Author: Dave Mallinak

Dave Mallinak has served as pastor of Berean Baptist Church of Ogden, Utah since 2001. He has a beautiful wife and five kids, who are even now in the process of flying the coop.

Alternative Medicine, Lyme Disease, and the 6th Commandment

On By Dave MallinakIn Personal1 Comment

Thomas Ross wrote an article a couple of years ago on the Oasis of Hope.  A friend of mine recently shared it on Facebook.  Not noticing that it was a couple of years old, I posted a comment on it, and from there have enjoyed a small debate with Thomas on some issues that matter to me.

First things first, many who know me know that my wife contracted Lyme Disease about 6 years ago.  It was a life-changing event for us.  My youngest son, who is now 11, has repeated the fact that he cannot remember when mom wasn’t sick.  We have been blessed by the friendship and encouragement of many friends who have sustained us with kind words and constant prayer for us.  This sickness has introduced us to hardships that have at times threatened to undo us.  Yet we can also say by the grace of God that we are not yet overthrown.  These things have introduced unspeakable blessings into our lives that we could not ever explain to anyone.  We have learned some valuable lessons, and we continue to learn.  As we have discussed these things, my wife and I have recognized that, prior to her sickness, we were not very compassionate people, especially towards those who are sick.  We trust that God has changed us in this regard.

In Thomas’ article, I took issue with one particular statement he made:

…by rejecting the Biblically-based scientific method for unconventional “medicine” that does not work you are violating the sixth commandment by rebelliously refusing to preserve life.

Thomas has done stellar work at exposing some of the excesses of the “alternative” side of medicine.  In many cases, he is correct in his view of these things, though I generally disagree with his one-size-fits-all approach to healthcare.  I do, however, take issue with his suggestion that the pursuit of alternative or unconventional medicine amounts to a violation of the 6th commandment.

In the course of our discussion, I posted links to a couple of articles about the controversy surrounding Lyme Disease, which led to Thomas offering an educated opinion on the controversy.  You can read our entire discussion here. For the reader’s sake, I include his entire quote here:

 Dear Bro Mallinak,

Thanks for the links. I do not have time to get into a discussion of whether chronic Lyme disease is what the medical consensus claims or whether thousands of doctors, insurance companies, colleges, researchers, etc. are all part of a conspiracy to suppress the existence of the disease. I am skeptical of the conspiracy thesis for reasons such as those discussed here:

Chronic Lyme Disease – Another Negative Study

Does Everybody Have Chronic Lyme Disease? Does Anyone?

While I recognize that this can be a very emotionally charged issue for many, the fact that blood tests evidence that people who claim to have chronic Lyme do not have antibodies for Lyme disease (or only residual antibodies from the previous existence of the undisputed normal Lyme disease), the fact that the treatment protocol advocated by chronic Lyme partisans does not seem to work better than a placebo, and other similar factors would appear to be much more likely explanations for insurance companies not covering the alleged disease than a conspiracy between hundreds of competitors who want to drive each other out of business, as well as non-profit researchers, medical colleges, etc.

However, as I mentioned above, I do not have time to discuss this matter at the moment, although I would be interested, as I have time, in reading your responses to the questions I asked if you wish to reply to them.

I am quite satisfied, though, that if alleged chronic Lyme is the reason for my alleged “overstated bloviation” and chronic Lyme is the proof of medical conspiracy theories, that my statement is quite able to stand, and I could in good conscience repeat my overstated bloviation again, as, to my mind, the conspiracy theories appear to be what is overstated, not the scientific consensus.

I trust that neither of us will take personally or view disagreement here as an attack on one or the other’s integrity, compassion, etc.

Thanks for your comments.

I do not know whether Thomas has any kind of medical degree or medical training, but he certainly has more of an understanding of the controversy surrounding Lyme Disease than most people I talk to – so I will credit him for that.  He has a very decided opinion on the controversy as well, which is not unusual for Thomas.

After infection with the Lyme bacteria, a very small percentage of those infected will experience ongoing effects from the bacteria.  The controversy among doctors revolves around this question: Are the Lyme bacteria still living and reproducing in the body, or is it simply “residual antibodies” that are present?  Doctors are divided on that question. Those who consider them to be “residual antibodies” tend to identify most with the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA).  Those who believe the bacteria still to be alive in the body identify with the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS).  Both sides include legitimate, certified medical doctors.  Both claim research to support their viewpoint, and both offer very different approaches to dealing with the disease.

In the beginning stages of our battle with this disease, my wife and I went exclusively to IDSA doctors, first at our local hospital, then at the University of Utah, and finally at Johns Hopkins University.  With each doctor, we experienced a different level of knowledge about the disease.  Each doctor educated us a little more as to what we were dealing with, helping us to understand the disease and its effects.  Each doctor recommended basically the same solution – which was pain management through a variety of techniques, including opiates, narcotics, over the counter pain relievers, counseling, meditation, acupuncture, diet, and exercise.  Through the U of U doctor, my wife was admitted to the headache clinic at the U, and that doctor attempted to treat the constant, migraine-level headache that has been with her since she first contracted the disease.

We did not pursue the meditation or acupuncture recommended by our conventional doctors.  The drugs they prescribed were very hard on my wife.  She has never functioned well with that level of pain medication.  When she took those drugs, she wound up curled up on the bed, unable to move or function at all.  When she woke up, she couldn’t stop crying.  The doctors told us to give it a few weeks and she would be better, but she wasn’t.  She reached a level that frightened me, more than once, and we finally decided that this treatment was doing more harm than good and stopped taking that medicine.  At the headache clinic, the doctor decided to wean her off one particular non-opiate, non-narcotic pain medicine, which we were happy to do.  Unfortunately, the doctor took her off the medicine too quickly.  For 2 weeks, my wife lay flat on her back, unable to eat, only able to trickle water down her throat.  After 2 weeks, fearing for her life, I took her to a doctor to ensure that she was not dehydrated or starving to death.

After about 6 months of treatment at the headache clinic, the doctor told us that she could do nothing to help my wife’s headache. This doctor recognized that the Lyme Disease was the cause of her headache, and acknowledged that her headaches were not a “residual” effect, but were caused by the Lyme bacteria.  Conventional approaches to pain management simply were not effective with this extenuating circumstance.

By this time, we had been treating my wife for about a year and a half to two years.  We recognized that conventional medicine did not have a solution to the problem, and we decided that this was God’s will – we would simply submit to what he had brought into our lives and stop pursuing treatment. At that time, we had exhausted every remedy offered by conventional medicine.

As the months rolled by, my wife’s condition only worsened.  While on a visit to my parents, I decided to stop by and visit with my childhood family doctor.  My parents have gone to him for many, many years, and continue to see him to this day.  He plays an active role in the training and certification process at Indiana University and is a well-known and respected doctor.  He graciously cleared his lunch hour and visited with us for an hour and a half, explaining more about the disease and discussing treatment options.  We told him everything we have done to treat my wife, and he acknowledged that we had done everything that conventional medicine has to offer. He visibly cried as he told us that he honestly did not know which direction we should go in our pursuit of relief from this disease, but that the one thing we must not do is to give up.  He told us that we had to keep fighting the disease.

Because we had exhausted every option offered to us on the conventional side, we began to pursue alternative treatments, particularly antibiotic therapy.  Though these treatment options have not brought an end to her suffering, they have enabled my wife to experience some of her best days dealing with this disease.

Whether those who suffer long-term from the effects of Lyme Disease are experiencing “chronic” Lyme or “post” Lyme, whether the bacteria is alive or “residual,” it is undeniable that a certain percentage of Lyme patients experience long-term damage from the disease.  As the doctor at Johns Hopkins explained to us, the greatest damage caused by Lyme Disease is to the auto-immune system.  Because Lyme Disease is such a powerful bacteria, it has a way of jolting the auto-immune system into hyper-drive.  The doctor explained it in military terms. Suppose a foreign army invaded our country.  We would send in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Special Forces, and Coast Guard to drive them out.  That is what our auto-immune system does when we contract Lyme Disease.  But as she explained to us, with some patients, long after the foreign army has been driven out, the auto-immune system continues to respond to every threat, even one as mild as a paper-cut, with an all-out assault.  And that is the cause of the constant, unrelenting pain.

The most effective treatment of Lyme Disease today attempts to kill the bacteria through antibiotic therapy while at the same time attempting to focus the auto-immune system on fighting the disease rather than attacking the rest of the body.  My old family doctor told us that “if anyone ever tells you that they have found a way to control the auto-immune system, get up and walk out of the room immediately.”  He is right, of course.  If medicine could cure a broken auto-immune system, that would bring an end to all disease.  Yet in recent years, science has made significant advances in helping the auto-immune system to fight diseases, including cancer, in our own bodies.  Some of these advances have come from conventional medicine paying a little more attention to the unconventional approaches to sickness and disease.

Of course, some in the ILADS community will insist that the bacteria is still alive, and that is the reason the symptoms continue chronically.  I will confess that I do not have a decided opinion on which of these is correct.  I will leave that to the more educated people, like Thomas.  He calls it an “alleged” disease.  My wife and I shared a good laugh about that.  Her alleged disease is allegedly causing her a lot of pain, even at this moment.

Because Lyme Disease is not life-threatening like cancer or heart disease, and because it is not widespread, universities do not invest money into research on this disease or focus on finding a cure for it as they do with other diseases.  So while IDSA doctors debate ILADS doctors on the merits of various treatment options, the patients continue to suffer.  Unfortunately, many insurance companies have sided with IDSA rather than allow their customers to pursue treatment as a free market would dictate.  In our case, we have been blessed to belong to Samaritan Ministries, who has graciously allowed us to pursue alternative treatments.  We know plenty of Lyme patients who have traditional insurance, and who are denied coverage.

One of our IDSA doctors told us, as Thomas noted above, that “the treatment protocol advocated by chronic Lyme partisans does not seem to work better than a placebo.”  He was referring specifically to antibiotic therapy.  He explained that the antibiotics work because they contain levels of Tylenol and anti-inflammatories.  The antibiotics can be dangerous when taken long-term, but he told us that if we went on a regiment of Tylenol and ibuprofen (also dangerous in the long-term, by the way), we would experience the same relief.

He couldn’t have been more wrong.  When we stuck with his regiment of Tylenol and ibuprofen, my wife experienced no relief from her pain whatsoever.  But when we began to visit a Lyme-literate doctor who put my wife on antibiotics, she experienced the most relief she has in this long battle.  Over the past couple of years, in fact, this treatment has given us the best, most consistent relief of any treatment we have tried.

Our current doctor, who is a licensed Medical Doctor, told us that for many years, his patients would come to him and say, “but Doctor, I’m not better.”  And he would assume that it was all in their head and they needed to get over it.  But the more he treated patients, the more he recognized that many of them were not making it up.  When he realized this, he also realized that the limitations placed on him by “Best Practices,” the standards conventional doctors are held to, did not always allow him to treat his patients the way they needed to be treated.

I believe in science.  I believe in the scientific method.  I believe in conventional medicine.  If you have cancer, I would plead with you – please, don’t go for all the kooky nonsense treatments that are out there.  Use the tried and tested.

But I also believe in free markets, and modern-day conventional medicine is not necessarily friendly to this.  Doctors who treat Lyme patients in particular, when they use alternative or unconventional methods, have wound up losing their licenses.  At this point, a handful of states (I think about 13) have passed laws in order to grant doctors a little more liberty in their pursuit of treatment.  That is a good thing.

I am not a medical doctor and have no medical training.  I do not have Thomas Ross’ research abilities, and I have no doubt that he can refute much of what I say.  I only know that my wife has suffered much, and as her husband, I must attempt to help her however I can.  Antibiotics have helped her where the narcotics and opiates prescribed by conventional doctors did not.

I cannot make judgments about Thomas Ross, about his compassion, or about his motivations for writing what he does.  He certainly does his homework, and he is very passionate about medical issues.  I do not say that his arguments are without merit.  Nor do I pretend to know what he would do were he in my position.  I cannot pretend to know what he has had to deal with personally as far as health and medical treatment is concerned.  Should God allow a similar circumstance into his life, I would assume that he would do everything in his power to relieve the suffering of his loved one.

Whether he would take the route that I have taken or not would be his decision.  If he decided that the conventional route is the only route, I would not accuse him of violating the 6th commandment.  I don’t think such a sweeping condemnation is appropriate.  On my part, I sometimes believe that if I were to stop pursuing alternative treatments, that may very well be a violation of the 6th commandment.

 

Trumpmares

On By Dave MallinakIn Hot Topics, Wildcard Wednesdays

This week’s Trump scandal of the week is that our President allegedly referred to countries like Haiti and several African nations as, to use a little circumlocution, outhouse wells.  Whether Trump actually said that or not is unclear. With Dick Durban as the only “reliable” source, who really knows. This wouldn’t be the first time Dick Durban flat out made something up about a private meeting, as has been documented here.

But since the possibility exists – and it is a plausible story – that Trump may have said this, the media is outraged.  Again.  That makes, I think, 52 weeks in a row that the media has been in an uproar about Trump; 52 weeks in a row that we have been told that this was Trump’s worst week yet; 52 weeks in a row that we have been reminded that Trump is a racist and we are all doomed and Trump will be impeached by… who knows.  The date keeps getting pushed back.  People just can’t keep their commitments these days.

Since the media narrative has been that Trump is a racist, we are happy to believe Dick Durban.  Even Steve Bannon gets his moment in the spotlight, so long as he is bashing Trump.  And this morning, I heard the latest Trump scandal – he woke up breathing.  Which I think is the real problem.

Trump’s toilet analogy of some third-world countries has predictably unleashed a stream of hit pieces on Trump’s racism.  Reporters asked Trump to respond to those who say that he is a racist.  Trump (predictably) answered, “I am the least racist person you have ever interviewed, that I can tell you.”  Wow.  Didn’t see that coming.  His answer prompted editors at The Atlantic to interview their big room of experienced reporters and ask them “Who was the least racist person you’ve ever interviewed?”  You can read that here.  Their answers are very revealing, in case you had any illusions about reporters at The Atlantic.

My favorite answer came from James Fallows, who said

Claims that begin, “I’m no bigot, but…” “I’m no chauvinist, but…” or “I’m the least racist person you’ve ever met, but…” always mean, and are always universally understood to mean, the exact opposite.

Ah, yes.  We trapped you again, Donald.  Haven’t you learned yet?  Answering our questions is proof, as is not answering our questions.

Meanwhile, yet another “big name” celebrity is taken down by the #MeToo movement.  I suppose I will demonstrate what a rube I am, but I had never heard of Aziz Ansari before this weekend.  Truth be told, I’m not a big fan of pop entertainment.  Anyway, The Atlantic also has an interesting article on the subject.

Here is my take on the larger issue.  For decades now, Christians have been mocked and ridiculed for teaching abstinence, for holding high standards – especially when it comes to “dating” standards, for preaching that a man ought not to touch a woman and that a man and a woman should not be alone together without a chaperone.  In response, we were called prudes.  We were accused of suppressing our raging sexual desires and hiding our secret fantasies behind our high standards.  Now we learn that actually, women don’t want to be treated like a conquest.

But now men aren’t so sure how they are supposed to go about this great mating free-for-all.  The girl goes on a date with a guy, alone.  She goes to his apartment with him, again alone.  She sits up on his countertop and makes out with him.  What part of “no” doesn’t he understand?  Wham-O: sexual misconduct.

And now we are faced with a quandary.  How are we supposed to know whether the green light really means “go,” and what are we supposed to do when it skips the yellow light and changes suddenly to red.

One thing we all know: the world is not about to say, “Maybe the Christians had it right about this dating thing for all these years.”  I was reading an article a month or so ago – I can’t seem to find it now – but the author was wrestling with this thing of “consent” and how to separate the stalking creep from the flirting stud.  She had some pretty convoluted ideas about these things, but, interestingly, she wasn’t in favor of bringing an end to men hitting on women.  As she explained, her boss hit on her, and she married him.  They were still married too, which is to their credit no doubt.

I couldn’t help but think about the grace and kindness of God, Who has given us His law of holiness as a mercy to us, in order to spare us from the pain of lived out horror stories.  “Flee fornication” is not God’s way of handing you a boring life in a cardboard box.  “This do, and thou shalt live.”  At God’s right hand there are pleasures forevermore.

While the world ponders what “consent” really means, Christians should show them – it means a wedding dress, a father walking his daughter down the aisle, flowers and bridesmaids and groomsmen and rings and vows exchanged.  It means wedding cake and maybe a limousine and most of all a promise – no, a covenant: “Till death do us part.”  That is consent.  And until that consent, the consent of a father giving his daughter in marriage, there can be no other.

P.S. After writing this article, I came across an article Kent Brandenburg wrote about Trump, one I wholeheartedly agree with.  Let me encourage you to read it.  I have linked to it here.  When you finish, make sure you watch the CRTV video at the end.  Very satisfying.

Blessings!

The Problem of Replacing One Sinner with Another

On By Dave MallinakIn Churches in Transition

A pastor is a sinner who, having been saved by the grace of God, has been called and equipped to lead the people of God, preaching the Word and equipping the saints.  How’s that for a definition?

We don’t necessarily think of a pastor as a sinner, unless we had a pastor who sinned against us or fell into some kind of scandalous sin.  Otherwise, we have this persistent notion that the pastor is above the world, untouched by the feeling of our infirmities, unvarnished by the sins that so easily beset us.

This view of the person of the pastor is false.  We know this.  A church is a body of sinners.  The pastor belongs to that body.  There may be times when we are more aware of his fallenness – like when he steps on our toes.  But we know – at least in theory – that  he is in our same condition in most ways.

But in a good relationship between pastor and church, we might forget that the pastor is a man, and a fallen one at that.  For mysterious reasons, when the pastor is ready to hand over leadership and end his ministry to our church, we tend to forget his faults and promote him to sainthood.  Woe unto the next pastor in such cases.  His every move will be scrutinized and he will be measured endlessly against his predecessor, Pastor Donowrong.  Frankly, this is unrealistic and wrongheaded.

In my introductory article on churches in transition, I pointed out that when a church changes leadership, the leadership passes from one sinner to another.  This is fundamental doctrine, and should not require a detailed defense.  The fallen nature of man is as foundational to the Christian faith as the deity of Christ or the unity of the Godhead.  Why then are we surprised when someone goes off the rails?

Here’s the problem: we expect our pastors to be “above the fray.”  Some of that expectation comes from our fascination with power, and the fact that some pastors are impressive and powerful men to begin with.  Blame it on our humanity, but we tend to think that power means perfection.  Too often, we think of the pastor as if he has a walk with God not available to the average Christian, as if he had already attained.  We are shocked to learn that he even has faults.

Some of our expectations about the pastor come from the pastor’s presentation of himself.  The pastor himself may believe that he cannot ever let anyone know about his faults.  In order to conceal the ugly truth, pastors fake it.  This can lead to disaster – be sure your sin will find you out.  But some men are better than others at concealing their faults, and so the church will not be made aware of the problems in a man’s life and ministry.  This is an unhelpful reality in too many churches.

Over years, a church grows accustomed to a pastor’s faults, which helps foster these delusions about our pastors.  Because we love our pastor, and because we try to be gracious, we get used to overlooking those faults and sometimes even excusing them.

Enter the new pastor.  He has faults, the former pastor has faults.  But his faults have become part of the woodwork, and nobody notices anymore.  The new guy on the other hand, his faults are all fresh and unfamiliar, and the church notices these.  Especially if he is replacing a well-loved, well-respected pastor, the new pastor will find himself under a microscope.

What then is a church to do?

First, Keep Things in Perspective

If we enter a leadership transition looking for Pastor Perfect, we will be sadly disappointed.  Every pastor has his own set of sins that are unique to himself.  Brace yourself.  Don’t look for his faults, but when you find them, don’t be surprised or shattered by it.

Secondly, Recognize That Temptations Change

Seasoned pastors have a unique set of temptations that are very different than those a new pastor will face.  The new pastor has temptations unique to his new position; the entrenched pastor has temptations unique to his longevity.  Older men are tempted one way, younger men another.  Martin Luther has been quoted saying that a young man is tempted by girls, a middle-aged man by gold, an older man by glory.  Sometimes we overcome our temptations, sometimes we simply outgrow them.  Our temptations may not be constant, but temptation certainly is.  We are always tempted, but not always the same way.  We can expect, in a leadership transition, that new temptations will creep in all around.

Thirdly, Be Gracious

Extend the same kind of grace to the pastor that you would want extended to you.

For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

Pastors sometimes hold a double-standard.  But the double-standard is not a pastor-only problem.  Church members also hold the occasional double-standard.  In truth, the pew is often as guilty as the pulpit.  We are commanded to “judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).  This means, among other things, that we ought to judge Scripturally rather than preferentially.  we must have a true standard, which would be God’s Word.  When we find fault in our pastor, we have some Scriptural responsibilities.  The Bible is not silent in such cases. Galatians 6:1 gives a general command in any case when a brother is overtaken in a fault.  I Timothy 5:1 gives a more specific command regarding pastors who sin.

…ye which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. (Galatians 6:1)

Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; (I Timothy 5:1)

These are not options or suggestions for dealing with sin in the pastor.  These are commands.  One sin is not corrected by another; nor does one sin give us an indulgence to commit another.

Fourthly, Respect the New Pastor

Respect takes time to earn.  Recognize that.  But it shouldn’t take time for us to give respect to a new pastor, even when it has not been earned.  Respect the office, and learn to respect the man.

Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation. (Hebrews 13:7)

You cannot claim to respect the office when you clearly disrespect the man.

Part of respecting the pastor involves understanding his role in your life.  God calls a pastor to live among his people, and sometimes that means we see things we did not want to see.  Recognize that his battles will help you with yours, so long as he approaches his own Scripturally.  We do not want a pastor who has no conflict with temptation or sin.  Such a pastor cannot guide us, encourage us, lead us, or help us with our own struggles.  Pastors learn how to fight against sin in the arena, not in the study.

The man in the arena is likely to have a little mud and maybe even a little blood on himself.  The guy with the clean uniform at the end of the game didn’t play.  When your pastor comes out with his hair messed up, understand that he has been in a battle.  This is good.

Finally, Pray for Your Pastor and Encourage Him

Certainly, there are times when we must sit in judgment.  But those times are thankfully very rare.  In most of our interactions with people, we should behave as those who will be judged, not as those who must judge.  In the past century, we have become much more casual towards authority, and as our culture has become more egalitarian, we have made every effort to free ourselves from our obligations towards authority.  These things ought not to be.  We must act in a Scriptural way towards the pastor, just as he must act in a Scriptural way towards us.

Leadership transitions in a church become difficult when we forget this simple truth – that taking a new pastor means taking a new set of flaws, faults, and failures.  It is no good to expect the new pastor to be what the old pastor wasn’t – which is to say, without sin.

Martin Rinkart’s Thanksgiving

On By Dave MallinakIn Hymn Stories, Joy, Thanksgiving

Martin Rinkart knew a thing or two about thanksgiving.  He was just 31 years old when he became pastor of the Lutheran Church in his hometown of Eilenburg, Saxony.  A year later, one of Europe’s deadliest wars broke out.  During the years from 1618 to 1648, more than 8 million people died in what historians refer to as the Thirty Years’ War.  For more than a decade, Eilenburg avoided direct involvement in the war, but by 1631, the war moved to the city.  Sometime in 1636, according to historians, Martin Rinkart penned the words to the thanksgiving hymn Nun Danket Alle Gott – “Now Thank We All Our God.” The next year brought the greatest devastation of the war to the city.  Thousands fled the war, and Eilenburg became a place of refuge.  But in 1637, overcrowded conditions and the devastation of war brought famine and plague to the city.  During that one year alone, 8,000 souls were lost.

At the beginning of 1637, four pastors served the city of Eilenburg.  Soon after the plague struck, one of those pastors abandoned his post and fled to safer regions.  As the death toll mounted, Pastor Rinkart and the remaining two pastors conducted sometimes as many as 40-50 funerals in a day.  Then the two other pastors died.  Pastor Rinkart, sound in body but no doubt suffering in spirit, was left alone to deal with the dead and dying.  Over the course of that year, Martin Rinkart conducted more than 4,000 funerals.  Then, his own wife died.  By the end of the year, with no suitable burial ground remaining, the city of Eilenburg was forced to dig trenches to bury the dead.

Despite his grief, in the face of such extreme suffering and starvation, Martin Rinkart remained steadfast.  He organized efforts to feed the hungry, opened his own home to provide refuge for those in need, gave away his own wealth and all the provision not needed by his own hungry family, and faithfully served Christ and His people.

The story is told that towards the end of the Thirty Years’ War, the Swedish army surrounded Eilenburg and demanded a huge ransom in exchange for an end to the siege.  The tribute required much more money than the devastated city could ever possibly afford.  Some have said that Martin Rinkart led a delegation to the Swedish general to plead for mercy.  When the Swedes refused, Rinkart turned to the delegation and said, “Come, my children, we can find no hearing, no mercy with men; let us take refuge with God.”  Then, falling to his knees, Martin Rinkart pleaded with God for his people.  Seeing his passion, the Swedish general relented, reducing the tribute to an affordable amount.

Out of the depth of such extreme suffering came a song that continues to be a classic thanksgiving hymn nearly 4 centuries later.  “Now Thank We All our God” stands as a lasting testimony to the triumph of joy and the faith of the believer in the face of hard trials.

The Apostle Paul said of the Macedonian believers that

…in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality. (2 Corinthians 8:2)

True Christian joy can only be a work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer.  There can be no other explanation for it.  We do not say that extreme sorrow or suffering is necessary for fullness of joy.  Where the Holy Spirit indwells the human heart, joy will be evidently present.  Great trials of affliction do not produce joy.  They are not necessary for joy.  But they do cause our joy to shine.  They make our joy evident.

How else can we explain the way joy lifts us up and causes us to triumph in the face of great trial and affliction?  How else can we understand the way joy overflows out of the cup of our sorrows, so that it seems the deeper the sorrow, the greater the joy.  When weeping endures for a night, joy comes in the morning.  Joy outlasts our sorrows.  When pain and sorrow weighs us down, joy outweighs our afflictions and lifts us above them.  Joy is a display of the power of God in the life of the believer to give him happiness when happiness is the last thing anyone would expect.

If we can only be thankful on warm, sunny days with favorable winds at our backs, then we need to learn the lesson of thanksgiving.

By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. (Hebrews 13:15)

 

Now Thank We All Our God

Now thank we all our God, with heart and hands and voices,
Who wondrous things has done, in Whom this world rejoices;
Who from our mothers’ arms has blessed us on our way
With countless gifts of love, and still is ours today.

Oh, may this bounteous God through all our life be near us,
With ever joyful hearts and blessed peace to cheer us;
And keep us in His grace, and guide us when perplexed;
And guard us through all ills in this world, till the next!

All praise and thanks to God the Father now be given,
The Son, and Him Who reigns with Them in highest Heaven—
The one eternal God, Whom earth and Heav’n adore;
For thus it was, is now, and shall be evermore.

Word of Truth Conference Report, 2017

On By Dave MallinakIn Fellowship, Preaching and Teaching

This year’s Word of Truth Conference was a tremendous week of teaching, preaching, and companionship.  Pastor Kent Brandenburg hosts the conference every year at his church.  He places a premium on God’s Word and insists that the preaching at this conference be expository.  As a result, his conference is not your standard fair of emotionally overwrought sermons sprinkled with a dusting of Scripture.  Pastor Brandenburg always challenges me to think in terms of Scripture, and to bring my own doctrine and practice in line with God’s Word.  The Conference and the fellowship at the conference were a special blessing, but three things in particular blessed me this year.

The Church

Bethel Baptist Church of El Sobrante is a wonderful, Christ-honoring church.  The church really loves God’s Word.  The people demonstrate their love for Christ and each other many times over.  The conversations center on the Word, and long after the service ends, the people gather and enjoy what they heard together.  The conversations often branch out into discussions and applications beyond the sermon itself.  It is always a refreshment and delight to be part of this conference, and the joy of the church is contagious.

Apart from the conference, my son and I dropped in at the church on a random Wednesday night, and we found the same thing to be true then.  This is a church that loves the Word, loves the Savior, and loves each other.

The Lessons

This year, Pastor James Bronsveld taught two powerful lessons on Biblical repentance.  I urge you to listen to these lessons as they go beyond the normal presentation.  In the first discussion, Pastor Bronsveld explained repentance in terms of the second Psalm, “Why do the heathen rage.”  He defined repentance as a change of mind from rage against God to sorrow for my rage against God.  In the second discussion, Pastor Bronsveld answered a claim made in this article by Dr. Rick Flanders (here) about repentance in the Old Testament.  Notice especially this claim, made by Dr. Flanders:

Most Old Testament references to men repenting speak of revival, not salvation, and cannot be used properly to illustrate salvation repentance.

Pastor Bronsveld did an excellent job explaining the difference between the old covenant and the new, and then he showed that Old Testament repentance is still repentance.  The clincher came in the book of Jonah and the repentance of Ninevah.  I won’t steal his thunder.  You really need to watch these sessions.

The second lesson on repentance in the OT is available as well.

Pastor Brandenburg also taught a great lesson on the sinner’s prayer.  Actually, he kept promising all week that he was going to “do” the sinner’s prayer.  But he never did.  I was disappointed, because I wanted to see him do it…

Joking aside, he gave an unforgettable illustration of the problem for those who reject the sinner’s prayer altogether.  He stood at the front with his back to the audience, and he said, “God wants me to turn; I need to turn,” and then he started to turn and said, “Oh, but that’s a work.” You will need to watch the video to get a full appreciation – since you weren’t there.  Unfortunately, I can’t seem to locate the video.  Hopefully it will be up soon.  You can monitor the YouTube channel here.  Faith and repentance are the gift of God, and so the “sinner’s prayer,” when it is prayed, is a part of that gift.  When we trust the Lord, we cry out to Him and we come to Him.

Pastor Dave Sutton also taught an excellent message on the Deity of Christ and the necessity of that doctrine to the Gospel.

 

The Fellowship

I am always sharpened by discussions with Pastors Brandenburg and Sutton, and this year I had the joy of meeting two other faithful preachers: James Bronsveld and Chris Teale.  Pastor Bronsveld, who I discussed earlier, pastors in Toronto, Canada.  Pastor Teale is planting a church in Carson City, Nevada, sent out from Mid-Coast Baptist Church in Brunswick, Maine, Pastor Bobby Mitchell.  Pastor Teale is an excellent and straightforward preacher, and he preached two tremendous messages on preaching the gospel.  Both his messages are available on YouTube.

You will be challenged to make the gospel the focus rather than your powers of speech or illustration.  Pastor Teale knows what he is talking about – he has gone to a place where few have gone to preach the gospel, and he is seeing slow but steady progress.  His sermons are amazingly short – I say that because he says so much in them.  I lack his gift of brevity.

Overall, we had a wonderful time together in the Word, “breaking bread” at the various meals provided by the church, and sharpening each other.  I am grateful for the opportunity to attend, and I want to encourage all who read to consider taking a few days in early November next year to be a part of this conference.

Brethren, Arm Thyself

On By Dave MallinakIn Issues Facing the Church, Uncategorized

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. (Luke 22:36)

No doubt we all sat up and took notice on Sunday afternoon or whenever it was that we heard about the shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas.  Over the past decade, we have seen a dramatic increase in this sort of thing – I saw a statistic that says violent assaults at churches have increased 2,000% since 2007 – and no, that isn’t a typo.  I hope that by now we have all adjusted to the idea that church is not necessarily a “safe space” any more.

My thinking on these things has changed dramatically over these past few years.  For many years, I made it clear that we are in God’s hands and not in the hands of any invader, that He is protecting us, and that if anything were to happen, we as men would throw ourselves in the path of the bullets.  Sounds spiritual, but not really Scriptural or wise.

Jesus taught us to beware of men.

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

When He first sent out the 70, He sent them without purse, scrip, and shoes.  But when they returned he told them to sell their garment and buy a sword.  This was not metaphorical.  They would have to face the reality that they were as vulnerable to assault from thieves and robbers as anyone else.  We live in a fallen world, and Christians have a duty to protect themselves and their families as much as anyone else.

Over 20 years of ministry now, I have my share of experiences.  I once sought to disciple an alcoholic who eventually became very angry with me.  He would stand across the street from our church screaming at me when I came out the door at the end of the Sunday morning service.  He would leave beer cans arranged on the church doorsteps and around our property.  He would walk across town to stand glaring in front of my house.  He left a ten-page letter on the door of the church detailing what he wanted to do to my wife.  He finally set up a tombstone for me behind the church.

Another man attended our church off-and-on for a short period of time.  One Sunday after a long absence, he visited again, angry about something.  He kept moving seats from one side of the aisle to the other, closer and closer to the front, until he wound up directly in front of me.  He then proceeded to stare me down.

A couple of years ago, a set of Academy parents became extremely unstable.  We tried to help them for a time, until the dad wigged out at the front desk, becoming very aggressive towards our Academy secretary.  It was her husband who came to me and insisted that we needed to put a security plan in place.  I agreed.

I hope no pastor who reads this article will ever need to defend themselves against an invader.  But it would be foolish for us to ignore the rising threat against our ministries.  We must take seriously our duty to protect the sheep against wolves.

With that in mind, I would like to recommend a few immediate steps that ought to be taken with the goal of developing a security plan for your church.  Some of these we have done, some we are in the process of doing.  By the way, our church is small – around 30 families.  A church need not be large in order to do what is listed here.

First, lock your doors during services

Leave the doors unlocked prior to the start of the service, but once the service begins, lock the door or else station an usher at that door.  When the usher leaves the door, that door should be locked.

Secondly, designate men to carry a firearm

When I sat down with officers from our local police department, they said this was the most important defense against intruders.  Those who carry should be competent with the use and handling of a firearm.  Some training is ideal.  Our church probably has a disproportionate number of gun enthusiasts, so we have had to set some good sense rules for those who carry on our campus.  Rule number one: if you carry a firearm, it must be in your immediate control at all times.  If a lady carries a handgun in her purse (several of our ladies do), her purse must be in her immediate control at all times.  Nobody wants to hear of a baby in the nursery finding the handgun.

Thirdly, equip your ushers with Mace

This is a simple step, and makes good sense.  Mace gives an usher the best chance of neutralizing a threat.

Fourthly, control the keys to your building

You shouldn’t give keys to everyone, and you should know who has keys to your buildings.  When someone moves or leaves the church, have them return their keys.  It might be necessary to change the locks on the church periodically (which is fairly inexpensive) in order to re-establish key control.

Fifthly, assign a man to roam the property during the service

Obviously, this should not be the same man every service, as the roamer will not be a part of the service.  I was surprised to learn that the majority of violent incidents at the church start outside and move inside.  From what I have read, this was the case at the church in Sutherland Springs as well.  Another surprise to me, and one that we should know, is that a large number of church attacks are not directly related to the ministry of the church itself.  A surprising number of assaults are the result of a domestic dispute or custody battle.  Having a person patrolling the facility and grounds gives a great way to be alert and vigilant.

Sixthly, train your teachers and workers how to do a lockdown

For our academy, we installed door locks, flip latches, and barracuda door lock systems.  You can get one of these for outward swinging doors and another for inward swinging doors.  Your Sunday School teachers should be trained – not just told – what to do in the event of an emergency, especially if an intruder presents a threat.

Finally, the men of the church must be vigilant

It is a good idea to ask the men to station themselves on the aisles and to spread themselves throughout the church.  This should be done every service.

Of course, these are immediate steps.  Much more can be said on this, and it would be wise to look into some sort of security training for your ushers and the men of your church.  Let me recommend Strategos International for more in-depth and expert advice and training for your church’s security concerns.  These folks do a great job helping a church develop a security plan.

Of course, in urging these steps, we are not ignoring our need for the protection of God.  We must trust the Lord and preach the gospel.  But we must acknowledge that we live in perilous times.

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

Miracles Schmiracles

On By Dave MallinakIn Cessationism, Continuationism

I am glad we are having this discussion, and only regret that I have been so slow to respond. Anyone following along may very well believe that I gave up.  But here I am again, with a few follow-up thoughts.  I appreciate Pastor Brandenburg’s response to my article, and I would encourage anyone following this discussion to read what he wrote.  I also want to commend James Bronsveld for a great contribution.  You can read his comment here.

From what Pastor Brandenburg writes, I gather that he opposes the use of the term “miracle” to describe the supernatural work of God because of the way the King James Bible uses the term.  The King James Bible carefully avoids any use of the word “miracle” other than to describe signs and wonders.  Pastor Brandenburg seems to argue that we should limit our use of the term to the way the English of the King James uses it.

Smith’s Bible Dictionary similarly restricts miracles to “signs and wonders,” and supports Pastor Brandenburg’s insistence on limiting our use of the word “miracle.”

A miracle may be defined to be a plain and manifest exercise by a man, or by God at the call of a man, of those powers which belong only to the Creator and Lord of nature; and this for the declared object of attesting that a divine mission is given to that man. It is not, therefore, the wonder, the exception to common experience, that constitutes the miracle, as is assumed both in the popular use of the word and by most objectors against miracles.

No phenomenon in nature, however unusual, no event in the course of God’s providence, however unexpected, is a miracle unless it can be traced to the agency of man, (including prayer, under the term agency), and unless it be put forth as a proof of divine mission. Prodigies and special providences are not miracles.

So, he is not alone in his view of the word “miracle.”  I do not oppose this restricted view of miracles absolutely.  Certainly, Biblical miracles include a very limited range of acts. I too believe that Christians use the term “miracle” too casually, so it is good to consider this topic.  But then again, I don’t agree absolutely, and I want to explain my reasons.

As I see it, we have two questions before us: first, can “miracle” refer to the supernatural?  Secondly, would that be evidence of “soft continuationism”?  My answer to the first question is “yes;” to the second, “no.”

“Miracle” and the supernatural

Words have a denotation and a connotation.  I will gladly concede that in its proper Scriptural sense, “miracle” refers only to Signs and Wonders.  That is the denotation of miracle, and the King James stays true to that denotation.

But William Smith aside, there is also a popular use – and popular understanding – of the word “miracle.”  Pastor Brandenburg may wish to demolish that popular use.  But then, that would be a concession of sorts, that this is the way we use the term which now needs to be corrected.  It seems to me that if this is his desire, he should explain why we should stop using the term the way we do.  Does the English of the King James restrict our use of language?  If so, what Scriptural warrant is there for using words like “supernatural” – a term not found in the King James Bible – to describe salvation?

In order to discuss this topic fully, we must consider the power of connotation.  When I say that salvation is a miracle, nobody thinks that I am offering to work one for them.  On the other hand, if I say that salvation is “supernatural” most people in our culture would look for UFO’s or start discussing the paranormal.  Hey, I just typed “supernatural” into Google and discovered that there are 13 complete series of TV shows by that name, dealing with – guess what – the paranormal!  You can check it out here.  Whether we like it or not, our culture’s understanding of these terms differ from the true denotation.

If, on the other hand, I say that salvation is a miracle, the listener understands that I mean to say that it is a work of God alone.  Modern culture connects “miracle” to God.  I suppose we have the Lord Jesus to thank for that.  To say that salvation is a miracle is to say that it is supernatural in its nature and not the result of some natural process the way Charles Finney claimed.  That would be a good reason to say that salvation is a miracle – in order to make it clear that salvation is the work of God and not the work of man, urging believer and unbeliever alike to look to the Lord for forgiveness and redemption.

On the other hand, to say that salvation is not a miracle gives the impression to the average listener that salvation is the work of man and not the work of God.  When Pastor Brandenburg asserted that “salvation is not a miracle,” that is how I read what he was saying.  I know him well enough to know that he would not argue that salvation is a work of man.  Nonetheless, I was startled by that assertion and read it as overstatement.

The question is not whether salvation is a miracle in the same sense that Jesus walking on water or healing the man born blind was.  Clearly it is not.  The question is, can we lawfully and Scripturally claim that a supernatural event such as salvation has a miraculous quality to it.  I understand the need for precision, but are we bound always to use the proper denotation in our discussions of Scripture and the works of God?  In other words, must we restrict our use of language to strict meanings, or can we lawfully acknowledge changes in connotation?

Forgive me while I go ape for a minute: but the assumption that we must always use language in its strict meaning is actually a very modernist assumption.  It is not Scriptural.  Our modern world demands scientific precision and mathematical accuracy.  Everything must be submitted to the scientific method, strictly defined, logically arranged, precise meaning.  The Bible refers to the eyes of the Lord, calls Him a Rock, a fortress, a high tower, a shield and buckler.  He is a lion.  He is a lamb.  He is water.  He is light.  He is bread.  None of these descriptions are scientifically accurate, nor do they fit with the demand for mathematical precision.  If I pick up a rock, I don’t think, “this is just like God.”  And yet, by calling Himself a Rock, God communicates His own immutability far more accurately than a technical discussion of immutability ever could.  Even a child can understand that God is a Rock.  As long as we keep the connotations distinct from the denotations.

Put simply, this is the difference of the “analytic paradigm” and the “poetic paradigm,” and the Bible uses the poetic paradigm far more frequently.  This is with good reason: the Bible is not a textbook of systematic theology.  God communicates with us in terms we can understand.  He remembers our frame.

I hope my answer will not be unnecessarily tedious here, but I want to “interact” a bit with the arguments made by Pastor Brandenburg, particularly regarding the Greek word dunamis.  Pastor Brandenburg pointed out the two words translated “miracle” in the New Testament, and pointed us to an article on his blog in which Thomas Ross gives a very thorough examination of the variety of Greek and Hebrew words translated “miracle” in our King James Bible.  I appreciate Thomas’ work on this.  I also did some homework myself and found that the words dunamis and dunamai are used more than 300 times in the New Testament.  Of the times those words are used in the New Testament, only dunamis is translated “miracle,” and only 7 times out of about 120 verses.  This is an example of a point I made earlier – that the King James Bible is careful with what it refers to as a “miracle.”  Only those events that are clearly miracle-working events are called “miracles” in the King James.

Yet the majority of the time, dunamis indicates supernatural power.  To the early New Testament believer, it is hard to say what distinction would be made between the dunamis of, say Matthew 13:54 and the dunamis of Romans 1:16 or I Corinthians 1:18.  To translate dunamis as “miracle” at all seems to blur the line between the supernatural and the miraculous.

I notice that Thomas Ross (in this article) also recognizes that there is a looser sense in which the term “miracle” can refer to the supernatural.

In conclusion, while there are words that designate miracles in the Old and New Testament that encompass ideas broader than the strict sense of a miracle as a sign and wonder, the strict sense designated by mofeth or a semeion, this strict sense has particular words assigned to it in the canon and has clear Biblical support.  Do miracles occur today?  In the sense in which the English of the Authorized Version employs the word “miracle,” the answer is “no.”  In the sense of the Hebrew word mofeth and the Greek word semeion, the answer is “no.”  In the sense of a few other Hebrew and Greek words, the answer is “yes,” although in those instances the KJV did not translate the words as “miracle.”  Do miracles take place today?  In the sense of a sign and a wonder, the answer is “no.”  In a looser sense, the answer is “yes.”

The question then is this: are we bound by the language of the King James Bible?  Must we restrict our use of terms found in the King James to the precise meaning of the King James?  Perhaps Pastor Brandenburg can give the Scriptural arguments for this kind of restriction on our use of English.

As for me, I am fine with saying that God is a Rock.  He isn’t, of course.  Not if we insist on the denotation.  But the Bible uses the poetic paradigm to express much truth – to our unspeakable blessing.  And in some ways, we can learn far more about God when we say that He is a Rock – which is the Biblical term – than we can by saying that He is immutable – a term nowhere to be found in Scripture.  In the same sense, to say that salvation is a miracle – again, a Scriptural term – communicates very clearly to the listener that salvation is a supernatural event – again, a term nowhere to be found in the Bible.  And I think “miracle” communicates far more effectively, given our modern-day understanding of the supernatural.

Though Thomas Ross sometimes sacrifices readability for precision, that is what I understand him to be saying in this paragraph…

…it is better to conclude from the existence of this category that regeneration is a miraculous work of Divine power and that the Spirit’s power in progressively eradicating indwelling sin in Christians, producing spiritual fruit, and performing other works associated with salvation is a similar work of Divine power, rather than a priori concluding that Christian salvation is non-miraculous, and from this a priori establishing a category, otherwise not clearly attested in the New Testament, where dunamis refers to non-miraculous actions.  The identification of salvation with the miraculous is clearly supported elsewhere in Scripture with texts that indicate that personal regeneration is in the same category as a work of Divine power with the transformation or cosmic regeneration involved in establishing the Millennial earth (Matthew 19:28; Titus 3:5; palingennesia) or the fact that both bringing into being a universe and bringing into being a clean heart are works of creation (Genesis 1:1; Psalm 51:10; bara’).  Furthermore, the identification of dunamis with the miraculous establishes that a Biblical miracle, as a work of God’s power, is not necessarily a rare event, for the exercise of Almighty power in sustaining the universe employs dunamis (Hebrews 1:3).  While God constantly sustains the universe, Scripture indicates that this is a miracle in the sense of dunamis.  Furthermore, while they are not able to replicate everything done by the Almighty, the powers of darkness can perform miracles (2 Thessalonians 2:9).

Miracle and Soft Continuationism

Even if the term “miracle” can only refer to signs and wonders, we should not necessarily assign the label of “soft continuationism” to believe “miracle” can refer to supernatural works of God.  Soft continuationism would be, “I can perform miracles — sometimes through prayer.”  I certainly don’t claim that kind of power.  I pray for healing for those who are sick, but I don’t believe I have a gift.  If the person is healed, the glory goes to God.  My prayers have no healing power – though they do have power to encourage, and they effectively lift a person in need before the Lord.  I believe that God is still a miracle-working God.  I do not believe that men have this gift any more.

On the subject of prayer for the sick, if a cure for blindness is discovered, and a friend of mine born blind goes to the doctor, there certainly cannot be a problem with my praying that the cure will work.  My wife, who has Lyme disease, often goes to the doctor and pursues new treatments.  If I am willing to try a new treatment and to pay for it, why would I not also thank the Lord for medical advancements and ask Him to work through that God-ordained process.  Yes, there are times when the will of God is evident in our sickness.  For instance, old age cannot be cured.  But God in His goodness and providence has also extended means by which the sick can be healed (antibiotics, chemotherapy, etc.).  If it is lawful to seek healing through these processes, it is also lawful to ask the Lord’s blessing on the treatment.  I like the way Zachary Damm, who teaches in our Christian school, said it: “We are asking for supernatural healing while using natural, God-ordained processes, within submission to the will of God.”  David’s prayer for his sick child certainly gives a wonderful example of submission to the will of God as we pray for the sick.

In fairness, Pastor Brandenburg doesn’t seem to be arguing that any one of the things he listed can by itself serve as evidence of soft-continuationism.  I certainly agree with his larger point, that we have a lot of unscriptural views of the work and operation of the Holy Spirit.  It causes a lot of confusion and sends people out on many Quixotic pursuits.  Which, by the way, is my reason for interacting with what he has written – not because I want anyone to reject his larger point, but because I believe many would be tempted to reject it based on some of the objections I have raised.

Some might consider it to be indulgence, but I would lobby for charity – believe all things, hope all things – in the case of those who misunderstand these terms and “operations” of the Spirit.  Don’t label me a soft-continuationist because I believe that miracles can include the supernatural works of God.

Absolute Cessationism

On By Dave MallinakIn Cessationism, Continuationism2 Comments

I want to interact with Kent Brandenburg’s recent post on soft continuationism, posted here on his blog. He has a follow-up article here. I hope you will pause to read what he has written before reading any further.  I count Pastor Brandenburg a close friend, and I have appreciated his writing and his stand for the Lord for many years.  I agree in principle with what Pastor Brandenburg has written on this subject. He and I have had many lengthy discussions of the work of the Holy Spirit in today’s world, and so I already know that he and I are on the same page on this subject. I have a few thoughts which I hope will draw along the discussion. These points might not be disagreements at all, but I think they need to be clarified.

First, I agree with Pastor Brandenburg that soft continuationism is a major problem among Independent Baptists today. Too many times, I have sat through a sermon muttering under my breath, “No, the Holy Spirit did not tell you that.” We seem to ignore Scripture entirely when discussing what the Holy Spirit does and how He operates. While it is true that the Holy Spirit is an infinite being and therefore unlimited in scope or ability, the Bible does describe His ministry very clearly. We have no warrant for adding extra-biblical operations of the Holy Spirit in our day.

The Holy Spirit does not give new revelation today, and I agree with Pastor Brandenburg that much of what Independent Baptist’s claim to be “God speaking to me” would qualify as new revelation. Many of the examples Pastor Brandenburg mentioned really do illustrate the way we think of the Holy Spirit as a sort of loose cannon. The truth is, we make the Holy Spirit do what we want Him to do and say what we need Him to say, and just as often we deny what the Holy Spirit really, actually does – His actual ministry to the believer as defined by Scripture.

I grew up under the influence of Jack Hyles, Holy Spirit imposter, so I am intimately acquainted with the kind of soft continuationism Brandenburg is trying to deal with, though Hyles was anything but a “soft” continuationist.

That being said, I wonder if our response to this “soft continuationism” is not a reaction that goes too far in the other direction. I am a cessationist, which means that I believe that the sign gifts of the New Testament, particularly of the book of Acts, were for that day and not for ours. The Bible teaches that the sign gifts were temporary, and that they have ceased (I Corinthians 13:8). But in order to deal with this subject fairly, we must identify what qualifies as a sign gift.

I Corinthians 12-14 identify the sign gifts.  I Corinthians 12:7-11 gives a list (I think partial) of the species of those sign gifts.  The Greek uses allos (another of the same kind) and heteros (another of a different kind) to distinguish the genus and species of these sign gifts. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown point out that the three categories divide between what we might call gifts of intellect, gifts dependent on a special faith, and gifts referring to the tongues.[1] In I Corinthians 13:8 Paul gives a concise classification of the  the three classes of sign gifts and makes it clear that these categories will vanish away. I Corinthians 14 especially focuses on the gift of tongues and explains why it was inferior to the other gifts (contrary to what the Corinthians believed), and why tongues, in particular, would perish.

While we believe that the sign gifts have ceased, we do not believe that the work and operation of the Holy Spirit has ceased. Certainly, God gifts men in other ways than the sign gifts (see Romans 12:6-8, for instance). All this to say that I am a cessationist, but not an absolute cessationist. And I am not an absolute cessationist because the Bible does not teach that the Holy Spirit has absolutely ceased His operation in this world.

The Holy Spirit continues to have a ministry, that ministry continues to be in the heart and life of the individual (as well as in the life of the church), and that ministry affects men personally in real time. On some level, we have to say that the personal work of the Holy Spirit will be a part of a believer’s experience of walking with the Lord, and that in many cases, the Holy Spirit will move a believer, sometimes even emotionally. I am more than a rational being. God made me a whole man, and that means I cannot separate my emotions from my brain activity. At times, God moves us through emotional response (Lamentations 3:51).

With that in mind, let me offer some specific points of disagreement with what Pastor Brandenburg has written.

First, following the Spirit’s leading is not a claim to the gift of prophecy

Pastor Brandenburg offered these examples of soft continuationism in what modern-day Independent Baptists often claim:

“God gave me this new method or strategy.”  “God told me what to preach.”  “God told me to build this building.”  “I prayed about it and God told me.”  “God gave me this message.”  “God gave me special insight.”  “God called me to go to….” “God told me how to do this.”  Sometimes less clear words are used, like “God moved me, “God put it within my heart,” or “God has burdened me with.”

Pastor Brandenburg does not explain the degree to which he denies that God does any of these things so I will not assume to know. I will only say that the Bible clearly teaches us to live our lives in submission to the Holy Spirit.

And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; (Ephesians 5:18)

To be “filled” with the Spirit should be taken in the same sense as to be “drunk” with wine – that is, to be controlled by the Spirit. Romans 8:1 points to this as characteristic of the Christian, and Galatians 5:16 commands us to walk in the Spirit. Believers correctly assume that they must surrender to the Holy Spirit and live their lives in submission to Him.

Living under the Spirit’s control and submitting our lives to Him has to mean something, and we must have some kind of experience of this. I do not want to overstate this, as I have seen the damaging effects when some have extended this to the ridiculous and heretical. Our experience of walking in the Spirit and living in submission to Him has to be connected to God’s Word since the Holy Spirit works through the Word of God. Whatever we think the Holy Spirit might be telling us to do must be tested and evaluated in light of the clear revelation of God’s Word.  I would add that the church also has a say in these matters, as God’s Holy Spirit often works through the church (see Acts 13:2 for an example of this).

So if someone claims that God told them to preach something and then preaches something that is not found in the Bible, we have every reason to reject that claim. “No, God did not tell you to preach that.” But before a preacher stands up to preach, somewhere along the way he ought to be asking God to guide him to the passage He wants preached. He might pray for guidance before tackling a new series through a book of the Bible, or before he preaches a particular message.  But he ought not act as if he were a free agent, doing his own thing.

A pastor who asks God to guide Him to the right passage to preach is not claiming to have the gift of prophecy. If you study a passage carefully until you get a full sense of its meaning, you have Scriptural warrant to say that the Holy Spirit taught it to you (John 16:13; 14:26; I Corinthians 2:9-13), and probably should say so.  And there have been times when God has so gripped me with the truth of a passage that I found it a great burden on my heart.

Secondly, not all miracles are obvious signs

I agree with Pastor Brandenburg that we often throw terms like “miracle” around in a loose and shoddy way, and sometimes we make this claim to validate what we have done and give us credibility with our people. I knew of a pastor who claimed that God had worked a miracle in giving his church a certain property. What he didn’t say was that he had secured a bank loan and then solicited grant money to cover needed repairs.

Properly understood, a miracle is a suspension of the laws of nature. Every miracle points to God as Creator and Lord, so miracles are signs. On that we are agreed. But we should not think that miracles are limited to spectacular suspensions of natural law. Pastor Brandenburg said,

A miracle is a sign.  These signs have ceased, so whatever it is, it isn’t a miracle.  God works in the normal affairs of men, but miracles are not being produced.

I disagree. Our world is a miracle, and a continual sign to unbelievers of the glory of God (Psalm 19:1-3; Romans 1:20). We miss some of the miracles of the created world because it is a miracle on a large scale, what C.S. Lewis referred to as a “grand miracle.”

If the “natural” means that which can be fitted into a class, that which obeys a norm, that which can be paralleled, that which can be explained by reference to other events, then Nature herself as a whole is not natural. If a miracle means that which must simply be accepted, the unanswerable actuality which gives no account of itself but simply is, then the universe is one great miracle. To direct us to that great miracle is one main object of the earthly acts of Christ: that are, as He himself said, Signs.      -C.S. Lewis in his essay “Miracles” in The Grand Miracle, p. 12.

Though I might be smacked for quoting Lewis, he makes an important point about the natural world – that it can only be understood in the framework of a miracle that occurred in the beginning when God made this world out of nothing but raw words. The worlds were framed by the Word of God. That in itself is a miracle. And nature works the way it works because God is Who God is. God is nature’s sovereign. God does not conform to the laws of nature; the laws of nature conform to God.  So His use of the laws of nature cannot be thought of as “natural” in any way.

In fairness, a pastor who claims that God worked a miracle to get the church a piece of property probably doesn’t mean to validate himself, as if God were blessing him because he is so great. The pastor might be thinking this, certainly. All of our apples have worms. But more likely he meant to give God the glory. Was it providential? I struggle with the assertion that God’s works of providence are never miraculous.

Even more so, I strongly disagree with this statement:

Some might ask, what about salvation?  Isn’t that a miracle?  It isn’t.  God saves people, but that isn’t a miracle.

If salvation isn’t a miracle, then why did Jesus teach, “Ye must be born again.” Why did He describe it in terms of wind (John 3:8)?  Surely, Pastor Brandenburg does not mean to deny the supernatural work of God’s Holy Spirit in the salvation of sinners. I think he is overstating his case here.

Thirdly, not all prayers for healing are claims to a gift

Pastor Brandenburg has often written against the idea of praying for the sick, so I have had plenty of time to consider my answer. On this point, let me first agree with him that “certain diseases get prayer and others don’t.” Nobody prays for an amputee to get his legs back, but we all pray for the cancer patient.

Pastor Brandenburg is not always completely clear on what his objections are against praying for the sick. I don’t believe he means to argue absolutely against praying for the sick. I know, for instance, that he has prayed for my family during my wife’s five year battle with Lyme Disease. I don’t think he opposes prayer for the sick. He certainly isn’t against healing when healing is possible. From what he said in the article under discussion, he opposes the idea of a healing ministry through prayer, which more than a few Independent Baptists believe they have. On that point, we are in agreement.

Certainly, Scripture teaches us to pray for the sick. If we only take the example of those who in the time of Christ brought the sick to Him for healing, we have a warrant to pray for the sick.  Added to that, we have the example of David, who prayed fervently for his baby to be healed.  These two examples alone encourage us to pray for the sick.

Praying that God will comfort, sustain, and strengthen the sick, that He will ease their pain and even heal them is a way we love our neighbor. It is a mark of compassion. No, we should not think that our prayers alone will heal the sick, or that if the sick get better it is because we prayed for them, as if they wouldn’t be healed if we didn’t pray. That simply is not true. God is not limited by our prayers or by our prayerlessness. But certainly, our prayers for the sick are a kindness to them and an encouragement to them.

Besides all of that, we really need to recognize the miraculous way God has made us. If I get a deep gash in my skin, a scab will form and my skin will heal itself. What law of nature made it do that? If I get strep throat and take amoxicillin, the antibiotic doesn’t heal me. The antibiotic stimulates my body to do what God made it to do.

And on that note, we can see the way all of Christ’s miracles were meant to make us aware of the mighty power of God at work in the universe around us. For this, I am again indebted to C.S. Lewis, who pointed out that the miracles of Jesus Christ were on a small scale what God does on a grand scale in our world. Jesus turned water to wine once. But every year in vineyards around the world, he somehow makes the vine draw water up through its roots, combines that water with sunlight and air, and Welch makes another gallon. Jesus healed the sick in His lifetime so that men could see Him do it. He hasn’t stopped His healing work. Give chemotherapy to a corpse. There will be no healing. Bandage the cut on a corpse. The cut will not heal. This is because the one thing necessary for the sick to be healed is the one gift God has given us that transcends nature and nature’s laws – and that is the gift of life. “The magic is not in the medicine but in the patient’s body.” “All who are cured are cured by Him, the healer within.”

When we pray for healing, we are simply saying, “Lord, please do it again.”

Fourthly, not all revivals are claims to a special “visitation”

The Holy Spirit works through the Word of God to stir us up, to renew our vision and focus, to draw us closer to Himself, and to equip us for service. We should pray the prayers of Scripture. But if we do, we will sometimes find ourselves praying, “Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.” And sometimes, “Wilt thou not revive us again: that thy people may rejoice in thee?” And sometimes, “O LORD, I have heard thy speech, and was afraid: O LORD, revive thy work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the years make known; in wrath remember mercy.”

It is not soft continuationism to get a feeling sense of our need for renewal in our relationship with God, to long for God the way the hart longs for the water brooks. Certainly, we should not spend our lives looking for mystic fire to fall. But we also ought to recognize the work of the Holy Spirit, both when He withers us (as in Isaiah 40:6-8) and when he stirs us up (as in Psalm 39:3).

Fifthly, God does still call men to a particular field of service

I think I understand what Pastor Brandenburg is trying to combat in his comments about the Macedonian call. That particular passage of Scripture has been abused and misused to force everyone to back down against false claims to a call. But the fact of false claims does not remove the possibility of true claims. How else would a person know what God wants Him to do and where He should be doing it?

Some pray as if they want some sensational or unusual guidance.  In refuting them, I agree with Pastor Brandenburg. I have seen people pick up their family and spend money they did not have to move across the world, all based on a whim which they interpreted as the Holy Spirit. Sometimes we put too much stock in quirky impulses when the answer of where to go and what to do is obvious. But God must have some way to direct a man into the ministry, and must have some way to tell that man where he should be when he pursues that calling. If a man wants to be led by God, he does not desire something wrong. And if he has sought the Lord’s will and has desired to submit to the Lord’s leading, we shouldn’t consider him a “soft continuationist.”

I do not believe that my objections make me a soft continuationist, but we will see. The Holy Spirit acts the way the Bible says He acts.  Though we deny many of the manifestations claimed by believers today, we do not help our case if we deny absolutely the ministry of the Holy Spirit.  On that note, perhaps Pastor Brandenburg would clarify what he believes the Holy Spirit does today.

[1] Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. (1997). Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Vol. 2, p. 287). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

A First Take on Churches in Transition

On By Dave MallinakIn Churches in Transition

Every church will face a time of transition – a change in pastoral leadership – at some point in their history. Though transitions in leadership provide a church with an opportunity for growth and blessing, navigating these transitions can be like running a gauntlet.

The Bible is not silent on the issue of leadership change. In the weeks ahead, I hope to outline a Scriptural approach to this most important issue. To begin with, I have five thoughts which I hope to develop more fully in the future.

First, transitions pass leadership from one sinner to another

We know this fundamentally, but we forget about it practically. Churches believe and teach the fallen nature of man as foundational to the Christian faith. Why then are we surprised when someone goes off the rail? When problems surface in the process, we have a sin problem. Every person from pew to pulpit, from pastor to pastor, must recognize the temptations unique to his role in the transition.

Secondly, the church is still God’s church

Forgotten in the process of passing leadership from one man to another is the idea that the pastor is a steward. When stewardship passes from one leader to another, both men must remember that they are but servants. The Master has not changed. Christ is still head of the church. As head of the church, God has determined to bring some changes to His church. This is intentional. We should recognize God’s hand in bringing about this change, and we should rejoice and be glad. We must trust the Lord to lead the new pastor as we trusted Him to lead the old, and we must not hold stubbornly to the old ways of doing things.

Thirdly, we must learn the virtue of forbearance

God knows we will have plenty of opportunity. Forbearance requires patience and longsuffering, a restraint of our own passions and an indulgence towards those who slight us or injure us. There will be perceived slights and actual slights once the “honeymoon” period is over and the reality of the transition sets in. Every person involved in the transition must determine to “let all your things be done with charity.” As I Corinthians 13 teaches us, charity “beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.” Charity teaches us to think the best of others, rather than assuming the worst. This will be a necessity if we want a change in leadership to bless the church.

Fourthly, transitions can demonstrate that we take humility seriously

Many a pastor has declared that the church can survive without you. God doesn’t need any of us: He chooses to work through earthen vessels. When leadership passes from the pastor to a new leader, the pastor finds himself at the receiving end of that maxim. He will be thoroughly tested on that point. Did he believe that for others only, or does he also believe that for himself? The old pastor has a pretty simple duty: get out of the way. Christ is still head of the church. On the other hand, the new pastor must not allow pride of position to cause him to think of himself more highly than he ought. He must study to avoid novice pitfalls, “lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.”

Finally, we must concern ourselves with the enemy under our own skin

While Satan provides us with a convenient scapegoat, in leadership transitions Satan only needs to appeal to our own baser natures. Self is our great enemy. Selfishness and self-centeredness are the ruin of a good transition, and we must guard against our self above all else. When we scrutinize each other rather than ourselves, problems will follow. Paradoxical though it seems, we defeat our selfish concerns by being concerned with ourselves. In a sense, self-concern is inescapable. We must be concerned about our own selfish nature. We must not concern ourselves with slights and injuries against our person.

In the weeks ahead, I hope to expand on these ideas. But above all else, for a change in leadership to bless a church, we must concern ourselves first with the glory of God and the honor of His name. If we will obey the first two commandments – love God with all our heart and love our neighbor as ourselves – then a transition can be a blessing.

The Reading Report, September, 2017

On By Dave MallinakIn Book Lists

Reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man. – Sir Francis Bacon “Of Studies”

I try to avoid the charge that “he writes more than he reads,” so I work on reading a little every day. Since life is busy, I read in the bathroom. And some days that is the only reading I have time for. But then that is an argument for reading in the bathroom, since we do that every day regardless of the schedule. But I digress.

From time-to-time, I will update my reading list. This gives me some good review and a good way to track my own reading. And who knows, one of my two readers might find a recommendation in what I say.

I read the way I eat: I call it “grazing.” I have about 5 books I am working through right now, here a little there a little. I will begin with a couple of books I recently finished, and then go on to the books I am reading now.

Recently Completed Books

John Adams by David McCullough

Every once in a while, you read a book that wows you from beginning to end, and this is one of those. It goes to my “all-time favorites” list, along with John Stott’s The Cross of Christ and Laura Hildenbrand’s Unbroken. I knew Adams was a great man, and I have heard plenty of people speak highly of this book, but I did not realize what a quality life he led. He was unusual even for his time. The book is well-written and a delight to read.

Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr by Nancy Isenberg

My wife and I took a long drive across country recently, and I wanted to listen to an audiobook. So on this one I cheated. I found the book in the library and I was interested, and since I was reading Adams already, I thought this would fit. Burr was not as bad as history paints him, but he was not a good man. I probably knew this before, but his father, also named Aaron Burr, married one of Jonathan Edwards’ daughters. In a matter of less than 1 year when Burr was a young boy, his father died, his mother died, his grandmother (Edwards’ wife) died, and his grandfather (Jonathan Edwards) died. The Edwards were moving to Princeton to raise young Aaron. We cannot deny that these early tragedies shaped his life and outlook.

My Current Reading List

A Theological Interpretation of American History by C. Gregg Singer

Yes, I enjoy history, and this one has been in my stack of books to be read for a while. It is not, in my opinion, well-written. The author has a passion for his subject and seems to have read much on the subject, but he provides little documentation, rarely sites a source or even gives a quotation. So he is giving his opinion of the way America’s changing theology impacted America’s development as a nation. Nonetheless, the thesis is interesting. I wish someone would take what he has done and document things for us.

Apologetics to the Glory of God by John Frame

I am teaching Apologetics in our Christian school right now, so this is part of the curriculum. I have read parts of this book in the past, but this year I made it our class text, so I am reading the entire book. Yesterday, I found this nugget:

To defend the Bible is ultimately simply to present it as it is — to present its truth, beauty, and goodness, its application to present-day hearers, and, of course, its rationale. (p. 18)

Seasons of a Leader’s Life by Jeff Iorg

A pastor-friend gave me this book a couple of years ago. I have been reading it for a while now. Some helpful advice for sure.

The Elements of Style by William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White

A short little powerhouse of writing advice. I highly recommend it. Of course, it is the magnum opus on style, and everyone who aspires to write should read it. Consider this little nugget from my reading this week:

The adjective hasn’t been built that can pull a weak or inaccurate noun out of a tight place. (p. 71)

On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons by John Broadus

I wish I would have read this book about 15 years ago. Every preacher should read it and then read it again. Consider this little gem on “subject-preaching” (aka “topical” preaching)

Subject preaching is the orator’s method par excellence. It lends itself to finished discourse. But it has its dangers. The preacher easily becomes interested in finding subjects that are interesting and readily yield a good oration rather than such as have a sure Christian and scriptural basis or such as come close home to the needs of his people. He is tempted to think more of his ideas and his sermons than of “rightly dividing the word of truth” and leading men into the Kingdom of God. He is in danger also of preaching in too narrow a field of truth and human need, since of necessity he will be drawn to those subjects that interest him personally or with which he is already familiar. Unless, therefore, he is constantly widening his horizon by diligent study, he will soon exhaust his resources. Accordingly, at the very beginning, the student should be warned against too exclusive use of this type of sermon. (pp. 136-7)

Fitting Words: Classical Rhetoric for the Christian Student by James Nance

You guessed it: another textbook. This is a new one this year for my Rhetoric class, and I have appreciated the opportunity to grow in my understanding of Rhetoric this year. We just finished reading “Phaedrus,” and I will leave you with this quote from Socrates:

And this skill he will not attain without a great deal of trouble, which a good man ought to undergo, not for the sake of speaking and acting before men, but in order that he may be able to say what is acceptable to God and always to act acceptably to Him as far as in him lies; for there is a saying of wiser men than ourselves, that a man of sense should not try to please his fellow servants (at least this should not be his first object) but his good and noble masters… (from p. 39)

Blessings!