We must recognize that there are many moving parts to being “restored” to our brother or sister. The origin point of the problem is conflating all the parts into one single concept, or boiling it down to a single transaction, such as “I’m sorry.”

We’ve all been there: someone has done something to deeply harm or offend us, and they’re standing in front of us having just spoken the words, “I’m sorry.” But something is off. You can’t quite put your finger on it. It doesn’t seem like there has been an adequate understanding of the damage done, nor does it seem like there is a genuine sorrow over the sin. Instead, they have spoken paltry words like a talisman aimed at making all things better, and there you are, forced to respond, feeling the pressure of Christ’s command to forgive, but not knowing how to formulate your next sentence. Do you say “It’s okay,” even though it’s far from okay? Do you say “I forgive you,” even though the person has not repented nor have they asked for forgiveness? And what does this mean moving forward? Is all just forgotten and now the relationship has to “go back to normal”—whatever that means?
This all-too-common illustration of our lives reveals that Christian circles have a long way to go in reclaiming a biblical understanding of relational restoration. Sadly, in the evangelical and reformed world, there is a troubling oversimplification of the reconciliation process. How do we begin to regain ground in walking through repentance and forgiveness in a Christ-honoring way?
In the first place, we must recognize that there are many moving parts to being “restored” to our brother or sister. The origin point of the problem is conflating all the parts into one single concept, or boiling it down to a single transaction, such as “I’m sorry”. That “sorry” is meant to bear the weight of confession, acknowledgement of wrong done, and asking for forgiveness—all in one fell swoop. Such a short sentence—nay, a single word—cannot possibly bear such a load. But in speaking of these components, we’ve already begun to tease-out some of the elements of what Christ would have us work through in the reconciliation process. The main aspects of biblical restoration are at least as follows:
Read More

It is odd but in light of where much of Western culture is today, Wild in the Streets seems almost prophetic. For example, at the age of fifteen, Swedish-born Greta Thunberg took her largely ignorant but passionate narrative concerning “climate change” into politics, attempting to sway the Swedish elections. A year later, she publicly scolded world leaders in her 2019 UN Climate Action Summit speech. Now twenty-one, she has an international following successfully demanding governments fall in line with climate change activists’ demands. Lately, she has also come out as an expert critic of Zionism, accusing Israel of “genocide” in Gaza, where of course, Israelis are trying to wipe out the terrorist organization which attacked, kidnapped, raped, and killed Israeli innocents – because Gazan innocents are being hurt or killed.

The 1968 film Wild in the Streets has been described as an “American dystopian comedy-drama film.” In an era of rebellion against authority – the late 1960s – the premise of Wild in the Streets was simple. High school and college-age youth came to believe that they knew better how to run society and government than their elders. The main character, Max Frost, was a budding revolutionary who happened to be a very popular rock star.
Popular rock singer and aspiring revolutionary Max Frost (Christopher Jones) was born Max Jacob Flatow Jr. His first public act of violence was blowing up his family’s new car. Frost’s band, the Troopers, live together with him, their women, and others, in a sprawling Beverly Hills mansion. The band includes his 15-year-old genius attorney Billy Cage (Kevin Coughlin) on lead guitar, ex-child actor and girlfriend Sally LeRoy (Diane Varsi) on keyboards, hook-handed Abraham Salteen (Larry Bishop) on bass guitar and trumpet, and anthropologist Stanley X (Richard Pryor) on drums. Max’s band performs a song noting that 52% of the population is 25 or younger, making young people the majority in the country.
When Max is asked to sing at a televised political rally by  Kennedyesque Senate candidate Johnny Fergus (Hal Holbrook), who is running on a platform to lower the voting age from 21 to 18, he and the Troopers appear – but Max stuns everyone by calling instead for the voting age to become 14, then finishes the show with an improvised song, “Fourteen or Fight!”, and a call for a demonstration. Max’s fans – and other young people, by the thousands – stir to action, and within 24 hours protests have begun in cities around the United States.1
As the story unfolds, not only is the voting age lowered, but the age to hold national public office is lowered to fourteen. The mandatory retirement age is lowered to thirty and everyone thirty-five and older were to be shipped to re-education camps where they are permanently kept “high” on LSD. While some thought the premise “ludicrous,” others, like Roger Ebert, thought it actually a cautionary tale. Ebert’s review opens with:
Once you’ve experienced a concert by a group like the Beatles or the Doors, the fascist potential of pop music becomes inescapable. There is a primitive force in these mass demonstrations that breaks down individualism and creates a joyous mob.2
Further down, he notes:
“Wild in the Streets,” on the other hand, is aimed squarely at the younger teenage audience that buys records and listens to the Top 40 stations. This audience can believe, if only temporarily, in the greatness of a performer. They can sense what John Lennon was getting at (although he phrased it unfortunately) when he said the Beatles were more famous than Christ.3
Ebert also comments:
It’s a silly film, but it does communicate in the simplest, most direct terms.4
It is odd but in light of where much of Western culture is today, Wild in the Streets seems almost prophetic. For example, at the age of fifteen, Swedish-born Greta Thunberg took her largely ignorant but passionate narrative concerning “climate change” into politics, attempting to sway the Swedish elections. A year later, she publicly scolded world leaders in her 2019 UN Climate Action Summit speech. Now twenty-one, she has an international following successfully demanding governments fall in line with climate change activists’ demands. Lately, she has also come out as an expert critic of Zionism, accusing Israel of “genocide” in Gaza, where of course, Israelis are trying to wipe out the terrorist organization which attacked, kidnapped, raped, and killed Israeli innocents – because Gazan innocents are being hurt or killed.
We can see her point. In WW2, we and our allies refused to attack both Japan and Germany directly, even though they were attacking us, since many German and Japanese civilian innocents would have been killed or injured in the process. Oh wait – that’s not how the war ended.
Read More
Related Posts:

God’s great love for the church beckons believers to join the church. The Bible repeatedly stresses how vitally important the church is to the living, triune God. The church was on his heart in his work of creation (Eph. 3:9-11). The church was on his heart in his work of salvation (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 5:25). The church was promised his special presence (Heb. 2:12; Matt. 18:20). If the church is so important to the Lord, shouldn’t it be important to everyone who loves the Lord?

Alice was livid! This was the first time she’d visited this church. “The last time, too,” she thought. The church had celebrated the Lord’s Supper. “I’ve been a Christian for four years and the pastor had the gall to tell me to stay away from Communion,” Alice fumed. “He asked those who are not right with God or his church to take steps to get right before coming to the Lord’s Table. He included me just because I’m not a church member. How dare he!”
It’s not uncommon in our day for sincere followers of Christ—like Alice—to regard joining a church as an option. And given the other options—books, tapes, videos, radio and TV broadcasts, Internet resources, parachurch groups, etc.—joining the church is sometimes low on the list—if it’s even on the list! Many have never regarded committing to a congregation to be all that important—or all that agreeable. They are usually shocked to hear that Christians have historically regarded joining a church as essential, not optional.
Is this historic Christian conviction arbitrary? Is it legalistic? What does God’s Word have to say about church membership? We think it says plenty. Please consider with us ten biblical reasons why every professing Christian ought to join a local church.
Jesus Commanded Church Membership
First, our Lord Jesus Christ commands his followers to join a church. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus tells his disciples, “I will build My church.” He pictures the church as the new covenant temple, and those who confess that Jesus is Lord are the building blocks in it (Matt. 16:16; 1 Pet. 2:5; Eph. 2:19-20).
In Matthew 28:19-20, Jesus confirms and expands his earlier statement by commanding his followers to make disciples, baptizing and teaching them. Fulfilling this Great Commission entails bringing converts into church membership. Why do we say that? Because part of the Great Commission is a command to baptize. Now, Holy Spirit baptism adds us to the invisible church (1 Cor. 12:13). But we’re not to keep our salvation invisible. We’re to express it outwardly (Rom. 10:9-10). Water baptism outwardly and visibly symbolizes this invisible reality.
Acts 2:41 tells how the apostolic church implemented this principle: “Those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.” Added to what? Acts 2:47 gives the answer: “added to the church.” This was the visible church; the apostles kept track of those who were baptized, and even counted them.
Christ commands us to be baptized. By commanding us to be baptized, he also commands us to be added to the church. In other words, he commands us to join a church. He wants our relationship to him to be honest and observable (Matt. 10:32). He also wants it to be corporate (Heb. 10:24-25).
The Old Testament Teaches Church Membership
Second, the Old Testament teaches that believers should join a church. The Israelites were God’s old covenant people. He commanded circumcision as a sign of that covenant relationship and membership in the covenant community (Gen. 17:7, 10-11). The New Testament identifies this old covenant community as “the church” (Acts 7:38 KJV).
If you were an alien, you had to receive circumcision to become a member of Israel before you could celebrate the Passover (Ex. 12:43-44, 48). In other words, you had to “join the church” before you could come to the Lord’s Table. If you were not circumcised, regardless of your background or subjective belief, you were to be excommunicated from the people of God (Gen. 17:14).
Can you see the parallel in the New Testament? Baptism is New Testament circumcision (Col. 2:11-12). It marks your addition to the new covenant community, the church (Gal. 3:27, 29; 6:15-16; Phil. 3:3). The Lord’s Supper is the new covenant Passover (cf. Matt. 26:17-19; 1 Cor. 5:7). Just as a person had to be circumcised to become a member of Israel before he could celebrate the Passover, so a person has to be baptized to become a member of the church before he can take the Lord’s Supper. Accordingly, those who “were baptized” and “added to the church” were the ones who participated in “the breaking of bread” with the apostles (Acts 2:41-42, 47).
The New Testament Presupposes Church Membership
Third, the New Testament assumes that every convert joins the church. Conversion includes being added to a visible, local church (Acts 2:41, 47; 14:21-23). It was unthinkable that a person might embrace Christ and then choose not to join Christ’s church. In fact, those who were not church members were regarded as non-Christians (Matt. 18:17). Biblical Christianity is always intensely personal, but it is never private or individualistic.
Read More
Related Posts: