Nashik Baptist Church

by

Leadership in the Home

 

Leadership in the Home -Introduction 

Leadership in the Home- A Defense 

Leadership in the Home- A Godly Man Leads

Leadership in the Home- A Godly Man Protects

Leadership in the Home- A Godly Man Provides

This is a series about leadership in the home from Tim Challies. These are excellent articles which we thought would be of much value to the men of the Church. Please take time to read this article carefully.

A husband’s unique role consists of three tasks: leadership, protection and provision. In fact, these may be the only unique abilities a man brings to the marriage relationship (beyond the obvious biological role). If he abdicates on any of these things, either allowing them to disappear altogether or forcing his wife to take over, he is less of a man for it. And she has less of a husband.

Most Christian men believe that they are expected to be leaders within the home. I would argue that most men, Christian or not, believe this in their heart of hearts. But few husbands know what it really means to be this kind of a leader. Few know what it means to be a godly husband. In the second article of this series, I want to prove to you that God has called husbands to lead.

by

The Church, Evangelism & Social Concern

“Do you polish the brass on a sinking ship?”[1]This metaphor was made famous, by the 1950s radio preacher J. Vernon McGee. He used this question and others similar, to scare Christians away from charity and social concern. He and other evangelical leaders argued that the Christian’s job is soul winning, and the winning of souls only. Any Christian with any social concern especially in the areas of education, politics, economics, family, business, charity, work, etc., were severely condemned.

The reason for this condemnation was the rise of the social gospel which had its roots in modernism. The social gospel teaches that we are primarily called to follow the ethic of Jesus and to therefore feed the hungry, educate the powerless, heal the sick and alleviate suffering, essentially to make the world a better place to live. The emphasis is not upon spiritual but rather physical, material and economic issues. There is little or no proclamation of repentance of sins and faith in Jesus Christ, and instead promotes a form of prideful self-sufficiency.

The knee-jerk reaction from many evangelicals to this “false” gospel was an either or approach. The two approaches were deemed mutually exclusive. You could not be involved in the one and faithful to the other. Many Christians became convinced that the task of the church is to save souls, not to change society, so they chose to separate the work of evangelism from any social concern.

David Moberg explains the troubling effects of this dilemma, “The question of how to deal with the poverty and the numerous other interrelated problems of our day has divided Christians into two camps. One of them builds a strong case for evangelism as the basic solution, while the other emphasizes direct social involvement. Each accuses the other of being untrue to the essential nature of Christianity. Each feels the other is hypocritical. Each charges the other with being a detriment to the Kingdom of God and the cause of Jesus Christ.”[2]

In an attempt to address this sad situation that the Church found itself in, David Moberg published a book called The Great Reversal: Evangelism versus Social Concern. In his book he explains that at one point, (before 1972) evangelical Christians had a balanced view with regard to evangelism and social concern, “but a great reversal early in this century led to a lopsided emphasis upon evangelism and omission of most aspects of social involvement. Since that time their shortcomings in regard to the fulfilment of Christian social responsibility have been very apparent. Sociological analysis of evangelism can help to shed light on this complex subject. Cultural and religious impediment stand in the way of its solution, but a considerable body of evidence supports the conclusion that evangelism can be a motive for social welfare and can play an important role in social action to change society and deal with social sin.”[3]

John Stott in his book, Christian Mission in the Modern World, asked the very important question, “What . . . should be the relation between evangelism and social action within our total Christian responsibility?” In an attempt to reconcile and unscramble the fear of evangelism and social concern,Stott identified, in the course of his ministry (even especially in India), three positions in relating evangelism and social concern.

Stott’s first argument is that some people regard social action as a means to evangelism which can ultimately be very damaging to the cause and credibility of Christianity.  He writes; “In this case evangelism and the winning of converts are the primary ends in view, but social action is a useful preliminary, an effective means to these ends.  In its most blatant form this makes social work (whether food, medicine, or education) the sugar on the pill, the bait on the hook, while in its best form it gives to the gospel a credibility it would otherwise lack.  In either case the smell of hypocrisy hangs round our philanthropy. A frankly ulterior motive impels us to engage in it…the result of making our social programme the means to another end is that we breed so-called ‘rice Christians’. This is inevitable if we ourselves have been ‘rice evangelists’. They caught the deception from us. No wonder Gandhi said in 1931: ‘I hold that proselytizing under the cloak of humanitarian work is, to say the least, unhealthy…why should I change my religion because a doctor who professes Christianity as his religion has cured me of some disease…?”[4]

Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert comment on this position, “The reality is that people who make [this] mistake see evangelism as no more an act of compassion than the person who sees it as a way to put a notch in his [religious] belt; it’s just that they see the gospel as something they are trying to sell. Neither his good works nor his evangelism would be founded on care for the other person. His good works would be grounded on a desire to get to the evangelism, and the evangelism would be grounded in a desire to make himself look good. Love doesn’t figure in there at all…Christians, are to love the whole person, and therefore it makes perfect sense to love someone by giving him food and at the same time to love him in a different, higher way by giving him the gospel.”[5]

The conclusion above leads to the second position that Stott recognised, regarding social action not as a means to evangelism but as a demonstration or manifestation of evangelism. Social Action no longer opposes the work of evangelism, but instead with a proper motivation, co-exists for the sake of the gospel. Stott explains; “In this case philanthropy is not attached to evangelism rather artificially from the outside, but grows out of it as its natural expression. One might almost say that social action becomes the ‘sacrament’ of evangelism, for it makes the message significantly visible”.[6]

  1. Herman Bavinck agrees with this position, “Medicine and education are more than a legitimate and necessary means of creating an opportunity for preaching. For if these services are motivated by the proper love and compassion, then they cease to be simply preparation, and at that very moment become preaching.”[7]

The third position Stott regards as “the truly Christian one”. Social action must be a partner of evangelism. He explains; “As partners the two belong to each other and yet are independent of each other. Each stands on its own feet in its own right alongside the other. Neither is a means to the other, or even a manifestation of the other. For each is an end in itself. Both are expressions of unfeigned love.”[8]

Stott explained that the Apostle John helped him come to this conclusion when he wrote, “If anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?  Little children, let us not love in word or speech but in deed and in truth” (1 John 3:17, 18).

He concludes with a warning, “This does not mean that words and works, evangelism and social action, are such inseparable partners that all of us must engage in both all the time.  Situations vary, and so do Christian callings.  As for situations, there will be times when a person’s eternal destiny is the most urgent consideration, for we must not forget that men without Christ are perishing.  But there will certainly be other times when a person’s material need is so pressing that he would not be able to hear the gospel if we shared it with him.  The man who fell among robbers needed above all else at that moment oil and bandages for his wounds, not evangelistic tracts in his pockets!  Similarly, in the words of a missionary in Nairobi quoted by Bishop John Taylor, ‘a hungry man has no ears’.  If our enemy is hungry, our biblical mandate is not to evangelize him but to feed him (Romans 12:20)!  Then too there is a diversity of Christian callings, and every Christian should be faithful to his own calling”. [9]

Conclusion

Even if the ship (society) was sinking, out of our love for Christ and the lost and our moral, spiritual and ethical obligations, we should still do everything we can, not to polish the brass, but to repair the breach in the hull. “We should understand that God created the human race with the mission of filling the earth with worshippers [and] that it would be through worshipful obedience that the mission would be completed. Thus, morality and ethics—a life of just behaviour and Christ-like character—is part and parcel of the mission God has in mind for his people as a means to expanding the worship of his name.”[10] In other words, it is through the gospel and through the fruit of the gospel—changed lives and involvement in society—that the world will be changed.

In the midst of all these debates, we should not allow our fear of the social gospel determine our method of evangelism and social concern or lack thereof. We must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Paul rejected legalism, but not the law (Romans 7:12; 1 Timothy 1:8). Similarly, we should reject the social gospel, but not turn a blind eye to social need.

“If we understand evangelism itself, though, as a deep and profound act of love for [Christ and] other people, we will do it more often, and we will do it with the right motives too (love for people, instead of regard for ourselves). In fact, if we are Christians whose love and compassion is aroused by spiritual needs, then sharing the gospel will always be in the forefronts of our minds. We will naturally and readily move toward it as we are loving other people.”[11]

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

 

Bibliography

  • Bavinck, J.H. An Introduction to the Science of Missions, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Holland, 1960
  • DeYoung, K. and G. Gilbert, What is the Mission of the Church?, Crossway, USA, 2011
  • Liederbach, M. and A. Reid, The Convergent Church, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids USA, 2009
  • Moberg, D.O. The Great Reversal Evangelism versus Social Concern, Scripture Union, USA, 1972
  • Stott, J. Christian Mission in the Modern World, InterVarsity Press, USA, 1975

[1]Quoted in Gary North, Rapture Fever: Why Dispensationalism is Paralyzed, Institute for Christian Economics, Tyler TX (1993), p.100

[2] David O. Moberg, The Great Reversal Evangelism versus Social Concern, Scripture Union, USA (1972), p.13

[3] David O. Moberg, The Great Reversal Evangelism versus Social Concern, Scripture Union, USA (1972), p.26

[4] John Stott, Christian Mission in the Modern World, InterVarsity Press, USA (1975), p.26

[5] Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert, What is the Mission of the Church?, Crossway, USA (2011), p.228

[6] John Stott, Christian Mission in the Modern World, InterVarsity Press, USA (1975), p.26

[7] J. Herman Bavinck, An Introduction to the Science of Missions, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Holland (1960), p.113

[8] John Stott, Christian Mission in the Modern World, InterVarsity Press, USA (1975), p.27

[9] Ibid, p.28

[10]Mark Liederbach and Alvin Reid, The Convergent Church, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids USA, (2009), p.206

[11] Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert, What is the Mission of the Church?, Crossway, USA (2011), p.229

by

Pride & Prejudice

racism-in-indiaThe issue of the Caste system is unique to India, but the problem of prejudice is not. In other parts of the world people are divided into different groups. In North America, it is known as Racism, in Italy it is known as Faction, in the United Kingdom it is known as Class system, in South Africa it is known as Apartheid. Different names for the same sin – Partiality. Partiality is an ancient evil that the Bible clearly teaches against.

In India, “according to the popularly accepted theory, caste system centres around the question of ‘Varnasrama Dharma’ – which means obligatory duty on the part of the people. It is also known as VarnaVyavastha. Varna means colour and Vyavastha means arrangement. In the real sense it is said that it’s more than just colour. It was meant to be the quality of one’s character. However, this meaning was distorted as time went by and people began to treat colour purely in terms of one’s complexion and appearance.”[1]

Partiality is so much part of our culture that even Christians have a hard time identifying this evil in their own hearts. Even in our churches it is not uncommon to hear ‘Christians’ make comments about other children’s ‘complexion and appearance’. One dear Christian lady told me honestly that she thought God had blessed Europeans because of their light skin colour and had cursed those who had dark skin. All the advertising for fair and lovely skin whitening products don’t help us either. Caste, Class, Racism, Prejudice…whatever you want to call it; is a sin a true believer has to overcome, so that God may be glorified in our churches.

In Revelation chapter five we have a rare description of heaven. In this scene the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders are falling down before the Lamb, singing “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation”. Heaven is going to be full of God worshippers from every tribe and nation. The church on earth should be no different.

The makeup of the local church should baffle the world. The world should not be able to explain how people of different races, economic and social levels, and age groups can come together in love and harmony, despite our very different ‘complexions and appearances’. To divide up the church along such lines of prejudice, obliterates the glory of God and His salvation!

When Mahatma Gandhi was a student, he considered becoming a Christian. He read the Gospels and was moved by them. It seemed to him that Christianity offered a solution to the caste system that plagued the people of India. One Sunday, he went to a local church. He had decided to see the pastor and ask for instruction on the way of salvation. But when he entered the church, which consisted of white people, the ushers refused to give him a seat. They told him to go and worship with his own people. He left and never went back “If Christians have caste differences also,” he said, “I might as well remain a Hindu”[2]

In an article written for the 9 Marks Journal, the author asked a panel of pastors and theologians the following questions: Is there a race problem in the American church? Are whites missing it? Why? What implications does this have for the church’s proclamation of the gospel?[3]

racism

Here where some of the answers: “Many white evangelicals are more loyal to their culture than they are to the Gospel”. Another pastor answered, “The spread of the gospel will continue to be hindered by the sin of racism. We are quick to declare the Scriptures to be the final court of appeal for what we believe and practice, but there is a noticeable inconsistency between our rhetoric and our behaviour. We have muzzled the gospel so that it can fit within our cultural, racial and religious traditions”.

The truth hurts does it not? But how much more guilty is the church in India? Perhaps one of the reasons why our churches remain so nominal and ineffective in spreading the gospel is because of our unwillingness to deal with this sin of partiality. Partiality is wrong because it usurps God’s sovereignty, it aligns you with God’s enemies, and it violates God’s law of love.

In James 2:1, Christians are commanded to, “show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory”. Lest we think, this is a small sin, consider the implications for a moment. The scourge of India’s female infanticide, is this wickedness not a direct result of showing partiality? Why do people discriminate between the male and female child? Because of this sin of partiality!  Verse 9 of the same chapter makes it even more clear for those who are hard of hearing, “But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors”.

Romans 2:11, tells us clearly that ‘God shows no partiality’. The KJV says ‘there is no respect of persons with God’. God gives everyone an equal opportunity for salvation and judges us all by the same standards. Commenting on this verse, John Calvin says: ‘God is no respecter of persons, understand that what he regards is purity of heart or inward integrity; and that he hath no respect for those things which are wont to be highly valued by men, such as kindred, country, dignity, wealth, and similar things; so that respect of persons is to be here taken for the distinction or the difference there is between one nation and another’. God will treat every person the same way when it comes to judgement time. Jews won’t be saved by the law and Gentiles won’t be taken pity on because of the lack of the law. God’s judgment is impartial. He “does not show favouritism”.

If you really fulfil the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.” Christians should want to be like God, respecting every member of the church as an equal brother or sister in Christ. The church of God is an educational institution, and every member has a part to play in helping to build up others as they prepare for God’s Kingdom. Eliminating biases and prejudices will go a long way toward bringing unity and growth to God’s church and bringing peace and justice to our land. Let’s be the light we are called to be. For Gods’ glory alone.

[1] V.V. Thomas, Dalit and Tribal Christians of India: Issues and Challenges, Focus India Trust, India (2014) p.186

[2] “Our Daily Bread,” [Feb., 1979]

[3] https://9marks.org/article/pastors-and-theologians-forum-race/

by

Technology & the Glory of God.

a19faith_t607 There is no doubt that technological and scientific progress has made our lives in the 21st century, much more convenient than what our ancestors even 50 years ago could have ever imagined. Did you know that during the first Apollo space mission to the moon in 1969, the computers on-board the space shuttle had a memory of 64 Kbytes and an operating system of 0.043 MH? By today’s standards it was less equipped than our modern toasters. Today, even a simple USB stick or WiFi router is more powerful than that. To put this in context the outdated iPhone 6 operates at 1.4 GHZ and can process 3.36 billion instructions per second. Put simply, the iPhone 6’s clock is 32,600 times faster than the best Apollo era computers and can perform instructions 120,000,000 times faster.  Advances in technology and communication have managed to bridge enormous gaps; scientific, geographical, cultural, social and religious gaps with blinding speed, and the church has benefited from that.

Technology has enable churches to operate better and minister in new and more effective ways. The internet with all its ‘apps’ has made information and communication easier. Newsletters, bulletins and prayer requests can be made known and available to the corporate body, at the click of a button. There are all sorts of software available to help with church administration and marketing. Websites, podcasts, Vimeo and other ‘tech’ have been designed to engage people with truth and to promote the gospel. I even know of a pastor who uses ‘Skype’ every Tuesday night to teach the bible to an unreached group in a country thousands of miles away from his comfortable ergonomically designed computer chair. ‘Tech’ is good…if used correctly! The internet and technology in and of itself is not bad, but it does have its drawbacks. Just like anything else, technology can become a problem, when it starts to rule you, so we must always think carefully about the ends to which we apply it.

Neil Postman the author of The End of Education, identifies this problem and exposes the subtle process of how technology can turn into a god,  he wrote “at some point it becomes far from asinine (foolish) to speak of the god of Technology—in the sense that people believe technology works, that they rely on it, that it makes promises, that they are bereft when denied access to it, they are delighted when they are in its presence, that for most people it works in mysterious ways, that they condemn people who speak against it, that they stand in awe of it, and that , in the born-again mode, they will alter their lifestyles, their schedules, their habits and their relationships to accommodate it. If this is not a form of religious belief, what is?”

Neil Postman has hit the nail on the head. Technology can very well become a form of religious belief! When people alter their lifestyles, their schedules, their habits and their relationships to accommodate anything other than God, it is nothing less than idol worship. Idolatry in its larger meaning is properly understood as anything that substitutes the Creator with created things. An idol is whatever takes the place of God in our lives…It is what we think is an absolute necessity for life and happiness. An idol is not necessarily a bad thing. It’s usually a good thing that we’ve made into a god-thing that then becomes a bad thing to us. Martin Luther said, “Whatever your heart clings to and confides in, that is really your God, your functional saviour.”  Christian author and pastor, J.D. Greear says, “When something becomes so important to you that it drives your behaviour and commands your emotions, you are worshipping it.”

techSo what commands your affections? What is the first thing you want to do when you get up in the mornings? And what is the last thing you do before you go to sleep? What does your heart cling to? Technology can be defined as ‘the application of scientific inventions to the needs and convenience of man’. Once our convenience and comfort become more important to us than the glory of God, and the building of the Bride of Christ, there is a serious problem. Technology can turn into an idol if it prevents and hinders us from connecting with God. John Piper said, ‘One of the great uses of Twitter and Facebook, will be to prove at the Last day that prayerlessness was not from lack of time’. I think what Piper is saying is that we like to think that technology saves us time, but we hardly ask ourselves – save time for what?  Is it so that we can redeem our time in some way for God’s glory (Eph. 5:15), or just waste it more creatively?

Dr. C.J. Williams, Professor of Old Testament Studies at the Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary comments on this very problem;  ‘It is rare to go anywhere and not see someone furiously talking with their thumbs, or “Facebooking” with any free moment.  Staying in touch is easier than ever, which is a blessing, but have social media made us more social, or less? Have they made our relationships any deeper or more meaningful?  Spending hours on social media is a sure sign that a useful tool has been turned into a distracting master. ..I suspect that many of our time-saving technologies have only made us busier, sometimes to the detriment of our spiritual lives.”

The heart of the issue is not technology, but how we use it, and how it uses us. Do we worship our tech, how much of our time do we devout to it, and is it a tool for our pleasure or for the glory of God? Does our use of technology points us and others toward or away from God?

Another serious issue worth considering is how does technology help or hinder our interaction with other physical humans, and how does it help or hinder the believers responsibility toward ‘the work of ministry’ and the ‘building up of the body of Christ’ (Eph 4:12)? As much as social media has the potential to bring people together, it also has the tendency to isolate us. Instead of interacting and engaging with people in the same room, people are more comfortable engaging with a device. We have thousands of virtual relationships, but very few genuine relationships. What happens to the church, when our human interactions significantly diminish and online interaction takes its place?

The Apostle Paul asks the Roman Church a very timely question, “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?” (Romans 10:14). The question demands an answer. Consider the many lost people around our churches that have been providentially placed alongside us, in our communities, by God so we can share the gospel with them. How will they hear the gospel if we are not willing to leave the safety and comfort of our computers and gadgets to go and interact with them? Through Facebook? Through a cut and paste message on Whatsapp? I think not.

Jesus didn’t call any of his disciples to a life of convenience, safety or comfort. He called us to deny ourselves, to take up our cross and follow him, even till death (Luke 9:23,24). Is all this technological convenience perhaps making us lazy? I think so.

Tim Keller, pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, said, “The internet is the friend of information but the enemy of thought.” I am sure you have heard of Mrs. Google who thought she knew better than the doctor and went online for all her medical questions. We laugh at that because we all know that person who ends up self medicating with the wrong medicines because they thought it would be easier and more convenient searching the web for medical answers than visiting an actual trained and qualified doctor. In church communities, the same logic applies—instead of going to a pastor or spiritual leader for advice many people, find it easier and more convenient to search online for answers. Instead of searching and studying the scriptures for answers, that whole sanctifying and learning process is bypassed with a quick ‘Google Search.’

Let me leave the concluding words to Dr. C.J. Williams, in an article he wrote for challies.com, ‘Ever since the Tower of Babel was built, technology has been both a source and expression of human pride.  On the other hand, Solomon’s Temple and Hezekiah’s Tunnel depended on the best technology of the day.  The same World Wide Web that opens up new vistas for the spread of the Gospel has also brought pornography into millions of homes.  Technology can be a dangerous force or a true blessing; the key (as with all things) is to bring it under the lordship of Jesus Christ. ..one of the greatest daily challenges a Christian faces in the modern world is to think clearly about his or her use of any technology.  Does it help you achieve good ends in your heavenly calling and service to Christ, or is it an avenue of distraction and temptation?  Would Jesus look on and say, “Well done, good and faithful servant”?’

by

Judgment Day

lies fearSuppose you were caught for stealing money from a bank and had to appear before a judge in a court of law for the sentencing of your crime. As you approach the judge’s bench you realize that you know the judge as a good friend of your father. You start to appeal to the judge for mercy. You say to him “Uncle, remember me, you know my father! You even came to my 11thbirthday celebration. Please uncle, I know you are a good man, please would you forgive me and let me go free?”

Do you think the judge would say “Yes, you are free to go”? No, of course not, he would have to follow the course of justice if he was a good judge. He would have to punish you for your crime, as the law of the country dictates. Or suppose you were the victim of a terrible crime, and the criminal was allowed to go free, without any punishment or retribution. What would you say? What would your family say? There would be an outcry for justice.

This illustration is no different to the judgment we will all face one day when we all will appear before God (Heb 9:27).  Because God is holy He has to punish our sins, we all stand guilty before him, condemned in our sins (Rom3:23).   We have all offended a holy God and broken his laws (Exodus20), and justice must be done!

There is great news however for the one who sees God as just when he judges; for while God is eternally holy, righteous and just, he is also eternally loving and forgiving (1 John1:9). In love he provided the only possible means of forgiveness in his son (John3:16). Jesus, himself being God, became a man and lived as a man (John1:14). Jesus obeyed and loved God perfectly in the place of sinners who have never loved or obeyed perfectly.

Further, Jesus went to the cross to stand in the place of rebels as our advocate, to pay the punishment of our sins. Jesus paid the price of our sins in order to serve the justice of God and to demonstrate the love of God (Romans3:25). On the cross, being the eternal son of God, Jesus offered up himself as an eternal sacrifice to God for the sins of rebels (2Cor5:21). On the cross God treated Jesus as if he was judging sinners like us (even though he was sinless), that he might treat sinners like they were perfect like Jesus (even though they were sinful). Jesus paid that penalty for us so that we could be accepted by God.

This forgiveness is not automatic like voting when we are 18 however. It comes by recognizing Jesus as king and ruler over your life. In doing this you turn from rebellion (sin) and turn to Jesus (submission). It is this attitude of submission to Jesus as King and following him as Lord, that characterizes the Christian life and gives God pleasure.