Gtown Chapel Mens Bible Study 05/08/10: The Significance Of Self Sacrifice (Philippians 2:5-8)
“It is one thing to donate one of your kidneys to a close relative, it is quite something else to donate one of your kidneys to Charles Manson”
It’s such an absolutely dominating theme in the New Testament. Christians living for Christ with the following persecution that will certainly follow. This was the situation in Philippi. The Philippians not only lived in a way that richly adorned the gospel, but they defended the gospel as well. Living in a way that pleases God will get you in trouble. Taking it a step further and defending God will get you in double trouble.
Everywhere you look in the New Testament, Christians are under attack for their testimony and the gospel. In each case, Paul teaches them what to do when something else kicks in and joins God’s enemies. Namely, these mortal bodies we live in, coats of self preservation. A friend of mine once suggested that selfism is the essence of all sin, I don’t doubt it. Granted, selfism is an everyday struggle in the milieu of life, but apparently the Philippians had been doing well in that fight. However, when persecution came, it apparently began to effect their personal walk first and then relationships within the body. Paul writes to address this specific problem. But his prescription is also perhaps the most powerful weapon Christians have in their sanctification arsenal, self sacrifice.
In chapter one, verses 3-11, Paul begins by encouraging them. First, he prays for them in “every” prayer of his. The remembrance of them gives him joy in prayer time because of their involvement with him in regard to confirming and defending the gospel. They were also involved to the point of serving him while he ended up in jail for such. Secondly, their present struggles may have caused them to doubt their salvation. Doubt is a serious poison in our walk with Christ. Paul therefore seeks to bolster their confidence with these words: “ because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, 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.” Thirdly, he reminds them that love only abounds in “knowledge” and “discernment,” perhaps an area lacking in the midst of trial and causing doubt.
In 1:12-18, Paul testifies and reminds them how the trials that come about from defending the gospel only serve to further the gospel that much more. In verses 19-26, Paul sets the table with a goal. The goal is an increasing joy and courage through Christ for living the Christian life with this radical mentality: “For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.” One who lives torn between being with those they love and a joy that comes from serving them, or being with Christ, obviously walks in great wellness regardless of circumstances.
But Paul reminds them that this unshakable walk of peace comes with a price and responsibility: “ Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel without being frightened in any way by those who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that you will be saved-and that by God. For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him, since you are going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have” (verses 27-30). Paul reminds them that their suffering for the gospel should give them confidence in their salvation. He also reminds them that we are called to faith and suffering as shown in Paul’s example as well.
Paul then begins chapter 2 with “so.” In other words, because of everything previously stated. Paul then says the following: “If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others” (verses 1-4).
It is not clear how much of the above addressed by Paul was spurred by the persecution they were enduring, or even an emphasis on the gospel and service to Paul that was over emphasized to the exclusion of personal love within the congregation. Whatever the temptation was, the results were evident, a spirit of selfism within the church that was causing division. Listen to what Paul also says in chapter 4:2,3; “ I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord. Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.” How was Paul calling on the church to help these women?, with what he had just taught them. But my primary point is the division that Paul was addressing in the church at Philippi.
Now we come to our core text, 2:5-8. Paul begins by saying: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:” This is an “attitude” as some translations have it or a mindset. We are to focus and strive to have this mentality constantly. This is a choice, and that choice will determine how we live. Every action is conceived in the mind first. “As a man thinks, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7).
The way the ESV translates this verse is also a good reminder: “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,” This mindset is ours for the taking, It has already been granted to us because we have all things in Christ.
This mindset that we are to constantly have is a radical one and gives us great insight into the mind of God. Verse 6 says: “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,” Ponder that for awhile. His equality with God was not considered by Christ as something to be held on to at all cost.
When one sets this against the contrast of our own natural bent, the comparison is staggering. Though Christ was never less than deity, he set aside its full glory in the service of others. Now compare that with what we deem worthy of grasping on to, just about everything we are and own. If it belongs to us, our first inclination is to grasp it and anybody looking to take it away is in for a fight. Let someone interrupt our attention to a favorite TV program or the snapping of a football on fourth and one for instance. Ever been involved in the settling of a relatives estate? I think you see my point. If Christ was willing to leave heaven and its glory for our sake, there is certainly nothing in our lives worth grasping onto when others stand to benefit.
Seemingly, when compared to our attitudinal tendencies, we have intensifying levels into the grave of self death demonstrated by Paul. It seems that this could be the only example in scripture that encourages us to dig deeper into some kind of death, the death of self. Paul seems to be comparing what we grasp onto compared to what Christ was willing to give up. Pretty devastating in and of its self, but now Paul turns up the heat in verse 7. Who did Christ give this up for? Man. What does it mean that he made himself “nothing?” More than likely, this is an idiom representing mankind. Psalm 62:9 says: “Lowborn men are but a breath, the highborn are but a lie; if weighed on a balance, they are nothing; together they are only a breath.”
In other words, if all of mankind from the highest to the lowest are weighed on a scale, the scale would remain level despite the absence of any weights to balance the scales. Christ was willing to diminish himself for the sake of others. He not only temporarily left all of the benefits of being supreme master of the universe, he identified with lowly mankind. It is one thing to donate one of your kidneys to a close relative, it is quite something else to donate one of your kidneys to Charles Manson, and of course this does not even scratch the surface of comprehension in regard to what Christ gave up for our benefit.
But wait, Paul turns up the heat even more in the same verse (7). If it’s us and we give up all that Christ gave up to this point, our home base of operations on earth would be pretty impressive. Big palace, angel servants, etc. I mean, look at what was given up!, and besides, who we are is reality. After all of this, certainly Christ would arrive as a glorious heavenly king and make himself known accordingly. Obviously, that’s the least he would do after such a horrendous sacrifice to come down here and dwell among men. No, he came as a “servant.” Mark 10:44,45; “and whosoever would be first among you, shall be servant of all. For the Son of man also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” Because even Christ came to be a servant, his followers are to be “servants of ALL.” This is a powerful concept to remember. As a follower of Jesus Christ, you are a servant to everyone you come into contact with. Those you pay to serve you are no exception. When you go out to eat, treat your waiter/waitress as your master. How would you serve your waitress?, by being polite and not over demanding to mention a few. This kind of walk is your calling to self death. Jesus Christ said in Mark 8:34; “ And he called unto him the multitude with his disciples, and said unto them, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.”
Lastly, in verse 8, he submitted himself to lowly men and died a horrific death on the cross as a falsely accused criminal. The crucifixion viciously violated every aspect of his deity and humanity. It exposed the Son of God to open shame, torture, and public mocking. He gave it all for everybody and this is the mindset Paul says we are to have. I believe this is the example the Hebrew writer had in mind when he encouraged the Hebrews by saying this: “looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted. In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood” (Hebrews 12:2-4).
In the sanctification process, a mindset of self preservation has to go. It must be replaced with a mentality of self sacrifice. This is to be implemented in the smallest details of life and circumstances that loom large. A mindset of self sacrifice is a handy and powerful tool as we walk through life remembering the example Christ set for us. It may not always feel so good in the midst. Jesus was encouraged by the joy “that was set before” him. We always have some joy in the midst of dieing to self because we know it will always result in joy at some point, but the ultimate joy always follows obedience. The struggle and agony Jesus endured in the anticipation stage of the cross alone would have killed most, if not all men (Matthew 26:36-46).
At this point, someone may say: “Well, I think you can take this self sacrifice stuff too far.” Fair enough. I only ask you as Paul did to have the same mindset Christ had in regard to self sacrifice, you can do the math on your own.
I have always been struck by Philippians 2:19-30 in Paul’s overall scheme of this book. It’s almost like a military plan. You soften up the stronghold with the heavy artillery and then you send in the ground troops to mop up. In this case, the ground troops are Timothy and Epaphroditus. He hopes to send them there as a follow-up to this letter to model self sacrifice. Do you realize what a full court press this is concerning the Philippian problem? This could also be a loving warning that he is sending two men to follow-up that have the right to confront in the area of self sacrifice. Paul lays out their qualifications: “ So receive him in the Lord with all joy, and honor such men, for he nearly died for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete what was lacking in your service to me.” Ouch. The guy was not only a model of self sacrifice, but he almost died picking up the lack of what they were unable to supply for Paul. Who at Philippi was going to tell him he didn’t have a right to judge!!!
Self sacrifice is such a simple but powerful concept. Self sacrifice is the God given mindset that makes submission possible. Paul cites two major areas where the Philippians must let a mindset of self sacrifice nourish submission: Truth (have the same mind “in the Lord“). When there are doctrinal differences in a church, somebody isn’t submitting to God’s truth, bottom line. Somebody is more interested in what they want to believe about the text rather than what it is saying. Selfism. The rest of the issues are settled by preferring others whenever it does not entail compromise.
But always remember this, a walk of self sacrifice models the grand epic of all human history, the all time epitome of self sacrifice and love, the gospel.
So you are dissatisfied with your ability to spread the gospel? Oh really? A kind word and a big tip for a waitress that did not live up to your God given right to be served to your expectations. Your children seeing you cancel that golf game to help your wife with a project (this is an easy one for me, I don’t play golf). Stopping to help a motorist on the way to the church picnic. A kind word for a spouse that snapped at you.
But you say: “If people see me acting like this and start asking why, what should I say?”
That’s easy, tell them about the greatest sacrifice ever. That’s the significance of self sacrifice.
Does Your Church Practice Satanic Church Discipline?
Ordinarily, I would think that the following fact is bizarre: the vast majority of church discipline practiced today is unbiblical. But the fact of the matter is, as a former elder, I was on an elder body that practiced errant discipline. What we were doing had a semblance of biblical correctness and the church had always done it that way – it’s an easy trap to fall into. In the Christian life, most assumptions (concerning truth not verified) are dangerous; you eventually learn that. However, my past error will serve to make my initial points.
Like everyone else, we used Matthew 18:15-20 as a schematic for church discipline. That was our first mistake. The passage has nothing to do with church discipline, it is clearly a procedure initiated by Christ to resolve conflict among Christians. But worse yet, we didn’t even use the wrong text the right way once we decided to use it that way. Like many elder bodies, instead of calling on the whole congregation to confront the individual before the fourth and final step of excommunication, we instead announced that it was a done deal, and the person was to be treated “like” an “unbeliever.” Supposedly, calling on the whole church to confront the individual was “impractical” because of the size of some churches. Therefore, that certainly isn’t what Christ meant, right? Wrong. That’s exactly what Paul called on the church at Philippi to do in the case of Euodia and Syntyche. We have no idea how large that church was and apparently it’s not relevant. Besides, if the church is really a body, and there is a problem with a member or organ, it is certainly the business of the body to aid in the cure.
As if that would not be enough, using a text for the wrong premise, and then not even following the premise correctly, we then instructed the congregation to treat the individual “like” an “unbeliever” and to present the gospel to them if they (any member of the congregation) crossed paths with the individual. In the first place, were we leading the congregation into sin by telling them to present the gospel to the person instead of discussing the unresolved matter? Yes, because their correct role was initially short-circuited by skipping the supposed third step. But in the second place, how do we get from “treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector” to “treat him as an unbeliever”? If Christ wanted them treated like an unbeliever, why wouldn’t He simply say so? The word “pagan” is the Greek word “ethneekos.” It means “ethnic,” and referred to Gentiles. Not all Gentiles were unbelievers and the Temple had a separate court for them known as the court of the Gentiles. Also, Matthew, one of the twelve, was a tax collector. To say that Christ was making Gentiles and tax collectors synonymous with the unregenerate is an assumption at best. Most likely, Christ was saying not to treat them with the same intimacy that you would a fellow believer that had no unresolved conflict with the body; in other words, as if nothing were going on, or business as usual. In the final analysis on this point, it is far less assumptive. And by the way, this is consistent with how Paul said to treat an idle brother. Rather than the usual fellowship you would enjoy, you entreat him as a brother, but you don’t feed him and give money while acting like there are no issues going on (2Thess. 3:6-15).
When it gets right down to it, the New Testament addresses several different circumstance that are to be handled in their own unique ways ( Sins against brothers: Matt.18:15-20. False teaching that causes division:1Tim. 6:3-5, 2John:10,11 Titus 3:10, Rom.16:16,17. Sinning Elders:1 Timothy 5:19. Broken fellowship between parishioners: Phil. 4:2,3. Idleness: 2Thess. 3:6-15. Gross Immorality: 1Cor. 5:1- 13). Though concepts from Matthew 18 could certainly be borrowed, to apply a Matthew 18 grid to all other circumstances requiring confrontation is sloppy hermeneutics, and that’s being kind.
Another important point to look at here is in regard to actual excommunication, or expulsion from the body. The only account that we have, or cause for an expulsion from the assembly, is in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13. This is the only passage were expulsion is not in doubt, and the reason is gross immorality of the sexual kind. Paul says in no uncertain terms: “Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?” And, “Expel the wicked man from among you.” Again, this is the only place where expulsion is explicitly instructed. Also note: in all of the other sins confronted in the letter to the Corinthians, this is the only place that any kind of disciplinary action is commanded! I think this is a point well worth mentioning. Paul motivates them throughout the letter to obey because of God’s promise of reward, loss of reward, judgment, the coming resurrection, etc.; but chapter 5 is the only place where God’s people are commanded to take specific action to remove a parishioner from the fellowship. I believe this speaks volumes toward an argument that church discipline is reserved for sins of the baser sort, those “of a kind that does not occur even among pagans.” Likewise, Jonathan Edwards agreed, stating in his Yale commentary that expulsion is only for the “visibly wicked” sin of the “gross” sort, and “gross public sin” accompanied by a stiff-necked, unrepentant arrogance (volume 22, pages 69 and 78).
But now we come to the other side of the coin that contains my above arguments, but states the value. Even in this one explicit case where we have a man expelled from the congregation, Paul does not declare him to be an unbeliever, but rather assumes the opposite: “When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.” Bottom line: nowhere does the Bible say that a professing believer should ever be “declared” an unbeliever for any reason; to the contrary, Paul states the opposite by assuming that the expelled Corinthian was saved. It is also worth mentioning that Jesus assumes that the lost sheep that stray from the flock are in fact part of the flock and should be diligently sought after (Matt. 18:10-14). Perhaps the idea that we can do this (declare individuals to be unbelievers) is spawned by the belief that it is the church that actually does the disciplining when the term its self (“church discipline”) is a misnomer. In rare circumstance we expel, but it is the Lord that does the disciplining outside of the church: “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.” There is discipline by the Lord inside and outside of the church ( Hebrews 12:5-11, 1Cor. 11:30), and self discipline (1Cor. 11:31-32), but there is no “church discipline” practiced by elders or the church. It begs the question thus far: how many different ways can the church get this wrong?
But now we come to a biblical reality that swallows hard when mixed with the information above. There is a fellow that is in the business of accusing the brethren of being unbelieving. It is the mode of operation practiced by Satan. Though we cannot find any reference to a duty of the church to “declare” someone an unbeliever, the Scriptures are replete with examples of Satan doing so. In fact, God calls him the “accuser of the brethren” (Rev. 12:10). And trust me, he (Satan) has plenty of reasons to bring the accusations as Paul did in regard to the Corinthian man, but in contrast, Paul assumed the opposite was true. We get a good picture of what I am saying in Zechariah 3:1-4;
Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. The LORD said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?” Now Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. The angel said to those who were standing before him, “Take off his filthy clothes.” Then he said to Joshua, “See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put rich garments on you.”
I might also add that in Matthew 13:24-30, Jesus said the following:
Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ ” ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ “
It is clear that the “servants” in this parable are unable to ascertain the true spiritual standing of anyone in the church. Christ makes it clear that they could be mistaken. It would follow then that we are in no better position to “declare” anyone an unbeliever. The whole notion is patently absurd, unless you’re Satan.
Here is also something I know at ground level from being a reformed leader / elder for several years: the types of “church” discipline being practiced today rarely produce a happy ending. Some Reformed churches that I know of have excommunicated hundreds of people, and have no outcomes worth celebrating. Out of all my years in the Reformed realm (about 15), I know of one story that turned out well. Funny, in the New Testament, we have but one example, and it turned out well. We know this from Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians. This is something that really haunted me for years; if our discipline was being done according to Scripture, where were the results?
The practice of something that’s not in the Bible with the wrong text, and the wrong premise, and then the wrong application of the wrong premise; maybe that’s why.
paul
Poodles Gone Wild: Reformed Leaders are Teaching Southern Baptists How to Drive
I entered into God’s kingdom labeled as a Southern Baptist in 1983, and I’m not blind to the many problems, well, serious problems within the denomination. In fact, I left the denomination for 15 years because I actually thought there was something better. As I pined away in Dallas, Texas, longing for the means to move to Sun Valley and join John MacArthur’s church, how disillusioned I would have been to arrive there and find Larry Crabb in charge of the “biblical counseling” at Grace Community Church. After reading Larry Crabb’s abominable Inside Out, I could have only stood shell shocked, and 3000 miles from home to boot. Also, the discovery that Mac wrote an endorsement for John Piper’s Desiring God, a theological novel that made Timothy Leary weep with envy, could have only added to the insult.
That was the 80’s; moving into the 90’s, after jumping ship from the SBC, I was nevertheless delighted to see Southern Baptist leaders recruiting the influence of John MacArthur and his Reformed Light theology. But my, how times have changed. For the most part, the Reformed movement, which has been picking up steam over the past 30 years, has been fairly balanced (as far as Reformed goes, relatively speaking) while adding many spiritual benefits to the evangelical community and even the SBC. But its (the Reformed movement) recent transformation in-process via “New Calvinism” is quickly becoming a fast forward study in lunacy. As a matter of fact, it would be hilarious if not for the fact that theology has life consequences. Always. This reality has brought me back home to the Southern Baptist Church, and also thankful for what I have learned. But upon my return, I see the lunacy I fled invading the motherland. The SBC is now moving from the barking Poodle in the Bud Light commercial ( Reformed Light), to the Poodle driving the car (too heavy / New Calvinism), with accompanied occupants in the backseat being terrified while the crazy Poodle runs other cars off the road and mows down fire hydrants:
So, what is the “New Calvinism” that the Reformed movement is morphing into at breakneck speed? Well, it primarily focuses around the Gospel-Driven Life and New Covenant Theology, but the crux of what is driving it is what I want to focus on here. Namely, hermeneutics. Namely, Grammatical-Historical hermeneutics verses Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics. I am going to keep this post simple and two-fold because really, method of interpretation is at the very core of what is driving all of the other issues here. I think my very simple definitions that follow will also serve the purpose of this post as well.
First, GHH holds to a (for lack of a better term) literal approach to interpretation. As the title would suggest, conclusions are drawn from the biblical text in regard to its grammatical formations of verbs, nouns, subjects, prepositional phrases etc. In the RHH, the Scriptures are approached with the idea that all words in the text are formulated for the sole purpose of projecting the finished work of Christ in both justification and sanctification. In other words, it is at least fair to say that the RHH is a much more subjective method than GHH. Many, many, many, examples could be given of how proponents of RHH often ignore tense, the location of the subject in the sentence, the plain sense of prepositional phrases, and which subject is receiving the action of the verb in order to come to a redemptive conclusion.
Though many examples could be given in regard to how these differences of interpretation effect practical theology and life, there is no more glaring, vivid example than church discipline. The difference in application determined by method of interpretation has been, and will continue to be dramatic. To begin with, A literal interpretation of Scripture will usually result in a very limited use of church discipline. Church discipline in the GHH realm will usually, and primarily, be applied to Parishioners Gone Wild. But in the RHH realm where the interpretation of every verse of Scripture is redemptive, church discipline will be seen to have a redemptive purpose. And as we know, the goal of redemption is to redeem us from sin, right? So, instead of church discipline being seen as a practical, judicial type process to keep order in the church, RHH leaders will see it more as a process to save us from any and every sin, since we were saved by the gospel, and are still being saved by the gospel everyday. In antithesis, GHH leaders will not see church discipline as a means of tweaking the saints in the same way Bible study and one on one discipleship does; but to the contrary, RHH leaders will see church discipline as a tool for fine tuning the saints. The result? Leaders Gone Wild.
I don’t even know where to begin to document the madness. There are a lot of Poodles driving out there. Instead of specific guidelines for specific categories of situations within the church; now, the failure to obey any, and every biblical imperative is game for church discipline. And remember, the goal is redemptive, so a mere verbal repentance that a literal interpretation would suggest will not suffice. More than likely, the discipline will be a protracted counseling situation (they use Galatians 6:1 for this) in which you will be in the discipline process (and not free to vacate membership) until you are released from counseling. As a matter of fact, in many reformed churches (including some reformed Southern Baptist Churches), when you enter into counseling with a pastor or leader, you are automatically considered to be in the redemptive church disciple process. I know of a case where an individual was meeting an elder for breakfast / discipleship every week. At some point, the parishioner took a job out of state, but was told by the elder that he was not free to leave the church because of struggles that were discovered in his life while those meetings were taking place. To leave the church at that time would have been the equivalent of leaving the church while under church discipline, according to the elder. This is by no means an isolated incident. Many, many parishioners have been under church discipline in the past without knowing it because their counseling turned out well, while others find out that “heavy counseling” and church discipline are the same thing.
Furthermore, as more and more Southern Baptist leaders continue to tag along from Reformed Light to New Calvinism, we have Southern Baptist churches bringing parishioners up on church discipline for non-attendance, not tithing, questioning doctrine, and just about anything else that falls short of holy perfection. It is unclear as to whether some implement a “process” view of the actual discipline or a “repentance” view.
What we do have, is a scary coalition of Southern Baptist leaders joining with barking Poodles and driving Poodles to supposedly stand for the gospel (T4G: Together for the Gospel [but what gospel?] ). Their new pastor-buddy club consists of those who hold to the GHH (MacArthur [I think, anyway] ), and several Poodles driving. As their doctrine (the driving Poodles) reeks havoc among God’s people in many other categories besides unbiblical church discipline, Al Mohler, MacArthur, and others continue to hang out with them in conferences to oppose the likes of Joel Osteen, who is supposedly a bigger threat to the well-being of God’s people than the Christian mystics that they give creditability to. However, as one example, I would be willing to bet anything that the divorce rate in Osteen’s church could not touch that of churches that hold to New Calvinism, which are experiencing exploding divorce numbers due to there view of divorce from a “redemptive” perspective.
I conclude with two observations:
1. The SBC is already on life support, we don’t need Dr. Kevorkian presiding.
2. Any SB or Reformed saints looking for a new church home need to be privy in regard to the Poodles running any given church; do they just bark, or do they drive?
paul
Piper’s Sabbatical is a Reflection of Reformed Idol Worship and Arrogance
“Is Piper taking an eight-month sabbatical to put Paul Tripp’s theory of change to the test? If he is, God help us.”
“Per the usual, Scripture takes a backseat in regard to judging such situations. In fact, Scripture isn’t even in the car.”
Well, I have read through several commentaries on John Piper’s “heroic” decision to take an eight-month “sabbatical” from his, um; stand by while I find a replacement word for “duties,”…….ok, activates. We don’t want to use the ‘D’ word, especially when we are talking about an eight-month leave of absence (this is sarcasm in regard to Piper’s constant dissing of “duty”; this dissing serves him well in regard to his sabbatical). No surprise, all of the reviews were stellar, as the Reformed rock stars of our age can do no wrong. But, I still stand perplexed in this development, especially in regard to the plain sense of Scripture, and really, just good-old-fashioned common sense as well.
First, from a common sense point of view, it’s inconsistent with all of the clamor about not putting Reformed leaders on pedestals. In his formal letter regarding this latest episode, dated March 28, 2010, he, himself, eludes to this by saying the following: “Not only that, others could use similar time away. Most working men and women do not have the freedom to step back like this.” Ya, so why are you? The very thought by him that he has a right to do this, also confirms that he thinks of himself as distinct from most other Christians, and Christian leaders. Eight months? Why not just resign and be done with it? Simply put, it’s arrogance. But, per the usual, all these guys have to do is mention that they acknowledge a possible objection, and the objection goes away like the wind drives away chaff in the minds of their koolaid-drinking followers; “Oh, he knows this is reality, all must be well.” Actually, he makes the statement in conjunction with the fact that he requested not to be paid while on his sabbatical. Apparently, the elders of Bethlehem Baptist Church rejected the request. Surprise, surprise. What a huge disconnect, some leader taking an eight-month sabbatical to reconnect with his family while getting paid. And he’s just like us?; struggling in the same spiritual trenches? Doesn’t seem to compute.
Not only that, didn’t he write a book entitled “Brothers, We Are Not Professionals”? What is more indicative of professionalism than some guy getting paid to take a leave for eight months from an incorporated church? Not only that, as well, didn’t he thank a well known Evangelical leader for inviting him to speak, by publicly rebuking his leadership (the leaders of the church he was invited to), from the very pulpit he was invited to, for honoring him (Piper) with embellished accommodations? I guess they treated him like a professional, or something. My guess is as good as any, as to why Piper and other Reformed leaders get a pass on their extreme hypocrisy. I guess, like GM, Piper and other Reformed leaders are just “too big to fail.”
But I will now address another issue that just makes me want to jump in the river. Per the usual, Scripture takes a backseat in regard to judging such situations. In fact, Scripture isn’t even in the car. Anyone who has a big picture grasp on the New Testament should know that such an endeavor by an elder is foreign to Scripture. Can you imagine the Apostle Paul doing something like this? Better yet, could you imagine the same apostle, with his scared-up body, being at that elder’s meeting? “You want to do what?” “Eight months?” “And you will be doing what?; spending time with your wife?” And would the apostle also insist that he be paid as well? I seriously doubt it.
But I may be digressing a bit, Piper’s reasons were stated as follows: “I see several species of pride in my soul that, while they may not rise to the level of disqualifying me for ministry, grieve me, and have taken a toll on my relationship with Noël and others who are dear to me.” First of all, these types of statements that continually come out of Piper’s mouth raise all kinds of questions: 1. Several “species” of pride? How many are we talking about? What specific “species” are they, and where do we find them in Scripture? 2. What do you mean when you say you “see” them in your soul? How, exactly, do you “see” them? Please specify. I’m sorry, but the guy was in an elder’s meeting; therefore, the solution to any of his problems were right there:
“Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. 14Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. 16Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective” (James 5:13-16).
I don’t know how many elders serve with him, but his actions make it clear that, supposedly, the prayer, confession to, and counsel of these men are not enough, he needs a lengthy sabbatical. In fact, he calls it a eight-month “….reality check from the Holy Spirit.” He’s such a super, high-powered, man of God, that he needs a special fix. Again, it’s arrogance. I could see a couple of weeks in addition to his vacation time. I could certainly see a cut-back in ministry duties, uh! I mean, activities, sorry; but an eight-month leave of absence? C’mon, what’s really going on here?
Well, we get a clue of sorts. Here is what he is quoted as saying in The Christian Post : “One of the goals of fasting,” he noted, “is to determine levels of addiction or, as Paul Tripp of [of?] Tim Keller would say, levels of idolatry.”
Per the usual, Piper can make statements like this and nobody blinks. Where does the Bible talk about determining levels of idolatry through fasting? I wish the whole reformed movement would fast and pray to determine its level of addiction to the teachers they worship. An idol is anything you cannot say no to, and trust me, not many followers of John Piper say no to him, including his elders. They can’t even say no to him when he doesn’t want to get paid for not working, and by his request! Furthermore, he mentions Paul Tripp, who believes that you can empty your heart of idols by determining what they are by identifying their relationship to sinful desires. These sinful desires are discovered by asking yourself “X-ray questions,” which are like interpretive questions of sorts. I believe Tripp borrowed this concept from Nero-linguistic Programming, a method of change used by psychologist. His treatise on this method of change can be observed in “How People Change,” published in 2006. Is Piper taking an eight-month sabbatical to put Paul Tripp’s theory of change to the test? If he is, God help us.
I suggested to my daughter, Heather, a missionary in PR, that this sabbatical could result in Piper repenting of his Christian mysticism. She suggested instead, that as a teacher that survives from novelty to novelty, that he will more than likely come back with all kinds of fresh, new ideas. Frankly, I find this possibility terrifying.
paul
Biblical Thinking Leads to Joy in the Midst of Trials: James 1:2-4,13,14
“But we must remember, the God who bestows the same blessings on the just and the unjust, may also shower us with the same trials as well.”
I don’t know about you, but I like it both ways. I want life to go my way down here and then retire to Heaven. Hey, I’m not asking for much, cats have 9 lives, I only want 2. Trials are annoying, disruptive, inconvenient, and downright painful. Wouldn’t you agree with that? I hope not. If you agree with that, you are well on your way to adding more misery to your life.
James begins with the word “consider” (Ecc. 7:14), or as some commentators note: “evaluate.” The first thing you must employ in a trial is biblical reason. Emotions will be there, but it must take a back seat to reason. Specifically, biblical reason. Verses 13 and 14 (of chapter 1) used to perplex me in James’ line of thinking here, and I confess that I do not entirely understand all of the implications in regard to trials, but think I’m on safe ground in regard to the following: (“Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire”) In the beginning and midst of a trial, we will be tempted. This is clearly the context of verses 13 and 14. How will we be tempted? By desire. Whatever meaning you want to attach to desire here, the following cannot be refuted; our desires produce thoughts, and it’s not our “desire” to be in a trial. Let the warfare commence; the mind of Christ verses desire. Desire and emotions produce thoughts that “lure” us away from right thinking that leads to stability and right doing. This can clearly be seen when Satan approached Eve to do warfare with her. His goal was to first change her thinking, and then appeal to desire. Obviously. Be sure of this; when you are in a trial, philosophies contrary to God’s word will come knocking and desire will be there waiting to help. The source of the desires James is speaking of is the “flesh” (Eph 2:3, Ro 13:14, Ga 5:16 Ga 5:17 Ga 5:24).
If you are looking to James for some deep and philosophical knowledge in regard to why bad things happen to good people, you have come to the wrong place. I can’t wait to meet James because he is a nuts and bolts guy. The last thing we need when we are in a trial is a long in-depth course in philosophy. The trials of life are no time to be figuring things out, James shows the way in no uncertain terms. Please hear me; when a friend is in a trail, do not take him, or her, a stinking book written by some big name theologian. Do your job, go to them with the mind of Christ and his compassion.
Our first thought when we find ourselves in a trial needs to be the following: “this is a good thing” (consider it ALL joy). James cushions his direct style with, “my brothers.” Before we get into the specific reason for joy stated by James, let me interject some other scripture that speaks to the why we should be thankful and joyful for trials: It is proof positive that God is working in our lives.
“If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons” (Heb 12:8).
Though this verse speaks of reproof, a reading of this verse in context reveals the very close relationship between discipline and trials (Heb 12:3-17). God is completely sovereign and always has a specific purpose in bringing events into the lives of believers and even unbelievers (Matt 5:45 1Thess 5:18 Pro 16:9). Trials exhibit God’s care for us and indicate that we belong to him. It also indicates the very working hands of God in our life. That is why 1Thess 5:18 tells us that we can be thankful in “every circumstance.” Furthermore, trials lead to comfort that equips us to help others have comfort (2Cor 1:3-7). Therefore, trials have yet another purpose of training us in order to help others.
James also cites the specific benefit of developed perseverance or steadfastness. Apparently, growing in perseverance facilitates growth in all area’s of life (“perfect and complete, lacking nothing”). There are many other elements of trials that could be gleaned but the point is this: pondering the various truths concerning what God is up to in trials should give us hope, joy, peace and assurance.
However, don’t miss what James says about being caught off guard. He says trials are of “various kinds.” Often, trials are not what we expect. Trials often come in a form or type that we would never dream could happen to us. Peter put it this way: “Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you” (1 Peter 4;12). What kind of trial could happen to me? Anything. Usually, Christians can be caught off guard by the severity of a trial (“fiery”). But we must remember, the God who bestows the same blessings on the just and the unjust, may also shower us with the same trials as well (Matt. 5:4,5 Ecc. 7:14). Being dazed and confused is not helpful in regard to sound, Christlike thinking. Sometimes, clarifying this reality is where you might have to begin.
paul
leave a comment