Another new resource added on the navigation bar to the left under "Our Beliefs," or, you can click here.

Under "Our Worship" on the navigation bar to the left or here.

Below is my portion of an ongoing column with Bill De Jong entitled, "In Conversation," which originally appeared in Christian Renewal 26:5 (November 7, 2007): 12–15.
Do We Need Church Membership in an Individualistic Society?

The visible church in America is an absolute mess. With its scandals involving money, sex, and power, meddling in the realm of transitory political agendas, and with its “relevant” messages that are nothing but irrelevant, it is no wonder that many—including professing Christians—have turned elsewhere.

Nevertheless, as historically conscious and confessional Protestant Christians, we believe that Christ has created a visible Church of those whom the Lord has redeemed. While evangelical Christians say, “I do not need the Church because I have a personal relationship with Jesus,” we say that Christ does save individual sinners, but he does so through the means of his Church and in order to bring these sinner into communion with his Body, the Church.

Outside the Church There is No Salvation
Article 28 of the Belgic Confession opens with a shocking statement: “Outside of it [the Church] there is no salvation…” What sounds shocking and “Catholic” was simply the received language of the Church and was affirmed by our Protestant forefathers.

While Origen coined this phrase in his sermon on the story of Rahab, Cyprian of Carthage made it stick in his response to those who separated from the Church to start a new church because the Church was too lax in receiving back into grace those who renounced their faith during persecution under Caesar Decius in 250. A part of Cyprian’s response to these followers of Novatian was that “outside the church there is no salvation,” meaning, outside the bishop of Rome, there is no salvation.

What is so illuminating for us who live in an individualistic culture is that the Reformers never rejected this phrase. Examples abound. In his Institutes, John Calvin said, “Furthermore, away from her bosom one cannot hope for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation.” Theodore Beza confessed the Reformed churches’ belief that the Church was “the company and community of the saints and without which there could be no salvation.”

Certainly the Reformers re-interpreted this phrase to mean something other than “outside the Roman Church there is no salvation.” As Reformed Christians we mean that salvation is found in the Church that Christ established, with the pure preaching of the Word, pure administration of the sacraments, and church discipline.

In speaking this way, we must keep a simple distinction in mind between the ordinary and extraordinary work of God. We must keep clear what God does and what God can do, or, what he has promised to do and what he has not promised to do.

To the Church Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom, the preaching of the Gospel and discipline (Matt. 16:18–19 cf. Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 83–85; Rom. 10:14–17). To the Church those being saved were added daily (Acts 2:47). For the Church Jesus Christ died (Eph. 5:25–27). For this reason the Church is described as the temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16; Eph. 2:11–22) and the mother of the faithful (Gal. 4:26). This means that God has ordained that salvation is offered for the world not at home, not at the beach, nor in the flock of a hireling (John 10:12, i.e. false Church); therefore, salvation is available where Christ’s voice is heard. If you want to expose a non-Christian friend to salvation in Christ, there is a place where you are promised he/she will hear about it: the Church. You would not take your friend to the mall because Christ has not promised to save there.

The Necessity of Membership
Those who are saved are brought into the community of the saved. As Scripture says, the members of Christ are brought into the Body of Christ (Acts 4:32; Rom. 12:4–5; 1 Cor. 12:12–31). As Cyprian wrote, “He cannot have God as Father unless he has the Church as mother.”

The idea of “church membership” is assumed and taught in the Scriptures because Christians belong to Christ and to each other. First, the Book of Life is the heavenly archetype of the earthly registers of members of the Church (Heb. 12:23 cf. Ps. 87:4–6). Second, the book of Acts speaks of salvation in terms of the Lord adding a “countable” number of people to a definable group (Acts 2:41, 47, 3:4). This number of the disciples was distinguished from what Luke called “the rest” (Acts 4:23, 5:13). Membership in this group was visibly signified by the sacrament of baptism, which was the crossing over the boundary of the world into the covenant community, and the sacrament of the Supper, which was the visible sign of maintaining communion in the community (Acts 2:41). Third, the pastors and elders of the church are to take heed to the flock of God (e.g., Acts 20:28). It is assumed that these leaders had no doubt as to whom those people were. In fact, there were even lists of Christian widows eligible for the church’s benevolent ministry (1 Tim. 5:9). Finally, church discipline is described as effecting a change of status and relationship between an unrepentant individual and the Church—even the Lord (1 Cor. 5).

Furthermore, the basic New Testament metaphors that Jesus and his apostles used to describe the intimate union between Jesus Christ and his Church teach us the necessity and nature of true biblical membership in the Church: vine and branches (John 15), shepherd and sheep (John 10), temple and stones (1 Pet. 2), body and members (Rom. 12), as well as bride and husband (Eph. 5).

Because of this the members of Christ and his Body are to “maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3), to submit to the doctrine and discipline of Christ’s Church (Heb. 13:17), to care for the poor and to support the ministry of the Word (1 Cor. 9; Gal. 6:6ff), and to serve in the Church (Eph. 4:12, 16; 1 Cor. 12:7, 27).

Despite the lack of confidence in the visible Church in our land in our time, which is understandable given its current situation, our forefathers, in a worse time than ours, had the highest confidence in the Church to nourish the children of God and to be the means through which salvation would be given to the world because it was Christ’s Church, and not any man’s church.

Below is my portion of an ongoing column with Bill De Jong entitled, "In Conversation," which originally appeared in Christian Renewal 26:4 (October 24, 2007): 21–24.
How Relevant is the Sixteenth-Century Reformation?

As a church planter of a Reformed church, in a southern California beach city in which there is nothing near another Reformed church, I often am tempted to think the answer to this question is “No.” When one pastors a church of less than one hundred people, with limited resources in terms of leadership in the church and financial stability, it is easy to want to become another community church in order to attract numbers of people and reach long-term viability.

The truth of the matter, though, is that the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth-century is relevant for the twenty-first century and beyond because its core principles were not rooted in the passing fads of culture, but in the Word of the Lord, which endures forever (Isa. 40:8).

The core principle that Scripture alone was the ultimate authority of the faith and life of God’s people was called the formal cause of the Reformation, because it was the source of authority that gave shape to Christian theology. It might seem as if this principle were no longer relevant, since “everyone believes the Bible.” In the context in which I minister, which, I have no doubt is no different than any other area, Christians and churches give a formal profession of the Bible being the Word of God, of believing “the Bible alone,” and even that any given church is a “Bible-believing church.” Yet how often is the Bible truly relied upon when a church decides to do anything? Instead of communicating through the preached Word, as Scripture commands, churches communicate through visual, dramatic, and simplistic means. Instead of asking what the roles of pastors, elders, and deacons are, churches turn to corporate America for the model of their government. And the list could be multiplied. We need the Reformation because our forefathers reminded us to turn to the living voice of Christ in the written Word of God.

Another transcendent principle is that sinful humans are acceptable to a holy God only through by the sheer grace of that offended God alone (grace alone), by which he grants the sinner faith so that by it alone (faith alone) so that he may trust in God’s provision of forgiveness and the imputation of righteousness (Christ alone). Ever since our righteous Creator slew animals instead of Adam and Eve, and covered them with their skins, sinful man has been able to stand before God only on the basis of another. The doctrine of justification, then, was not one that the Reformers contrived, but one that is on page after page of Holy Writ. And it is not only a doctrine, but the living reality of the people of God. Adam and Eve received coverings for their sins (Gen. 3). Abraham received righteousness through faith (Gen. 15). The Israelites confessed their sins while laying their hands upon the heads of goats, imputing their sins the sacrifice (Lev. 16). The saints know the peace that comes from embracing the Savior alone and the assurance that they are acceptable to God (Rom. 5:1, 8:1). If this is irrelevant, and positive-thinking, drama, games, door prizes, entertaining music is relevant, I say give me the irrelevant “old, old story!”

Finally, an often forgotten core principle of the Reformers was the centrality of the public, visible Church as it is expressed in local places. In a day in which Harold Camping says the age of the church is ended, in which Fuller Seminary’s C. Peter Wagner calls the age of the “post-denominational church,” and in which many professing Christians get their spiritual boost from radio, internet, tv, books, conferences, and retreats, the Reformation calls us back to the biblical picture of the people of God gathering together, and devoting themselves to the means of grace in Word and Sacrament (Acts 2:42). The Reformers affirmed Cyprian and Paul, who spoke of the church as our mother (Gal. 4) since by her we are nourished and reared in the Lord. The Reformers emphasized that the church was the Body of Christ, not the buildings nor the magisterium of Rome, since it is made up of living, struggling yet joyful, believers in Jesus Christ. They also spoke of the visible church as the locus of God’s dwelling and meeting with his people in public worship. In an age that desires individual experience, the irony is that the true experiential relationship with the Triune God begins in public. It begins as we are brought into the covenant through baptism (BC 34), brought to life by the preaching of the Word (Rom. 10:17), nourished through the Holy Supper (John 6), and built up as we fellowship and worship with the family of God.

Is the Reformation relevant? As long as there are sinners in the world, who need to hear their Creator’s voice, come to know him as their Savior, and be transformed unto eternal life, the Reformation will be relevant because it spoke to these core principles of human existence.

Below is my portion of an ongoing column with Bill De Jong entitled, "In Conversation," which originally appeared in_ Christian Renewal 26:3 (October 10, 2007): 21–24.
What are the Strengths and Weaknesses of Reformed Churches?

All of us have strengths and weaknesses as individuals, which combine into strengths and weaknesses on the corporate level as Reformed churches. As a wild olive branch grafted onto the tree of the Reformed Faith, I have an immense appreciation for our strengths, or else I would not be where I am today. I also can give an outsiders’ perspective on what may be weaknesses we need to be aware of and begin to rectify.

Strengths—Teaching
The strengths of Reformed churches can be categorized under the heading teaching. As B. B. Warfield once remarked about the Christian Reformed Church, our strength is in the systematic instruction of our covenant kids and in the preaching of the Heidelberg Catechism.

One of our great strengths as Reformed churches since the Reformation is in the principle that we are a doctrinally vibrant church. We recognize the necessity of not only confessing the truth of the Word of God and as it is expressed in the creeds and confessions, but in teaching them. One of the beauties of article 40 of the URCNA Church Order is that it enshrines this practice for all our churches: “At one of the services each Lord's Day, the minister shall ordinarily preach the Word as summarized in the Three Forms of Unity, with special attention given to the Heidelberg Catechism by treating its Lord's Days in sequence.” As well, this article gives emphasis to the Catechism, but also gives the churches freedom in teaching through all our confessions. As we move further into the twenty-first century, our ministers need to be challenged to teach and preach through all the Three Forms of Unity as we have been accustomed to teaching and preaching through the Heidelberg Catechism.

Another of our strengths as a doctrinally vibrant church is that our worship is meticulously biblical. Everything we do in worship is either a direct quotation of Scripture, a compilation of biblical texts and allusions, or is based on a biblical directive or example. As I tell my parish often, the liturgy is our chief catechist as it embodies our doctrine in a practical way. What does our doctrine of total depravity look like? It looks like the call to worship in which God summons us even as Christians to worship him. What does our doctrine of justification look like? It looks like the reading of the law, confessions of sins, and declaration of forgiveness. The list goes on as the liturgy catechizes us week in and week out about our sin and the Savior’s grace. In fact, it was Reformed liturgy, believe it or not, that drew me out of the excitement of Pentecostalism into the arms of the Reformation.

As Reformed churches, then, we have a great zeal for the purity of the truth of God’s Word as we seek to allow it to affect all that we do in worship, preaching, church government, and raising our children in the teaching and instruction of the Lord.

Weaknesses—Reaching
What about our weaknesses, though? As Jesus taught us, it is much easier to find fault in another than in ourselves. In ecclesiastical terms this means it is much easier to emphasize the speck in another group of churches than in the plank blurring our own vision. We have weaknesses. The only question is whether we will acknowledge them and seek them to be opportunities for sanctification.

First, in our zeal for the purity of doctrine, we too often become arrogant. For many young Reformed Christians, this zeal only adds to the offense of the gospel and the offense of what we are all about. This is why someone once said a new Calvinist goes through a “cage phase,” meaning, we need to put him in a cage like an out-of-control wild animal until they can calm down. Instead of being arrogant towards outsiders, we need to take up the apostolic commands of bearing with weaker brothers who visit our churches, of bearing with their faults just as we pray they do with ours, and with being hospitable.

Second, in our zeal for purity of doctrine we too often forget about the lost. I fear in all our discussion, energy, and financial commitments to produce new hymnals, new catechism materials, and to build facilities so we can preserve the Reformed Christian Faith, we do not pause and think of how those vast amounts of money could be better used to reach the lost. It should not be a burden to a church to plant another church, nor should it be a burden to the churches, but a delight that God is seeing fit to raise many in our day who seek what we have. I only pray the generosity of the saints today will be as it was in Paul’s day, when the even the poor Philippians contributed more than any other to the work of Paul.

Third, and finally, in our zeal for purity of doctrine we too often speak our own version of “Christianese” and hinder communication to the world. Learning new words like Amillennialism should be exciting, but should not be a part of our first conversations with inquirers. We need to remember that God describes us in his Word like children. And just like children, we need to learn vocabulary and grammar in our Christian walk and we need to be sensitive to others who need to do the same. When we do this our strengths on teaching the biblical faith will manifest themselves in reaching the lost and the confused in our day.