and gas) simultaneously in equilibrium.  Check it out.

This caused me to look back at a few Systematic Theology texts that mention the various Trinitarian analogies.  Lo and behold, they included notations about the triple-point of water.  I simply missed it.

This pushes the analogy further than I had previously thought.  However, as Wayne Grudem points out, it still breaks down.  Even with the triple-point, each quantity of water is in it's own separate state, independent from each other: "the quantity of water that is steam is not ice or liquid, the quantity that is liquid is not steam or ice, etc."

All analogies break down, but H2O is still a useful conceptual tool to illustrate the "possibility" of one substance existing in three distinct subsistences.

No truths are too plain for our mouths, or too stale for your ears

Preaching something “new” – something recently learned and fresh both to the preacher and to the congregation – is an exciting opportunity. Early on in ministry, nearly everything preached is “new” to the young preacher. After years of faithful ministry, however, such experiences become fewer and farther between.

In about 12 years of pulpit ministry, I have had to learn to embrace the ministry of being a “remembrancer.” Preachers must repeatedly remind the people of God of the same truths over and over. I recently came across some encouraging words about this aspect of preaching.

Thomas Manton (1620-1677) commenting on “I will therefore put you in remembrance” from Jude 1.5:

…That a minister dischargeth his duty when he teacheth his people things vulgar and already know, as well as those which are rare and less known: if he be but a remembrancer it is enough; we are to ‘bring forth things both new and old.’ We count him a wanton prodigal that only furnisheth his table with rarities, neglecting wholesome meats because they are usual. . . .

The sound of the trumpet infuseth a new courage, so doth every sermon beget new affections, though we knew the truths delivered before. Coals will die without continual blowing; so will graces languish without often warnings and admonitions. . . . 

Till you be affected with them, we must inculcate necessary principles again and again: ‘God speaketh once, yea, twice, when men regard it not,’ job xxxiii. 14. Consider men are dull to conceive, ‘slow of heart to believe.’ The way to pierce the hard stone is by often dropping; apt to forget heavenly truths: leaky vessels must be filled again, Heb. ii. 1. 

…look upon it as a providence when the same truth or sermon is presented again: Surely I have not meditated enough of this truth, I am not enough affected with it, therefore the Lord hath again brought it to my thought, or there is some new temptations that I shall meet with, that I may find the need of this old truth, &c.

That it is a spiritual disease, a surfeit of manna, when men must still be fed with new things; no truths are too plain for our mouths, or too stale for your ears; the itch of novelty puts men upon ungrounded subtleties, and that maketh way for error or hardness of heart.

Take heed of the Athenian itch, many times it argueth guilt: we cannot endure to have an old sore rubbed again; as Peter was troubled when Christ spake to him the third time . . .

Worship Letters (3)

For we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh (Philippians 3:3) 

Picking up from before … If we rightly understand the priority of pleasing God in worship, then another important question concerns the people from whom God accepts worship. Can just anyone worship God? What makes us and our worship acceptable in the sight of God? A proper beginning point in answering these questions is to remember that we must “put no confidence in the flesh.” 

Is God impressed just because we show up? Hardly. Read the Old Testament prophet Malachi and observe how severely God rejected fleshly worship: “‘Oh that there were one among you who would shut the gates, that you might not uselessly kindle fire on My altar! I am not pleased with you,’ says the Lord of hosts, ‘nor will I accept an offering from you’” (Malachi 1:10; cf. Amos 5:21-23).

Neither our acceptance by God in salvation nor our acceptance before God in worship is built on human merit. Our confidence to be accepted by God can only be based upon genuine faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. As our High Priest, He alone has inaugurated the new and living way into the holy place of God’s presence (cf. Hebrews 10:19-22). As such, only persons who have entered into a saving relationship with God through the Lord Jesus Christ can render acceptable worship to God. 

Worship is an exclusive activity for the community of faith. The lost can be present among us in our worship services, but worship is only between God’s people and God Himself. The Bible tells us that both the “prayer” (Proverbs 28:9) and “the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord” (Proverbs 15:8). Clearly, God does not favorably receive worship from those whose hearts are still alienated from Him. 

Our sensitivity for the unconverted must not tempt us to misuse worship as a means of “easing” them into Christianity. The purpose of worship is not to help people feel like it’s cool or acceptable to worship God, and it is absurd to misuse worship as an attempt to appear hip and trendy to the world. To the contrary, we hope that the unconverted will experience conviction while in our midst and observe exactly how different we are from the world. 

What we need, therefore, is a genuinely Christian confidence and not a carnal confidence, a confidence that rests in the finished works of Jesus Christ. As the people of God, eternally reconciled by the blood of Jesus Christ, let us enter worship with this humble confidence.

Secure in the Certainty of His Grace, 
Pastor Klay