Father's opinions.

I think that I will begin a new segment on my blog concerning my father's opinions. He seems to have a good way of writing his thoughts in a slightly humorous, yet ironic fashion that makes sense to me, whether I agree with him or not!

His latest:

"I tuned in our Air America radio station last night on the way home from our gig and, as usual, only had to listen for a few seconds to hear something stupid. The commentators were ranting about how wealthy people had historically funded endowments and built orphanages and libraries and concert halls and all that sort of thing. But this is the 21^st Century and now they need to start contributing to “social justice”. The Left needs rich people to stop being so selfish and step up and help shoulder the load, don’t you know. Then one fellow launched into a diatribe about how the “modern conservative movement” wouldn’t exist if not for the work of Cato, Heritage and all the other Conservative think tanks that had been founded by wealthy right-wing … wait for it …

“CRAZIES!”

At which point I yelled “So go find some crazies of your own, you moron! It’s not like they’re hard to find! And while you’re at it, see if you can track down your sense of irony!” and switched stations."

Thoughts on prostitution.

In 2005 I flew into Marine Corps Air Station Kaneohe Bay on the island of Oahu. I was partaking in the Single Marine Program along with approximately 80 other Marines. I had an amazing nine days of relaxation for the low price of $350 for air fare and lodging. The best remembered event of that trip took place on the last night and has given me pause to think and pray on many occasions over the last few years. Mostly, this is because, in the midst of a great amount of confusion, the Lord blessed me with a bright ray of hope.

I was slightly drunk and walking back to my hotel with a Marine buddy of mine and two other people from my church back in Vista, CA who happened to be there celebrating their marriage. I was "pretending" to be slightly belligerent and was dragging my heals on going back to my room. My buddy was trying to make sure I was going to be safe. Right before I crossed the street to enter the hotel, a prostitute approached me with a wide, beaming smile and words of exclamation crossing her lips. She shouted, "I remember you!" then THREW her arms wide and rushed me to embrace me in an enormous hug.

In my happy drunkenness, I shouted out to her on the street and yelled, "GOD BLESS YOU!" It was one of the most amazing hugs I have ever experienced in my life. It is the story of how I got to that hug that matters most, though. I am still learning from it...

I considered it slightly scandalous to have at least two dozen young women prowling around across the street to ensnare foolish men. The girls were easy to spot: They all wore crystal clear, 3-inch stilettos and I decided to try my hand at sharing the good news with them. No, I wasn't heading out to boast about saving hundreds of dollars on my auto insurance by switching over to Geico. I also wasn't heading out to brag about how smart I was simply because I had slept at a Holiday Inn Express!



I was motivated to offer them a semblance of goodness to their lives outside of how they were living. I wanted to let them know about Christ's perfect love that could take them out of a life such as prostitution. Regardless of my intention to do good, my heart was woefully unprepared and unlearned in how to do so. I was approached by a number of the ladies (the only type of woman I don't have to chase after, apparently) and spoke with them out of a sense of sadness for where they were at. Of course, this didn't go over well for them. Lesson: Christ does not save us by feeling sorry for us but by loving us.

One of the ladies of the night did give me an amazing excuse for the way she lived, though. It was an Asian woman who spoke some broken English and she stated to me that prostitution was the earliest form of religious exercise. I don't if she meant "exercise" literally. She continued on to say, "Is it any coincidence that 'whore' sounds like 'holy'?" (To get a better appreciation of how she said "whore" and "holy" try rolling your h's in the back of your throat and holding that guttural sound for a few moments before finishing the word).

I went three nights in a row and all the while I had my fellow Marines hooting and hollering at me from the balconies of the hotel. Even when I explained my actions, I don't think they understood why I would be down there just trying to talk with prostitutes. Still, once they got done with the cat-calling, they were intrigued to say the least. The second to last night, I did get to talk with a lovely young girl. I struck up as normal a conversation as possible with her as she was propositioning me to have a threesome with her partner. Her partner was disgusted when I told her that instead of accepting their offer, I had an offer of my own and that it was eternal life with a clear conscience and perfect love forever; all at no charge! Why are people disgusted by that? It must be the messengers...

Anyway, I was able to talk with the girl who stayed behind, but only for a few moments. It was enough time to find out that she was only going to be on the island for a couple more days and would soon be flying out to Las Vegas to make her living. I forget exactly what that living was but it wasn't prostitution this time. She told me a couple other things that I have regrettably forgotten now, as well. Still, I was able to connect with her and give her the good news of salvation and eternal life. I think she was happy just to have a conversation with a guy who didn't want her for sex. At this point, her partner came in and forcibly extracted her from the conversation. I think now that if I have the opportunity to speak with prostitutes again I will pay them for their time.

That leads to the next night and her remembrance of me. She was my bright ray of hope. That's why the hug was so amazing. Since then, I've had to question my approach to people and how I love them. I have learned that hope and love are a motivation much more worthy and lasting than fear and sorrow. It proved to me that Christ made Himself sin for us and took our death upon Himself simply so that He could hold us in His great embrace! He saved me when I was far more wicked than her. Much better than that; He never removed His gaze from me and will never forget my name or blot me out of His book of life. I will be given the most loving and warm embrace; the love of which will last forever. He smile will be upon me with the words, "Well done my good and faithful servant."

YOU ARE SUCH AN IDIOT!

Today, I was keeping watch out in front of the school when a couple of female students I recognized went walking by. One of them was on the phone talking to the person who was going to give her a ride home. Having seen her picked up by her dad before I assumed that she was speaking to him. Now, I'd seen her be rude to him a time or two before but it was only in passing and it was nothing like the belligerence she put on display today in front of her friend.

As she was approaching, I heard her saying in a steadily harsher voice as the conversation quickly developed, "Where are you?" A moment later she spoke with a vitriolic voice and I could almost taste the poison that dripped from her tongue. Her countenance was wicked, yet gleeful, for the pain she was willingly inflicting upon her dad. She said, "We're going to Taco Bell. Pick us up there" ...short pause... "GOD DANG! YOU ARE SUCH AN IDIOT!" Her phone slammed shut.

I was appalled and barked at her, "Hey, is that your dad you were talking to?" She gave and affirmative response and I quickly said, "That was shameful of you!" She didn't even look at me as she walked away but her friend tried to spit some sort of uncouth words my way before tapering off into a few sour glances.

I was aggravated for the duration of the morning for two reasons. Her father was to blame for setting up such lousy boundaries and she was responsible for her rebelliousness. What led to such a relationship between her and her father? A friend suggested that perhaps it was a powerful sense of guilt or shame on the part of the father. He may have done something terribly wrong to her in the past and, knowing his guilt, allowed her to get away with whatever she wanted. How terrible though. If that is the case, guilt obviously did not motivate him to love his daughter. In fact, by allowing her to live such a shameful life he was hating her.

I realized in my anger that I was not hoping for healing for the two of them so I began to pray that the Lord would reveal His loving-kindness to them. In so praying, I realized that my nature was that of the girl's to her father. I was living as an enemy to God, spitting in his face and defiling his goodness. Yet, he refused to allow me, as a wayward child, to live in such a wicked state. He was not ashamed of His own nature and He knew how to win my heart. He drew a boundary around me and said, "this far shall you fall and no further." Then He caught me in His hands and lifted me up. He taught me honesty to admit to Him my hatreds and misgivings and in so doing I learned how to trust in Him. This trust did not come simply because I could speak to Him, but because I could see His grace poured out into my heart. He did not allow me to continue to hate Him!

He called out my shameful behavior but, more than that, He rectified it. He brought light to my darkness and exposed my need. There was a dark hole in my heart that had sucked all the joy around me into it and dissolved it. In seeing this, I was left to stew in my own guilt and I KNEW that God was going to crush me. Yet, in His mercy as my perfect Father, God reached out His hands of blessing and offered to me gifts of a clear conscience, forgiveness of sin, peace of mind, kindness of heart, eternal life and a relationship with His Son forever. He simply asked me, "Have you learned your lesson?"

With my mouth wide open in astonishment, having expected judgment, I could only say, "Yes, Father. Forgive me." My life started at that point and the story I take with me from this time until Heaven will be one of praise for that gift of grace and forgiveness.

Those in charge or protecting us are unwilling to label evil.

President Obama has allowed a murderer to get off lightly in public opinion after massacring 14 people at Fort Hood by telling us "not to jump to conclusions." The Chief of Staff of the Army, Gen. Casey, has allowed a murderer to get off lightly, thus destroying the morale of our war fighters, by telling us "it would be an even greater tragedy if... our diversity becomes a casualty here." The FBI has allowed a murderer to get off lightly in the eyes of justice by saying it's "not an act of terrorism." Well what the hell is it exactly when you have psychotic, terrorist links to your murderous actions? It is treason mixed with a healthy dose of terrorism and if not dealt with we will all be victims of its deadly embrace. Call evil what it is and fight it or say goodbye to the tenuous liberties that others earned for you to enjoy. All it takes is one generation that lacks the willingness to stand for truth to lose liberty for themselves and all those who come after.

An excellent article by Mark Steyn can be found here.

What man-made disaster will take over the global warming fear?

I've been wondering what the political establishment and media will find next to hype in order to find new ways of controlling our lives. I figure the global warming war drum has reached its crescendo and will continue tapering off over the next few years as more and more scientific evidence comes out to disprove all of Al Gore's crazy theories. I have noticed a small but increasingly vocal bit of reporting about the Sargossa Sea and the bigger than Texas sized area of trash that its wind and water currents foster. Check out the links about it and let me know what you think (especially about the bird pictures):

Disclaimer of ocean plastic pollution: http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/006704.html

Supposed pictures (perhaps faked) of birds that died from consumption of plastic: http://www.chrisjordan.com/current_set2.php?id=11

Supposed proof debunking some postulations: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4132

I suspect that this might be a sensational environmental story that "scientists" and federal regulatory agencies will use as an example to take even more liberties from us with the venom-dripping question: "You don't want to protect the environment?"

As soon as I find an article I read on how progressives are using the environment to control our lives I will post it also.

It's Friday...but Sunday's comin!

Isaiah 53

Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.

But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.

By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.

Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.

After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.

Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

A laborer is worthy of his wages. Now give him freedom to work!

"When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against the other through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives.... And, we know what to do about it!"

Run 'em out of town!

The judgment of Lindsay Lohan?

I just read an article about Lindsay Lohan and her father that really troubled me. Her dad has publicly denounced her with comments such as:

"No wonder why God is taking her entire career away from her, because she's forsaken everything He's given her and she's done nothing but misuse all the gifts she's given."

The writer reporting on this responds with appropriate sarcasm about the intentions and hypocrisy of her father when they write, "Following this logic, could another of God's punishments be giving Lindsay a father who is making a career out of trying to destroy his troubled daughter in the press?"

I'm reminded of a passage from Ephesians 6 where Paul is exhorting the followers of Jesus to Godly living between parents and children. He writes:

"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 'Honor your father and mother'—which is the first commandment with a promise— 'that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.' Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord."

The training begins with the parents, of course. They raise their children and are encouraged to do so with grace and mercy; just as Jesus taught us, His own children. A child does not need to be taught how to sin, after all, but must be trained in righteousness and truth.

In 1 Corinthians 6 followers of Christ are told not to bring judgment on their own outside of the church. We read, "If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?"

What a wicked man to make a name for himself by heaping condemnation upon the daughter whom God gave him stewardship to raise! No wonder Lindsay Lohan is the way she is with a father who publishes their private conversations and shows by his very actions that he hates her! Why would she serve her father's god when it is apparent that his god is merciless and unholy? Who is deserving of the greater punishment? But you children of the Most High, remember even while you were still enemies of God and in active rebellion against His goodness that He came in the flesh to offer His forgiveness and love. It belongs to those who will simply come to Him for a relationship that will never fail because He loves us perfectly for who we are.

Isn't that love the sort that changes our hearts? For instance, imagine a disrespectful and hateful child on his deathbed for lack of a needed organ donor. The child, though spiteful, is terrified of dying. Yet, at just the right time, a person, seeing the need and not judging the child's nature, finds that he is a match and willingly gives the necessary organ to save the child's life. Can you imagine that child waking up from surgery and spitting in the face of his savior? Does it not seem that the child would be incredibly grateful instead and work to be pleasing to the one who saved him?

If Lindsay Lohan knew of the True God who loves sinners and transforms them because of His love would she not respond as one grateful for having a new life? But instead, she has responded to the cruel and unforgiving God that her dad represents and has run away from that terror! May she and her father come to know the grace and peace of God that transcends the rivalries of the flesh and brings reconciliation to those who are far off and lost.


Romans 5:6-11

"You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

"Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation."

Can there be accountability without a relationship?

This is my longest post to date. It is a compilation of a number of emails I exchanged with a pastor at a church I visited some time ago. I mean to make no statement about it but will let the exchange speak for itself. I posted the first a few months ago here but for the sake of having all the correspondence in one blog I will re-post it. Feel free to contact me with any thoughts.

Dear Pastor,

I attended your service on Sunday, July 16 as a visitor and was thankful for your preaching. You taught very well of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am close with many people in your congregation and their love for the Lord brings me great joy. It is also good that your church takes communion seriously and desires to protect those who would take it from eating and drinking condemnation upon their own heads, yet, I do not find the qualifications issued forth in the interview sheet entitled "Visitor Participation in the Lord's Supper" in scripture.

Thus, as I meditated upon your message of grace, I became greatly troubled over how I had been pulled aside to be interviewed on the issue of communion. I was told to avoid taking communion for lack of church membership though my conscience and faith says I may do so. The biblical qualifications for taking communion are a heart that is grounded in Christ and self-examined to determine personal worthiness according to the word and one's own conscience. The scriptures tell us in Romans 10:9-13 that,

"...if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. ¹⁰For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. ¹¹As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." ¹²For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, ¹³for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.""

Also in 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 we read,

"...whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. ²⁸A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. ²⁹For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. ³⁰That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. ³¹But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. ³²When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world."

With such a clear description of salvation and communion laid out, denying communion on grounds of baptism, church membership and a public proclamation of faith rings of taking people back to Mount Sinai (though public proclamations should be encouraged and baptism taught). Communion is not meant to determine who the sheep and the goats are but to have fellowship with our Savior and remember His love for us apart from our works of righteousness. Thus, I can find no where in Scripture where it is given to an elder to bind a person's conscience when we are told that whatever is not from faith is of sin. Your teaching was so good on Sunday that I have no doubt people should be able to make a well-informed decision about communion every Sunday. God alone judges the heart and allows for a personal choice.

Jesus offered Judas, His betrayer, communion. He was willing to share with the "son of perdition." He did not withhold the bread from the man who planted the kiss of death on His cheek. Scripturally, how do you get from Christ sharing the meal with His betrayer to a system of denying the meal to those who mirror Romans 10 and 1 Corinthians 11? Is it wise to deny communion when Jesus Christ Himself did not prohibit Judas? It is a burden of the law for one to add works of righteousness upon a foundation of grace that alone gives former enemies of God the right to partake in Christ's communion. Thus, we must "examine ourselves" based upon the scripture. If one is not a believer, has not reconciled with a brother or sister, or is living in unrepentant sin then they should be encouraged to refrain, yet even Judas could have refused the the bread though it was offered to him. Again, it is not the elder's responsibility to determine the sincerity of a person's heart and so approve or deny the meal for God judges the heart.

Lastly, Satan is called the Father of Lies and his name means "tempter" and "deceiver." We must understand that a slave to such a swindler could easily fake sincerity in his/her interview or qualifications and thus penetrate the visible church. That person (a wolf in sheep's clothing) would be allowed by your policy to take the Lord's Supper because of three works (baptism, public proclamation of faith and church membership) and those who have been cleansed by the renewing of their minds would not be for lack of works. That is why partaking in the Lord's supper must be an act of faith, grounded in the word and ultimately informed by one's conscience.

Thank you very much for allowing me to write to you, Pastor. Again, I greatly appreciated the preaching of the word and the hospitality of your congregants. The Lord has obviously put His blessing upon the work that it has pleased Him to allow all of you to partake in. May we all continue sharing the good news of the resurrected Lord!

Your brother in Christ,
Evan Bryan

Email 2:

Dear Evan,

I apologize for taking so long to respond to your email. It was simply a matter of prioritizing my labor and correspondence with others.

Your email is not put to me in a question, but as several paragraphs of monologue in which you seem to assume the role of instructing me on the Bible’s principles regarding admission to the Lord’s Table. Ordinarily, I may have responded to an email such as this by asking for further clarification on whether or not you have a question. But I am also aware that you posted this email to me on your blog, which you did not indicate in your email. This act of yours seems, to me, very self-serving and, quite honestly, narcissistic on your part, Evan. You give the impression of being more interested in attracting an audience for yourself and having others read your thoughts than you do with a) learning why we as a confessional Reformed church have the policy we do; and b) following the principles outlined in Matthew 18 for correcting one who is in sin, if indeed you are convinced that we (as elders of a church) are by adopting an unbiblical policy. Instead of coming to me personally (in person, phone call, or email), you chose to make your correspondence to me public – and didn’t even have the decency to tell me in the email that you did so. That is most unfortunate, Evan, for it is a bad witness for the faith you profess to believe. I know plenty of pagans who are hostile to Christianity who would not do such a disrespectful thing to another man.

For this reason, I would ordinarily dismiss your email as a rude and disingenuous attempt by a young, unlearned, and proud narcissist who craves attention. But you did ask the following questions in the midst of your monologue:

“Scripturally, how do you get from Christ sharing the meal with His betrayer to a system of denying the meal to those who mirror Romans 10 and 1 Corinthians 11? Is it wise to deny communion when Jesus Christ Himself did not prohibit Judas?”

This question is easily answered, and I will humbly oblige you with one, but only on the following conditions:

1. Publicly – on your blog – apologize to me and to your readers for sending me an email without telling me that you posted it on your blog, leading me to assume that this was a matter of personal correspondence. (This was done on my part here with never a response).

2. Keep further personal correspondence between you and me personal.

If you do those two things, Evan, I will happily answer you and even dialogue with you so that you can be further instructed in the Scriptures and Reformed ecclesiology, so that even if you do not agree with Reformed interpretation, you will at least have a better understanding of that to which you object. For it is clear to me that your problem is not with our understanding of fencing the Table of the Lord, but with the authority of the keys of the kingdom and of church discipline.

If you can’t do the above, however, then I won’t waste anymore of my precious time in dialogue with you, but only refer you to the following works:

Heidelberg Catechism QQ.65-82

Belgic Confession Arts. 27-35

Calvin, Institutes, Book 4.12.1-10 (including the footnote under para 5); 4.17

Turretin, Institutes, 3:293-306; 428-36

Daniel Hyde, “Table Manners: Whom We Welcome to the Lord’s Supper” in Called to Serve, ed. Michael Brown

Email 3:

Dear Pastor,

My letter to you was not meant to instruct but I wanted to understand how you hold to your position in light of the scriptures I quoted. I am open to correction and biblical (rather than confessional) teaching. You wrote, "Publicly – on your blog – apologize to me and to your readers for sending me an email without telling me that you posted it on your blog, leading me to assume that this was a matter of personal correspondence." Yet, the way the URC conducts communion is a public matter. It is something the elders believe and you teach from the pulpit to anyone who enters your doors or reads your confessions. Thus, my letter to you was not meant to be private and I never led you to believe otherwise.

Had you sinned against me personally, I agree that it would have been grossly sinful of me to post my letter to you and the elders on my blog. Still, I never attacked you in my letter and am appalled that you would respond by calling me (consolidated) worse than a pagan, self-serving, narcissistic, rude, disingenuous, young, unlearned, and a proud attention and audience seeker. Your opinion of me being a narcissist does not fit the definition of the word: "Inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity." It does fit the meaning of the word opinion though: "A belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce certainty." I do not know any Christians who would admonish another with such a lack of humility and love. Besides that, Acts 17:11 states, "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." I am examining from scripture to see if what you say is true and you insult me while Paul (an Apostle) encouraged and called noble those who examined the scriptures to see if what he said was true.

I have brought a solid case against your teaching from the Bible, yet you respond not to show from scripture what you believe but only to instruct me by the words of man as written in the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession Arts., Calvin, Institutes, Turretin, Institutes, and Daniel Hyde. Not only have you referred to extra-biblical sources in refuting my scriptural argument, but you have deemed it necessary to attack me on personal grounds as well as on my standing before God when you, as I stated previously, wrote that I was worse than a pagan, self-serving, narcissistic, rude, disingenuous, young, unlearned, and a proud attention and audience seeker. You redirected attention away from my argument and towards my character. This should not be! Please, help me understand how you can be justified in such accusations when my email and blog are non-accusatory and simply state your churches PUBLIC views! By posting my blog I questioned a publicly taught practice of your church and not your heart, but in your response to me, you did judge my heart and left, biblically unaddressed, my defense of my beliefs. Who is guilty of the greater offense?

Lastly, you wrote that my, "problem is not with [your] understanding of fencing the Table of the Lord, but with the authority of the keys of the kingdom and of church discipline." More so, not only do I disagree with your understanding of fencing the table, the keys of the kingdom and discipline in the church; I disagree with the authority you think you have over other men but am open to biblical teaching.

Pastor, I can offer no apology for my public blog posting about your public stance so, according to you, this correspondence must end. I also cannot abide by your severe attacks on my character and standing before God so, unless we can reconcile that bitterness, this correspondence must end. Should we reach common ground as brothers in Christ in these regards as I sincerely hope for, I humbly ask again that you offer me scripture to clarify your beliefs. Thank you and God bless.

Email 4:

Evan,

Your comments are in italics:

My letter to you was not meant to instruct but I wanted to understand how you hold to your position in light of the scriptures I quoted.

You never asked that question in your email. Rather, it was in the form of an instructional monologue.

Yet, the way the URC conducts communion is a public matter.

First of all, you are making assumptions here without knowing the facts. You are taking our practice in ****** and assuming that it is the same standard for our whole federation (i.e. "the URC"). It is important that you get your facts straight here.

Secondly, while it is true that the way we fence the table is a public matter, it is made public for guests to our church. Making your email to me public is quite inappropriate in light of the fact that you, as a guest to our church, flagrantly disrespected the policy of the elders in authority by partaking of communion after you were humbly asked to abstain.

Thirdly, you never told me in your email that you intended to make this a matter of public debate by posting it on your blog and facebook page.

Thus, my letter to you was not meant to be private and I never led you to believe otherwise.

You most certainly did lead me to believe otherwise.

"I...am appalled that you would respond by calling me (consolidated) worse than a pagan, self-serving, narcissistic, rude, disingenuous, young, unlearned, and a proud attention and audience seeker."

If you go back and read my email to you, you will see that I did not call you those names; rather, in one place I used adjectives to describe your actions, not your person, which is no more of an attack on your character than anywhere where Scripture identifies sinful or unwise behavior. In another place I described a hypothetical situtation, which is no more of an attack on your character than Paul telling Titus to having nothing to do with a person who stirs up division knowing that such a person "is warped" (Tit 3.11).

My point about knowing pagans who are hostile to the Christian faith who have more decency than to do what you did, was simply to make the point that your actions were a bad witness for Christianity. Again, go back and read carefully what I wrote before you start indicting me on false charges.

"I am examining from scripture to see if what you say is true."

Well, Evan, that is hardly the impression you made upon me. Your email did not seem to express much desire in learning, only in teaching. And again, this is after the fact of your disrespect to the Lord and violation of the fifth commandment by disobeying your leaders and those appointed to watch over your soul (read Hebrews 13.17).

"I have brought a solid case against your teaching from the Bible."

I disagree. If I may say so, I have two advanced degrees in theology from WSC, and I would hardly call your case solid.

"yet you respond not to show from scripture what you believe but only to instruct me by the words of man as written in the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession Arts., Calvin, Institutes, Turretin, Institutes, and Daniel Hyde."

I did this, my friend, because these works present arguments from Scripture already written down. What is said in the HC and BC are not only written down, but also confessed by Reformed churches. The other works will present a lot of helpful teaching for you so that you can better understand our position, if that is what you are genuinely interested in. I do not need to take time out of my week to reinvent the wheel in dialogue with you when these things have already been shown from Scripture. Sorry, but I have higher priorities. And honestly, as a pastor of souls, I think it would be very good for you to sit and read carefully the arguments of others who have gone before you and who may actually know the Scriptures better than you. You would be surprised what you can learn about the Scriptures from teachers God has appointed for his church.

"You redirected attention away from my argument and towards my character."

I did no such thing. Look, this is not a high school debate class, OK? You took a cheap shot at me by posting an email to me on your blog and facebook page without telling me in the email. When you do things like that in the real world, Evan, there are consequences, such as people thinking less of your character.

"Should we reach common ground as brothers in Christ..."

That can only begin, Evan, with you making a credible profession of faith in a true, visible church of Christ in which you become a member and submit to the authority of Christ as he has delegated it to his appointed officers. Until then, it is impossible for us to have communion as brothers in the Lord, for you do not belong to his visible church. I will pray for you and ask the Lord to cause you to humble yourself to his authority very soon, and become a professing member of his visible body in the world.

Email 5:

Dear Pastor,

I have spent the last week reflecting on our correspondence. I have applied myself diligently to prayer and meditating on the word. As such, I must agree with you that I did make an assumption when I declared that your policy of communion was the same as "the URC's" policy. Forgive me for that. In light of my assumption (and agreeing also that much wisdom can be gleaned from the teachings of other Christians), I have studied what the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Second Helvetic Confession, Westminster Confession of Faith, Westminster Shorter Catechism and Westminster Larger Catechism declares concerning the Lord's Supper. The closest statement I could find that would possibly match what you have shared with me is Q. 82 from the Heidelberg Catechism where it asks: "Are they also to be admitted to this supper, who, by confession and life, declare themselves unbelieving and ungodly?"

The answer states:

"No; for by this, the covenant of God would be profaned and His wrath kindled against the whole congregation; therefore it is the duty of the Christian church, according to the appointment of Christ and His apostles, to exclude such persons by the keys of the kingdom of heaven till they show amendment of life."

By confession and life I do not declare myself unbelieving and ungodly. May I ask if you equate lack of church membership in a local congregation as you have defined it to be a sign of unbelief and ungodliness? If yes, would you please send me scripture to reveal why this is so? I ask this because I can find no other reasons in my studies for which a person should be excluded from the table. You did mention having authority that the "keys of the kingdom" gave to you, though. It seems that the keys are used to bind and loose but what do they give you the authority to bind and loose? The only reference I can find of the "keys of the kingdom" is in Matthew 16 referring to where Jesus gives Peter the keys.

Most importantly, though I remain unconvinced of your position concerning the practice, I did come to the conclusion that there would have been a better way for me to pursue the matter in accordance with Matthew 18. In counseling, it is good for the counselor to ask many questions to determine where a person's heart is and why it is there. I did not give you that opportunity before launching into my brief. I should have asked why you fenced the table the way you did and I should not have done it over email. It would have been more profitable on my part to have at least called you. It would have been wiser of me to write down what I believe only after discussing your position in person or over the phone. Publicizing my thoughts on a public blog that even unbelievers read and addressing you and your church by name and denomination was absolutely the wrong way to start off before I had even had the slightest bit of communication with you. Please, forgive me of this as well.

I mentioned us finding common ground in Christ and you responded by writing:

That can only begin, Evan, with you making a credible profession of faith in a true, visible church of Christ in which you become a member and submit to the authority of Christ as he has delegated it to his appointed officers. Until then, it is impossible for us to have communion as brothers in the Lord, for you do not belong to his visible church. I will pray for you and ask the Lord to cause you to humble yourself to his authority very soon, and become a professing member of his visible body in the world.

I hope that the steps I have taken to publicly humble myself on my blog and to ask your forgiveness in the areas where I was wrong are enough for us to find common ground. For the time being, according to my conscience, I will still avoid church membership in the manner you describe and will, by my baptism and continual, public profession of faith, maintain my walk in Christ's visible church. Insofar as scripture allows, I will also submit to the biblical authority of those who have been appointed as undershepherds of Christ and take it upon themselves to disciple and guide me in my walk. I ask only that you would please teach me, from scripture, where I must become a member of a local congregation in the manner you have described to be a "professing member of his visible church in the world." Thank you very much and may God richly bless you and your flock.

Your brother in Christ,
Evan Bryan