Strangers in a Strange Land: A Plea for the Planting of International Churches Abroad.

Most of us have probably known or met someone who has lived abroad. Whether they studied in Europe for a year, or there family moved to Japan for a job, or relocated overseas because they serve in the military, or any number of reasons that cause people to uproot themselves across the world. No one can deny that living abroad is not something that does not exist especially as our world become more global. Some live overseas for a semester, others for a few years, others longer and even some for life. Some our students some are professionals, some are families and some are retired. They come from all different walks of life, age, nationality and color. What I would like for us to think for a moment is: for those who live abroad who are Christians, what do they do for church? How do they receive the preached word and the sacraments? What I want to suggest is that there is need for church planting overseas, to provide Word and sacrament to those who are strangers in a strange land and further that the planting of such churches is a international ministry, I hope what I write might encourage people and churches to involve themselves in planting Bible believing Reformed Churches in international cities around the world.

Let me begin by telling a bit of my own story, several years ago my wife and I moved to South Korea to teach English. It was during this time I became involved with a English speaking international church. It was here that I began to see the important place that such churches have. Internationals move thousands of miles away from there family and friends, into a strange land, those who are Christian then have issues because often there language skills are not good enough to attend national churches. In Korea we would meet people who would be completely isolated from any Christian teaching or fellowship because there was literal no viable church options in there area. International Churches become very close knit because they act as a surrogate family when your continents away from your own.

However these churches are not always the easiest to come by, some areas have more then others. The heavy majority of these churches are very broadly evangelical, and have dwindled down there beliefs to as little as possible in order to appeal to every person who walks through the door. The city we lived in Korea had 8 million people a huge international English speaking population and only two English speaking churches, the broadly evangelical church and the very charismatic revival style church. Finding Reformed churches oversee is very hard if sometimes impossible to come do. Allot of charismatic, prosperity gospel churches have also set up shop in these areas. In many cities around the world international have the choice between the highly interdenominational churches the prosperity gospel churches, some times even maybe a mix of both. As well as liberal denomination such as the ELCA, United Methodists and others have also started international churches overseas.

Now international churches have an incredible opportunity for ministry to global. These churches often have numerous nationalities represented. At a church in Germany you might have a American soldier sitting next to a Japanese businessmen and the other side students from India and Brazil, we can help shepherd the nations, to care for people from all around the world. It also gives the opportunity to preach the Gospel to the nations. I once met a man in Korea, he was a Pakistani cricket player who had been drafted to a South Korean team. He did not know Korean well and was one of the only non-Koreans on his team. He was far from home and become very lonely, He was fluent in English and after awhile desired interaction with other internationals, going through the culture shock he experienced. So he did something he would never have done in Pakistan and he went to a International church. While there he head the gospel and trusted in Christ. There are people living overseas who find themselves in churches when you would never have never thought about going to church in there homeland.

Often you will find allot of nationals attending international churches, sometimes they just like the church. Others because they spent time as a international themselves, you often find cross-cultural families there, families in which one parent is a national and the other is international. If through international churches we can teach and disciple these groups, they are in some ways more able to reach nationals then foreigners sometime are. IF we can disciple and train national men for leadership, Our international churches can plant national churches or provide a bilingual services, and not only minister to internationals but the larger community. I feel that international churches truly have untapped potential to reach countries with the gospel.

Now I have tried to paint a picture of why I think International Churches should be planted overseas. Often when I try to explain to people my passion for this type of ministry I feel like people are wondering if I have a brain injury. Planting expat churches is not something that has really caught on especially in Reformed circles. Now what is interesting is there is a historical precedent for starting English church in foreign countries, the Church of Scotland has an entire Presbytery of Europe and a Presbytery of Israel. The presbyteries consist of English speaking international congregations. The Church of Scotland Geneva began in the days of John Calvin as a outreach to English speaking refugees from Britain, and then was adopted by the Church of Scotland, and still a place of worship for English speakers today. There is also a Church of Scotland congregation in Rome which began in 1862. Also the Church of England has a Diocese of Europe consisting in English speaking Churches, this has existed since 1633. They have dozens of churches that span from Iceland and Portugal all the way to Mongolia, Many of the congregations having been planted a hundred or more years go. Now both of these denominations are quite liberal, I have visited some of there websites and there theology and beliefs are problematic. Yet these are again some of the options that Internationals from around the world have for Church. If Liberal Christians are making this kind of impact should not conservative Reformed Churches also be filling the need.

There are people living in Germany without a sound church right now , Dusseldorf has 11 Million people and is one of the most international cities of Europe. Yet it has only a two churches a liberal church and a watered down interdenominational church. 50% of Geneva carries a foreign passport and yet it so only has three churches two liberal churches and an evangelical church. There is need for Biblical churches in these areas and many others across the world. We don’t think twice about a Spanish church setting up shop down the street in California, because we can see that Spanish speakers are here. We must realize that we have people out there, people that are starving for pastoral care, and those who are in a opportune place to hear the gospel. These people are in Germany and Italy, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Singapore, Argentine and more. Church planting in our own cities and nations is great, and I thank anyone who does it, however I think it hinders us when we see our church planting boundaries ending with our national borders, maybe we would be better off if we pushed them to our linguistic borders.

This type of ministry is hard to peg, I have approached missions committees to talk about this topic who have said this does not cover missions, go to the session. I've talked with sessions who have said, you need to go to the mission committee, one thing that I’m certain is that as the world becomes more and more global and people live more and more outside of there passport countries the need will only become greater. As Reformed Christians its time we start now, because people in your congregation who live abroad are forced into liberal, Charismatic or watered down churches or are left with no church at all.

Is Worship A Matter of Personal Preference?

Is how we worship a matter of preference? Do people who want upbeat and happy worship go to a Pentecostal church or a church that might have that. Maybe you just want a nice rock band type of atmosphere were you want to go to church and feel like your at a concert. Maybe if you like something liturgical then you go to a church that can give you that. Is how we worship God the some kind of decision as shopping at one grocery store over another, or how some like country but others like rap. Let me say I think we are doing something horrid when we say that how we worship the God of the universe the one who creates everything and holds things together is the same as whether we like ketchup or mustard on our hot dog, or is it just a matter of preference like whether you use a PC or MAC.

Its about time we stop confusing what we want with what God wants. There in no other time in history other then our own in which the preference card has been played in worship. I have been around the block as far as “styles” of worship go I have been in just about any kind of style. I was once the first person the pull the whole preference card. What I would often say would be “I’m glad you can get something out of that style of service but I just don't get anything from it.”


Let me be blunt, this type of outlook, which is common and what you would typically hear argued is an idolatry. What your saying is you cannot worship God because of the music. That your own personal preference means so much to you that unless you get what you want God is not someone you can worship. Not only does it confuse the music in worship as something that is done for you. For your own spiritual high and enrichment. I’m sorry to break it too you, but your worshiping yourself and your own tastes and not Jesus Christ.


So let me ask you if your ultra hip church that really caters to your preferences this Sunday announced that they would now be only singing unaccompanied psalms from now on, would your response be sorry guys this stuff just does not hit my sweet spot and give me warm fuzzy's and emotional highs which I mistake for God. So I am going down the street. Sorry but if that’s what you think the problem is with you, and you need to repent because you are worshiping an Idol.


I think one of the greatest drawbacks to how the modern church sees worships is that we have condensed the definition of worship to mean the 34 songs that are sung at the beginning of the service, rather then worship being the entire service from beginning to end with all its parts.


As I mentioned I used to be the poster boy for the worship is a matter of preference argument. I now get rather insulted when someone tries to tell me that how God is worshiped is a matter of personal preference. I go to what some might call a traditional church or a liturgical church, I don't go there because hymns really hit my sweet spot and the order of worship just makes me feel like God is cuddling or hugging me. I go to the church I do because I think that it is Biblical worship and how worship should be done, because there is a right and wrong way to worship God, so next time please don't say that worship is a matter of preference because my preference is the last thing I take into account. Has anyone asked God his opinion? It seems that God nor scripture has even consulted in the preference argument, the judge on how God is to worshiped is made to be man rather then God. I mean it seems to me if one reads the Old Testament that God is very particular about how it is that he is to be worshiped the detail that goes into how he is to be worshiped is vast. Let me ask this question can we worship God in anyway we deem fit as long as he has not said not to? Or are we to only worship God how he has commanded he to be worshiped? Its not a unimportant thing, its has deep far reaching consequences one that we would do well to contemplate because if it is God who dictates how he is to be worshiped then our churches might be dramatically changed.

How Church Culture Differs Between California and Maritime Canada.

 

I realize its been a long time since I wrote on here, and honestly I was never like I was really very good at posting to begin with. So full disclaimer, during this post i will look at my observations in comparing the church in California and the church of Maritimes. Now keep in mind these are my own observations and rather then talk about America and Canada I have chosen to look at two particular area I have spent the most time in, rather then make broad generalization that may not even exist if we are talking about British Columbia and Wyoming. Now its worthwhile to note that Christianity between these two places have similarities butt there is also strong differences, just as both are on opposites sides of the continent and separate countries so to the Christian culture between the two really varies.

• I notice that in California the church is politically charged, you might be thinking that  did not have to leave Canada to notice that. Its something that Canadians have noticed for years. Canada has never had a religious right within politics like America. Even respected brothers who otherwise are grounded and knowledgeable in the faith a will often seem to talk as if the ten commandments and the U.S Constitution are the same thing, when you talk about gun control or free health care
• I find that I have found that in the Maritimes the Social Gospel tends to have more of a predominant role within evangelical churches then in California. As someone who has no love for the Social Gospel this is one thing I like about America over Canada, I find churches in California more concerned with evangelism and church planting while my interaction with churches in the Maritimes tends to lean more towards social justice.
• Pentecostal/Charismatic movement has taken more of a dominant role in California probable because Los Angelos was the hot bed of that movement 100 years ago. The Maritime Pentecostals seem to have always struggled in some area, even mistrusted as not having the kind in historical connection other churches have. That being said the movement has had a big effect in subtle ways such as modern worship music with many baptists church really being unofficially Pentecostal.
• Spring boarding  a bit off my last comment in California there tends to be a dislike to denominations. I have heard of people who refuse to go to a church unless they are independent and non denominational. A friend told me about a friend of his who said there was not church in his area, despite the fact he lived next to a fairly descent Presbyterian church, his argument was he could not go there because it was a denominational church. I have found in the Maritimes almost the opposite in that unless your Baptist, United, Presbyterian, Anglican then you lack allot of trust and credibility. I do think this is changing in some ways. Whether that is good or bad, I will not cover now.
• Generally speaking the church in the Maritimes has strong roots culturally. Many people despite never stepping in a church since there baptism at 6 months identify strongly with a denomination. Entire families identify and hold deep loyalty to there churches despite never going to church and frankly not even believing in God. Depending on the family watch out if a Baptist goes Presbyterian or vice versa. In that same vain the Maritimes tend to still carry strong echoes of the conflict of Romanism and Protestantism. Growing up not really in the active church I always knew we were Protestant, the thing was I knew I was Protestant  long before I ever knew what a Christian was. I remember growing up my Nanny telling me stories about street wars between the Roman Catholic kids and Protestant kids growing up in North Sydney, this however may not be the same time honored tradition in every Maritime family.
• You do not need to go far to find traditional churches in the Maritimes but many of these cannot begin to tell you why, they will tell you its whats always been done and why change it now. (I get weird looks here when I tell people I have been to liturgical baptist churches were the pastor wears a robe.) I have been part of and currently a member of a church that is both traditional and liturgical but the refreshing difference is that they can tell me why they do what they do and do to so in a scriptural and biblical way. Its really my prayer that my people can experience this same thing.
• As I have observed it Dispensationalism tends to be more of a strong force in California, perhaps its because the Masters College and John MacArthur are just down the road. Maritime Christians and churches either are apathetic and do not know what it is nor how to spell it or by historic default hold to a basic form of Covenant theology. Yet there is still very much pockets here and there and its most popular in its eschatology form.

Refusing to Learn About God is Like Refusing to Know Your Spouse.

I once was talking to a Christian friend and as it sometimes happens our conversation turned theological in nature. His questions had to do evangelism and calvinism. I gave him a pretty simple honest and strait forward answer. His response after hearing my answer was a short pause and then he said, “I’m sure glad I am a Christian, so I don't have to care about theology.” Now what is theology? Well the word itself means the study of God. In other words theology is learning about God, who he is, what he has done, what he is doing and what he will do. A Christian cannot do much with out running into theology. Saying “Jesus, is the Son of God”, “Jesus died for me.” are all theological statements, the very gospel itself is theology. A Christian cannot be a Christian without theology, theology is knowing God and his Word.


Theology is not independent of scripture, if my theology is not based off of scripture then I should not be believing it.

Some Christian's I talk to think theology is a cold sterile science that seems to bring up things that hold no relevance but just creates division. Good theology is the most relevant thing you can imagine. Theology is knowing our Creator, using the very thing he has given us to understand the Bible, God's divine revelation to us.

Back to my friend who said he was glad he was a Christian so he did not have to care about theology. Could this phrase work in any other situation. Could I say to my wife, “I’m glad I married you so I don’t have to know who you are.” How then is it acceptable for us as Christians to say that knowing our Creator, knowing who our God is, is not important. If this is the case theology is the most relevant, thing for our Christian lives. A rejection of theology is to refuse to know the God who loves us so much that he would send his Son to take the punishment that sinful humans deserved.

The Myth of Non-Denominationalism

Its been awhile since my last post, I'm not always the best at keeping up on this blog thing. I've been thinking about the topic of denominationalism/non denominationalism lately and I wanted to write down some of my thoughts here.  I'm sure we have heard people say things around the lines of “Get rid of denominations, we just need to all be one.”  or “I'm anti denominational, we just need to follow the Bible.” I happen to agree with the anti denomination crowd. We should just get rid of denominations and follow the Bible which will make us all Presbyterian.

Now im being facetious when I say that but I mean some truth to it as well. If we are with the denominations that we in for  reasons other than it has the most rocking worship team in town. Then i would fully expect to hear someone say: “We should just get rid of denominations and follow the Bible which will make us all Anglican.” supplant Anglican with Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic as your denominational affiliation requires. The truth is when we say we should get rid of denominations, what we really are saying is they need to end so that my denomination can shine through, and take its rightful place as the one true church in the world.

 I find nothing wrong with this, in fact I would respect someone because at least there honest. I respect someone who is firm in there belief even when I think there wrong. When I meet a Baptist who knows what he believes and why, I assume for him  a perfect world of no denominations would have all Christians beings Baptist, and I can have allot of respect for that. And i hope that he would assume that to me in a perfect non-denominational world all Christians would be baptizing there baby’s, teaching them the Catechism singing the psalter and going to Presbytery meetings for fun. Lets stop living the anti-denomination delusion and come to grips that it is only a  attempt at seeming pious, that is really just a hidden form of denominationalism.

 Even if your one of those Christians who hold to the “Beetles Theology” (All We Weed Is Love) and want us all to stop caring about denominations so much, and to sit around a camp fire singing kumbaya and braiding each others hair. Even then what your really saying is “My denomination (even if its not a official one) is the right one  and you all need to join me, or you will be going against the Bible.” The anti-denominational ruse is really just a veiled way of trying to impose your denomination on someone else, at least back in the day people were honest about the fact they were trying to convert Catholics into Protestants and vice versa.
Now I understand that those that are against denominations are not deceptively and maliciously trying to convert others to there line of thinking. I hope though that I have shown how non-denominationalism is really  not possible.

Calvinism Part 1: Total Depravity and Free Will

Right now I will be looking at the first point of Calvinism which is Total Depravity. I have been heavily influenced in this and many of the upcoming posts by R.C. Sproul’s book “What Is Reformed Theology?” Although it covers Reformed Theology it has an entire portion dedicated to the doctrines of grace. The name can be misleading in some ways because it suggests the idea of utter depravity that we as humans are as evil as we can possible be. This is not what total depravity means, Sproul suggests that Radically Corrupt might be a more accurate title. What this doctrine really means is that sin has radically corrupted human kind that there is no part of our being that has not been completely and utterly effected by sin, the body, mind, will and more. Sin has invaded every aspect of our lives. Sin has not affected us in a small way but sin itself arises from the very center of our being. We are not sinners because we sin; we sin because we are sinners. We are born with a sinful nature and all our acts flow from this.

Paul I think gets at the heart of our sinful nature in Romans 3:9-18:

“9 What then? Are we Jews[a] any better off? [b] No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written:

“None is righteous, no, not one;

11     no one understands;

    no one seeks for God.

12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;

    no one does good,

    not even one.”

13 “Their throat is an open grave;

    they use their tongues to deceive.”

“The venom of asps is under their lips.”

14     “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”

15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;

16     in their paths are ruin and misery,

17 and the way of peace they have not known.”

18     “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Our day to day experience would say however that pagan people can perform good deeds, this is what has long been called Civil virtue. Civil virtue refers to deeds that conform outwardly to the law of God. When God evaluates the actions of people, he considers not only the outward deeds, but also the motives behind these acts. The supreme motive for everything we do needs to be love of God.

Most Arminians would agree with the doctrine of Total Depravity, I personally feel that they must partially rewrite the bible and this doctrine to do so. Within Calvinism, man is lost to his sin unable to choose what is right unable to choose God; we are only saved by the complete action of God. Arminian thought would say that we are depraved except for a small part of our will that can choose God. I find the Arminian revision of the doctrine to really be a rejection of it. I think at the heart of the debate over this teaching is the idea of Free Will. People would ask do you believe in free will. I would answer yes, however in a much different way than most people would assume. Most people would define free will to be the ability to choose, the ability to choose right or wrong, the ability to choose God or to reject him. This I do not believe, nor does the Bible. I believe we were created with free will and in that perfect state our desire was to do what was good. The fall did something in that our will became slaves to sin. In the present we have been created with the ability to choose good or evil but our desires are to do only that which is sin. It’s like if you have a bird who can fly around, it was created to do so, but it breaks its wing. Can it fly? Yes it certainly can it was created too, but it’s unable to because it has a broken wing At its core it was designed to fly but something has happened that changes its ability to fly. If given the choice between accepting or rejecting salvation left to our own will we always choose to reject it. Can we choose God, certainly, do we desire to, most certainly not.

Total depravity is really the lynch pin that Calvinism is built on. If you reject this than you cannot really hold to the other points, and if you hold to this point but reject the others your being inconsistent. Below are a few verses that I think teach the doctrine of Total Depravity. Please feel free to leave comments or ask questions. Genesis 6:5, 8:21; Numbers 15:37-39; 1 Kings 8:46; Job 15:14-16; Psalm 14:1-3, 51:5, 94:11, 130:3; Proverbs 4:23, 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20, 8:11; Isaiah 6:5, 53:6, 64:6; Jeremiah 10:14, 13:23, 17:9; Matthew 7:11, 15:19; Mark 10:18; Luke 17:10; John 2:24, 3:36, 6:44, 15:5, 16; Acts 3:16, 16:14; Romans 1:18-2:16, 3:9-20, 23, 5:12, 7:18-20, 8:7; 1 Corinthians 2:14, 12:3; 2 Corinthians 3:5, 4:3, 11:3; Ephesians 2:1-6, 4:17-19; Colossians 2:13; 1 Timothy 2:25, 6:5; 2 Timothy 3:8; Titus 1:5; James 2:10, 3:2, 8; Revelation 9:20, 16:9.

Calvinism Intro: The Great Disconnect

Calvinism has for a long time been broken down into the acronym TULIP, which together make up the 5 points of Calvinism, Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Perseverance of the Saints. Allot of people reject these tenets because they don’t like having the label of a man. I actually prefer to call it the Doctrine of Grace, which is what it was historically called. John Calvin at no point penned some doctrine that he thought would be cool to name after himself; Calvin was only echoing the teachings of Augustine from 1000 years previously. The term Calvinism is did not come about until the Arminian (after Jacob Arminius) controversy in the church, which led to the Council Dort. The Arminian's were a bit irked to call the opposing side the Doctrines of Grace, and so the term Calvinism came to be.

I personally for much of my Christian life considered myself a Calvinist; if the topic came up I would defend it.  A few years ago I started studying Calvinism at greater depth and I found as I did so that as much as I said I was a Calvinist on paper in practice I was very much an Arminian. I think this is a big problem  in the Church among those who claim to adhere to the doctrines of grace, a great disconnect from knowledge and practice. I believe that there is no theology that does not affect us in a practical way, it’s for this reason I think all believers need to know what they believe and why, you are either ruled by your bad theology or your good theology. I said I believed in Calvinism but spoke like a Arminian, I evangelized like an Arminian. If you say you are a Calvinist yet support altar calls, the idea of “everyone close your eyes and raise your hands if you want to accept Jesus.”, then you are not a Calvinist. So many of the token cliché evangelistic sayings have to be thrown out like: “God loves you, and has a plan for your life”, “Jesus died for you.”, “accept Jesus into your heart and make him your Lord and Savior.”

If you say you’re a Calvinist then it need be more than just a distant theological concept it should be effecting all aspects of your Christian life, as the famous Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon once said “ It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else” At the core of both Calvinism and Arminian Theology is the question “What did Christ’s death do?” The Arminian would say that Christ death made salvation a possibility, he made a way for us to be to be saved. Calvinism says that in Christ’s death he saved those whom the father had given him.

One last myth of Calvinism needs to be addressed, many people would sum up Calvinism as the idea that God chooses who goes to heaven. In reality it’s not quite this it actually that God chooses who has faith and who does not.