Mark Driscoll, on his blog, wrote a few comments about large and small churches today (from Lyle Schaller in The Very Large Church:

Larger churches tend to be more conservative in theology and more liberal in practice, while smaller churches are often more liberal in theology and more conservative in outward practice (e.g., liturgy, hymns, and vestments).

Larger churches tend to present clear, authoritative teaching from Scripture while theological pluralism tends to thrive in smaller churches.

There are more, but these two are the ones I want to address.

I am theologically conservative - and I think that I'm more conservative than most when it comes to liturgy, hymns, etc.

The church that I'm leaving is not a "mega-church" (The term megachurch generally refers to any congregation with a sustained average weekly attendance of 2000 persons or more in its worship services.) I went there looking for Reformed teaching (which I do get from the pulpit), but I also went there looking for Reformed practice (which I don't get).

The comment from Driscoll's blog is mixed at Sunshine. The theology from the pulpit is conservative, yet in everyday living, the teaching is not reformed (including Neil Anderson, Alpha Course, the "relationship" with the Prophet and Apostle's church). And the practice is more liberal than the teaching.

The second comment is not as clear at Sunshine. The teaching from the pulpit and the teaching at other times can be very different. Yes, clear authoritative teaching from the Scripture is given from the pulpit. But "theological pluralism" was very much alive and well.

I'm looking for the "happy medium" Not too big, not too small.

Sound, authoritative Scriptural teaching from the pulpit and in practice. "Conservative when it should be and liberal when it should be.

I don't want to be in a church with close ties to churches that insist that in order to be effective you have to speak in tongues. I won't be in a church that includes extra-Biblical qualifications in order to be considered "holy", "saved", "sanctified", "gifted", or whatever.

On the flip side, the "truly reformed" churches in my area include some that seem to consider the Westminster Confession nearly on par with Scripture. Count me out on that too.

Just give me teaching from the Bible.

It will make somebody's day if you click here.

I blogged about this book and you can read about the success of her campaign to have it blogged about here.

If anybody is reading this and is so inclined - please help Brenda Coulter out by passing this along (or linking to this post).

Just for kicks, let's see if we can get a "Christian romance" novel at #1!

The following quote (courtesy Catez Stevens) comes here in a roundabout way from Brain Cramps for God. (Follow the link for his blog and a link to the direct quote.)

There is a tension that can develop between two different aspects of the Christian life. Should we be the city on the hill or the salt of the earth? Should we be a very separate group of people removed from others and wait for people to come to us - or should we be sprinkled out in the world like seasoning making a difference in our particular circles? Of course the obvious answer is both, but we don't always find the balance of both so easily.

Here's the problem: Salt is not only a seasoning. In Biblical times, one of salt's most extensive purposes was preserving meat and fish.

There was a lot of things wrapped in that quote, and I don't really want to get into that again - most of my thought processes on this matter are going out there on a church search, so that's the direction I'm going) but I've really been pondering the uses of salt.

This is going off on my own little "thought process", so there will probably be disagreement - oh well...

Looking at two very important descriptions in the Bible: meat and fish.

With meat (used as a description in the KJV for deep doctrine) and fish (Jesus said He would make His disciples "fishers of men" - making men the fish), salt was used to preserve these two foods.

Being the "salt of the earth" isn't just about being sprinkled out there for a little flavor. It's also about preservation - keeping the food good and safe.

All the flavoring (salt) in the world isn't going to help much if the meat (doctrine) has gone bad.

Same thing with fish. If we are "fishers of men", then other Christians are the fish. Are we out there "flavoring" them, or is our goal to help keep them safe?

Taking a look at the church my membership is currently at, how does all this relate?

Are my church leaders being "salt" to the congregation?

Are they preserving sound doctrine?
Are they "sprinkling" their congregation out into the world without making sure of the saltiness?
Are is it becoming that they are just out there for the flavor?

And how does this relate to me personally?
Am I trying to be "salt" when it comes to what my church is teaching?
Am I tring to convey to my children the "saltiness" that they need in order to be effective when they are "sprinkled out"? (one of them is really struggling, one of them is really taking off)
Is my family "preserving" or "flavoring"?

As I am in the process of looking for a new church, I'm reflecting not only on what Sunshine is doing wrong, but what I want to see done right in a church that I belong to. (This will probably take a while.)

Biblical elements of corporate worship include preaching and teaching the Word of God, prayer, the public reading of Scripture, the singing of Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, and celebrating the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper. (Read the whole article)

I'm not advocating for "if it's not in the Bible we can't do it" mindset (that rules out Easter songs, instrumental music and powerpoint.) But I'm thinking that we can apply the "Solas" to worship. Because of my recent experiences, I'm looking again at the basis for the church I end up choosing.

After many conversations, I believe that worship is not a "free for all", with everyone being able to "worship in their own way". God, better than anybody, knows how He wants to be worshiped. I'm reading in the Old Testament and I just got done reading all of the regulations that He placed on Israel - right down to the setup of the camp and the order that they would march in when traveling.

When making the tabernacle, God ordained even the number of "curtain rings" on each side of the curtain and the tiniest detail of the robes the priests were to wear.

God knows how He likes to be worshiped.

To review, the Five Solas are:

Sola Scriptura: the inerrant Scripture is the sole source of written divine revelation, which alone can bind the conscience. (other sources will say that "Scripture is the only inspired and infallible guide to faith and conduct")

Solus Christus: our salvation is accomplished by the mediatorial work of the historical Christ alone.

Sola Gratia: in salvation we are rescued from God's wrath by His grace alone.

Sola Fide: justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. In justification Christ's righteousness is imputed to us as the only possible satisfaction of God's perfect justice.

Soli Deo Gloria: because salvation is of God and has been accomplished by God, it is for God's glory.

A commenter asked, "Not sure if this is too big a question to answer using comments, but I would so appreciate a Calvinistic response to this scenario: whilst (I love using that word) in Bible College, there was a great guy that everyone loved. Passionate but not obnoxious in his faith, participated in the classes, faithfully showed up for prayer meetings, confessed his faith in Jesus, etc etc etc.

A few years later, I ran into his wife and she reported that he had had an affair, left her; and renounced his faith!...So, it appears (and I know that appearances can be deceiving!) to me that he had abandoned the faith that he once practiced and proclaimed. What would a "once saved always saved" construct say to that? It just seems to easy to say that he was never saved in the first place. Could it truly be that simple?"

It is a big question. There are folks that can answer/debate it a lot better than I can - and it's a question that has been around for a long time and I doubt we'll settle it here 😉

One of the things that makes it difficult to answer whether or not the person in question was ever saved (did they "fall away", or were they ever saved in the first place?) is that we can't see into their heart.

The Bible says that there will be people who believe that they were saved, but will get to heaven and hear Jesus say, "Depart from me, I never knew you."

These two verses would appear to say that if you are truly saved, you will remain - and that it is God that will carry the good work in us to completion.

1 John 2:19
They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

Philippians 1:6
being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

Was the man you knew truly saved (did he truly love the Lord with all his heart, all his mind and all his strength?). I cannot answer that.

Another thought is that we do not know what God has planned for this man for the rest of his life. Will he return to God? I cannot answer that either.

What I do know is that "in him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will..."

I belong to a sovereign God who is in control of the universe. He has chosen, elected, predestined - whatever word you want to use - His people.

John 10:27-29 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.

This is a short answer, I know. I hope it helps.

I think that that book of Numbers must have been written by a CPA.

Every year, this is the book that I get "stuck" in - not because it's so interesting or inspiring, but because repetitive. I guess we need to hear all this a "number" of times.

If I found out that Socrates had not lived faithfully to his own teaching, would it have an affect on how I viewed his teaching? I don’t think so. True teaching is true teaching and false teaching is false teaching no matter who the teacher is.

Moses was a murderer, yet God used him to deliver the Law to Israel: “Do not commit murder.”

Paul, as a servant of Christ, had a temper, he was outspoken (today we would say too much so), he wrote in frustration that he wished that the teachers of the Law would castrate themselves and he saw conflict as a normal part of life. Yet much of our Christian doctrine is based on Paul’s writing.

David was an adulterer, a murderer and disobeyed the Lord on a number of recorded occasions. Yet, he was a "man after God's own heart" - for all of his faults, David yearned to follow God.

The beauty is in the message, not in the messenger.

May my cry come before you, O LORD;
give me understanding according to your word.

May my supplication come before you;
deliver me according to your promise.

May my lips overflow with praise,
for you teach me your decrees.

May my tongue sing of your word,
for all your commands are righteous.

May your hand be ready to help me,
for I have chosen your precepts.

I long for your salvation,
O LORD, and your law is my delight.

Let me live that I may praise you,
and may your laws sustain me.

I have strayed like a lost sheep.
Seek your servant,
for I have not forgotten your commands.

Psalms 119

(note, this is also getting turned in as a "reflection question" for my philosophy class tonight)

I'm going to try to tie my last three posts together in an attempt to show you all where I am right now. (In this post, they're not in the order I posted them, the school paper makes it out of order)

"Bad Doctrine Has Consequences" - a recurring theme around our home. Last night my daughter and I talked (like we always do) on our way home from church after her small group met. This didn't happen in the small group, but with a group of members of the small group and other at a restaurant. She was not breaking confidentiality by talking about it. She said, "I think I might have to look for a different small group." She has a very small group - just Manda and one other young woman. Manda told me that this other girl has "lots of opinions that she will never think are wrong, but are very loose" and that this other girl won't listen to anybody else. Manda has been talking about the whole "Firehouse Family Ministries" thing (I'm a proud mom) and this other girl won't even talk about it.

"I'm just really looking forward to worshiping with another demonination!" (Manda pointed out that anti-Trinitarians go beyond "denomination" into a whole different religion - that point got lost in the emptiness)

"But denominations are just wrong" (Manda pointed out that we have denominations for a reason - and some are right and some are not.)

"Manda, you just have to learn how to worship with other denominations!" (Manda pointed out that she is Reformed, her grandparents go to a non-denom in FL, a United Missionary Church in MI, her aunt is Baptist, her uncle is a Free Methodist minister and everybody else goes to the Missionary church. We have the "other denomination" thing down.)

"Well, I just thought those people were neat!" (Manda used my phrase - "bad doctrine has consequences")

"Manda, you just have to lighten up!"
(note, these are not the exact words, but pretty close to the conversation)

"Rome/Arminius/Reformers - 'The TULIP'" was a good and necessary reminder of where we come from and why we are in a CRC. As I look for a different church, one of the possibilities is a non-denom. It is very large, and may have Reformed underpinnings, but would underpinnings be enough?

Part of the problem at Sunshine is that the farther they get from Reformers, the more doctrinal problems I see. (Not just TULIP oriented, but the increasing emphasis on gifts, the growing role of the pastor that appears more "charismatic", the role of Neil Anderson's "Freedom" - when I went in a couple of years ago to advocate for a single ministry, a couple of women's leaders pushed me to go through Anderson's series "to see where this is coming from". Excuse me: being single does not mean "in bondage")

This 3-way study of TULIP helped solidify in my mind why the Reformation was needed and why I need to be in a "Reformed" church. Solidly Reformed - not Arminian.

Finally, "Plato's Allegory of the Cave" (which is actually an assignment for my philosophy class) reminded me that four years ago I would have laughed at the idea of me looking for a solidly Reformed church.

After a lifetime of living in an Arminian family, the break to Reformation Christianity was like being unchained and seeing the flame.

The realization of how much this effects my decision-making is like stepping into the sunlight.

Wrapping it up: I'm not ready to claim "cessationism" (as full-bore TR's define it), but I am ready to take a really good look at it and I'm ready to let that issue play a part in my decision making process.

On the cessation thing. I'm not going to be looking for any burning bushes. But for forty-some years God has been able to figure out ways to communicate what He wants me to know. I don't imagine that's going to change.

God hasn't changed. My understanding of the way that He may (or may not) communicate with us has changed.

But God hasn't changed. And as long as God doesn't change, I'll be ok.