Germantown Chapel Men’s Bible Study, Discussion, and Fellowship, Saturday, June 26: “Our Strategy; Alignment For Life”
“The mind of Christ must be our mind; our Lord has not withheld any necessary wisdom from his children. Our works and what we do will flow from that; anything less is the worlds futility at best, and its filthy rags at worst.”
Some weeks ago, pastor Andy sent me some information about training in regard to Men’s Ministries. The primary thesis of the training was that leadership in churches should come out of the Men’s Ministry. Through discipleship, fellowship around the word, and accountability, leaders begin to take shape and develop ministries. This is critical because churches are defined by ministry (Ephesians 4:11-16). This information was an important reminder to me at a critical time because the Chapel is growing, and as it grows, this kind of strategic thought to get the Men’s Ministry from point A, to point B, becomes critical.
However, as I have been pondering these things, my mind is dominated by what I believe to be the dominate factor that is the life-blood of lives that glorify God, and result in real ministry that effects life in real ways; alignment. I fancy myself as one who strives to obtain a deeper understanding of how God’s word applies to life, and to apply it accordingly. But my propensity to fail at this is painfully apparent at times. Our natural bent is to “lean on our own understanding” and forget that God’s word is all we need for “life and godliness,” and I have a feeling I’m not alone in that struggle. Look, I have been an elder in elder’s meetings where a critical issue was being discussed, and all we were doing was throwing around our own ideas. Isn’t that our first inclination? When a question of life arises, we immediately begin to scan our own minds for the answers.
Overcoming this inclination is the difference between real ministry and the expenditure of useless energy. John 17:17 makes it absolutely clear that the Holy Spirit only operates in the realm of truth. We think that there is all kinds of wiggle-room that God will wink at and play along anyway, and it just ain’t so. When one goes to a pastor’s conference or “training conference,” the dialogue is fraught with opinions, Christian cliché’s, platitudes, and volumes of thoughts to equip us for an American Christianity that functions on sound- bites.
Therefore, my focus is alignment (the word of God with life), and ministry will come out of that. Let me demonstrate: Some years ago, I was in a Bible study that was also accompanied by several pastors. The discussion turned to the subject of teaching our children about the “birds and the bees.” For well over an hour, ideas were discussed and thrown about that included best-selling authors and other “experts.” Well, the discussion certainly didn’t do me any good and I confess that as a father, I failed miserably on that wise. I really cared, and knew it was important, but just couldn’t frame it in a way that made sense to me. Then it recently hit me like a ton of bricks: the “Song of Solomon.” Du. Why not a family devotional from that book to accomplish the task? It’s a hard subject, no? So why not invite God into your home to do it for you? As leaders are formed, and come out of men’s ministries, imagine a Sunday school series on teaching our children about sexuality from the Song of Solomon? It could be titled “Teaching Our Children About the Birds and the Bees Made Easy.” Think any young fathers would show-up for that one? Or, do you think any young mothers would allow their husbands not to show-up for that one? Also, imagine a church where very few fathers failed at that endeavor with the result being that very few children in that church learn about sexuality from the world. Think God could use a church like that?
But let me demonstrate how strong this inclination is to lean on our own understanding. Much better men than us struggled with this. In 2Samuel 7:1-3, Nathan the prophet and King David get together and start throwing ideas around:
“After the king was settled in his palace and the LORD had given him rest from all his enemies around him, he said to Nathan the prophet, “Here I am, living in a palace of cedar, while the ark of God remains in a tent.” Nathan replied to the king, “Whatever you have in mind, go ahead and do it, for the LORD is with you.”
This is one reason why I love Scripture so much. This account is so classic. And of all people, Nathan even puts God’s stamp of approval on the idea when there was no cause at all to think God approved of it. Just like us, with disastrous consequences following. The same night, God went to Nathan and stated the following:
“Go and tell my servant David, ‘This is what the LORD says: Are you the one to build me a house to dwell in? I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up out of Egypt to this day. I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling. Wherever I have moved with all the Israelites, did I ever say to any of their rulers whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, “Why have you not built me a house of cedar?”‘
There is only one way God could ask such a rhetorical question to David concerning history that took place many years before he was even alive. He was referring to the written revelation that was available at the time. Certainly, the question is not based on tradition, rumor, or folklore that David might have heard. In essence, God is saying: David, where do you find it in Scripture that I want a house built for myself? However, I might also mention that God uses this correction of David to inform him that indeed a house would be built for Him by someone else, and that David’s kingdom would be forever. This is known as the Davidic Covenant, and is an interesting study of how Scripture was developed by God over time, as David recognizes that it is new revelation that will be added to Scripture:
“And yet this was a small thing in your eyes, O Lord GOD. You have spoken also of your servant’s house for a great while to come, and this is instruction for mankind, O Lord GOD!” (Verse 19). Young’s Literal Translation documents it this way:
“And yet this little in Thine eyes, Lord Jehovah, and Thou dost speak also concerning the house of Thy servant afar off; and this the law of the Man, Lord Jehovah. “
God’s word must form our attitudes, thinking, philosophy, world view, behavior, and strategic planning; in short, it must saturate the full spectrum of life. So once again, and from yet another angle, I will impress this on the Men’s Ministry.
We must understand that the Bible is a superintended record of what God is saying to us. It is as if God is sitting right here with us. If God was sitting right here with us, he would not seek to convince us that His instruction was true, necessary, relevant, or effective. This is the way the Bible is written, with all authority, because it is not just a book – it is God speaking. Some paramount questions of humankind are: is there a God? If there is a God, what is God like? How did space, the earth, and humans come into being? Does matter have a beginning? All of these questions are answered in one verse of Scripture:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).
What the world has sought to answer with oceans of ink and immeasurable thought is taken care of in the first ten words of Scripture. The first verse of Scripture is a statement of fact, and God is His own authority, there are no sources that He can cite to substantiate what he says, this is impossible, who would He cite? This is what amazed the people so much in regard to the teaching of Christ. He cited no source other than Himself; yet, His teaching incited the testimony of God that comes inside of every human being created (Romans 1:18-23), and time after time answered the “oh, that’s why that happened when I did that or thought that.” This is why we read the following doxology at the end of the Sermon on the Mount:
“When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.”
Every word in the Sermon on the Mount carried the same authority as Genesis 1:1. Jesus continually said throughout the sermon, “I tell you” because there was no one He could cite other than Himself. His teachings carried with it the knowledge of how people think, and why they do what they do, and this became immediately apparent to those who sat under His teaching. He told them what to do, how to think, why they did what they did, and what to do about it, and without the support of any source but Himself.
Therefore, the Men’s Ministry here at the Chapel must understand the absolute authority of God’s word, and that its original meaning is preserved and superintended by Him, and that He will not honor any other “truth” but His own, that His holy writ speaks directly to us, that it is all sufficient for life and godliness, and that we have been made stewards of its authority, and we must implement it with the same authority as Christ did, and that it is the very mind of Christ, and to the extent that we do that, the power of God will be displayed, and that no element blocks the Holy Spirit from understanding His word or the execution of our priesthood as believers.
This is why Christ said the following in Matthew 28:18-20; “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
It is why Paul said the following to Titus: “These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you” (Titus 2:15).
It is why Christ said the following in His introduction to the Sermon on the Mount: “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Therefore, when our actions do not align with Scripture, we are not only breaking Scripture, but modeling our disobedience before others and teaching them to do likewise. Future leaders need to keep this in mind.
It is also why Christ ended the Sermon on the Mount this way: “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.” Therefore, it is very noteworthy that Christ began the Sermon on the Mount by emphasizing the absolute authority of God, and ended it by emphasizing the absolute necessity and effectiveness of God’s word.”
It is why Christ ended the debate with the scholars of that day concerning the resurrection of the dead with the verb tense from an Old Testament passage: “When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!” (Mark 12: 25-27).
It is why Paul told Timothy that ALL Scripture is “God breathed” and is the only thing that fully equips God‘s servants for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16,17).
Lastly on this point, Jesus confirmed the truth that Scripture is the very documentation of God’s words to us for spiritual life when He said, “Jesus answered, ‘It is written: “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God'” (Matthew 4:4). Bread nourishes the body (it was the staple food of the day); only God’s truth nourishes the soul. There is no spiritual growth apart from God’s word and His word is: “written.”
In Christianity, the battleground is in conversation. Spiritual renewal is lost or gained in conversation, and how the word of God is used therein. Creation came as the result of a conversation (Genesis 1:26). When Satan sought to topple mankind, he engaged Eve in a conversation (Genesis, chapter 3). When Satan sought to destroy Christ, he engaged Him in a conversation (Matthew, chapter 4). Christ fought and won in that conversation through the citation of truth from the God breathed Scripture of that time. Satan sought to destroy Him with that same truth. Satan used Psalms 91:11,12 to try to get Jesus to test God. In essence, Satan was saying: God has promised the Son of Man that he will protect Him, so prove that you are the Son of Man by jumping off of this ledge. Trust me, if you misapply the truth of Scripture to life, you are in for a hard fall, God does not operate outside of truth properly applied. The truthful application of Psalm 91:11,12 came after Jesus resisted the Devil according to the truth: “Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him” (Matthew 4:11).
Conversation forms life. Christ’s ministry was primarily a ministry of dialogue. Ministries grow or die based on what kind of conversation goes on within its walls. Marriages are made or destroyed through conversation. In this world, nothing happens until someone thinks something or says something. Question is, what are Christians thinking and saying? In any given church, what is said within its walls will determine its future. The goal of every church should be to align its thinking and dialogue with Scripture only. This must be job-one. The mind of Christ must be our mind; our Lord has not withheld any necessary wisdom from his children. Our works and what we do will flow from that; anything less is the worlds futility at best, and its filthy rags at worst.
paul
Darlene Bishop and the King
I thought I did my duty by writing at least one post about the Touchdown Jesus (statue) burning down . But I was eating breakfast while reading the newspaper this morning and observed an article entitled, “Solid Rock pastors: ‘Let not your heart be troubled.’” This is the apparent title of the sermon “pastor” Darlene Bishop and her co-pastor husband will preach tomorrow morning to encourage those who are discouraged about the tragic event. The article also mentioned the website address of their church, “Solid Rock” (SRC). Between the article and the website, I discovered that my initial report concerning the height of the statue only took the torso into account; if you include the fingertips of its raised arms, we’re taking about a 62-foot-high statue. Information on their website also confirmed the claim that people have been saved by viewing the former image as they drove past on I-75, while others were given hope when all else seemed lost. The website did not display any of these testimonials, but that’s quit alright, such subjects are never lacking in rich material.
Yes, a crises has occurred in the lives of many because a 62-foot-high styrofoam Jesus no longer stands. Pastor Darlene is quoted as saying (in the same Dayton Daily News article) that she wants to assure the multitudes that this is only temporary; apparently, the sanctifying power of this image will soon be restored. Though just an image, in both the article and the website, Pastor Darlene claims the image projects the following messages to people: Christ is alive, there is hope, Jesus cares about you, Jesus died for your sins, and rose again three days later, and you will be saved if you believe that. Hmmmm, pretty impressive. Other messages projected by the image to people and reported directly to me are as follows: “it’s cartoonish,” “it’s the most retarded thing I have ever seen in my life,” “it makes Christians look foolish,” it’s racist,” “it’s a freak show,” “couldn’t the money have been used for something more worthy?”
That’s the problem with images, they project ambiguity; and worse yet, they often project whatever people want them to project. It is often the same reason we prefer pets over people: “You wuv me soooo much don’t you Sparky? Ya you do, ya you do. Isn’t my girlfriend soooo stupid? Ya, you know, don’t you Sparky?” Of course, dogs always reply with a smile, hanging tongue, and wagging tale. Pets would be far-less popular if they could argue with us. In the same way, many prefer gods of their own making (symbolized by idols) that never correct us. Images of God presented by us tell God that we accept him as our friend, but on our own terms. However, if you are a friend of God, It is on His terms, Scripture makes this absolutely certain. In fact, images are often reflective of outright rebellion against God:
“For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.”
Likewise, the Bishops call the image “King of Kings,” but it is more like Burger King, where you can always have it your way. Therefore, when it’s convenient, the Bishops quote Scripture. According to Darlene (as quoted in the same article), the Bible says that Christians are supposed to always make good things out of bad, so therefore, since the lightning strike was a bad thing, SRC must turn that situation into good by rebuilding the statue. Actually, the verse of Scripture she is referring to says that it is God who “works all things for the good of those who love Him,” not us, but the larger issue at hand is the fact that the second commandment in Exodus, chapter 20, strictly forbids making an image of “anything in heaven.” Bottom line: the image is a blatant affront to Scripture, and this couple could care less. In fact, they state on the website that rebuilding the image is a mission assigned to them by God. This, of course, is a lie, but yet another indication of why we like pets so much: “ya Sparky, Sparky, you want mommy to rebuild the statue don’t you? Suuuuure you do, give mommy a kiss.” But, also, according to pastor D, a breed among humans known as “Homo thinking sapiens” are strongly suggesting to her that God struck the image with lightning because He didn’t like it. Her answer to that was more-or-less: then why did He wait seven years to do it? Darla, Darla, Darla, hellooooooo, He waited much longer than that to torch Sodom and Gomorrah. He also struck your statue as opposed to the porno superstore right across the highway! And I might mention my point about the porno store was suggested to me by a person who would not profess to be a follower of Jesus Christ. As a matter of fact, I have had several “unbelievers” mention to me in a nonchalant way that, “obviously, God did it.”
Furthermore, the title of the message scheduled for tomorrow is taken from the words of Christ while He encouraged His disciples to stand strong during the paramount event of all universal history. She will use these same words to preach a message about a styrofoam statue. Apparently, they also have a message on their sign in front of the church that says, “He will return,” likening the rebuilding of the statue to the second coming of Jesus Christ. God told Jeremiah that His word is a “consuming fire,” and in light of that, such flippancy toward God’s word is ill-advised to say the least, especially in the same area where God has recently made a statement with a few million volts.
But I must say, a profound thought was suggested to me in all of this. Maybe the statue is important to the pastors of SRC as a “filter.” Yes, maybe the pastors want to draw those who are strongly persuaded by subjective images, dreams, anything that well-dressed people say, and other such nebulous venues, while driving away Homo thinking sapiens. Hmmm, interesting thought.
paul
When God Adds an Exclamation Point to Life
Located between Cincinnati, Ohio, and my hometown of Dayton, Ohio is the small town of Monroe. This small town boasts big things, and displays them prominently at the corners of its main drag where it crosses I-75, the highway that connects our countries north and south borders from Florida to Michigan. Specifically, on the edges of this super-highway, we have a statue ( representing an imaginative likeness of Jesus Christ) built by Solid Rock Church that towers some forty-feet high, the equivalent to a four-story building. I have worked on the exterior of four-story buildings; trust me, that’s a big Jesus statue. The statue has invoked all kinds of responses over the years from satire to admiration, and even claims of spiritual transformation upon the gazing thereof. In the same area, and inescapable as well from anybodies notice at 65 miles per hour, or more, is one of the largest flea markets in the world. Cattycorner to the flea market is Larry Flint’s Hustler Magazine superstore. Surely, no other town in the USA can wow so many people three times in less than fifteen seconds. “Wow mom! `Look at that big Jesus, is that what He really looked like?” Wow mom! Look at that big yellow shopping mall! Hey mom! What’s that?”
Well, you probably heard; the statue depicting Jesus, also sarcastically referred to as the “Touchdown Jesus” and “Butterball Jesus,” was recently struck by lightening and burned with a very impressive inferno against the night sky. Due to the flammable materials used to build the structure, the flames were of, well, biblical proportions. It almost goes without saying that the response to this event has been huge. Pagans are probably proclaiming a new holiday, celebrating the day that Zeus supposedly dissed Jesus, while atheist couldn’t wait to get to work the next day to taunt their Christian coworkers. Christians who loved the statue blame Satan, while Christians who despised the structure give God Himself all the credit, claiming that He destroyed what amounted to a detestable graven image. Others joyfully refer to the remaining metal frame as the “praying mantis.”
For sure, two facts clearly illustrate that God was somehow involved. First, the Bible makes it clear that God is in total control of all lightning:
Job 36:32
He fills his hands with lightning and commands it to strike its mark.
Job 37:11
He loads the clouds with moisture; he scatters his lightning through them.
Job 37:15
Do you know how God controls the clouds and makes his lightning flash?
Job 38:35
Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’?
Secondly, a reliable source has informed me that the statue, and adjacent building were properly grounded, making the strike a significant anomaly.
So, why would God strike this structure with lightning and burn it to the ground? And if He did it because He didn’t like the image, why wouldn’t He just strike everything else with lightning that He doesn’t like, such as the Hustler superstore on the other side of the highway?
To answer the first question, one reason is that Jesus doesn’t care if people know what He looks like or not, but He is very particular about people learning about what he “say[s]” and applying it to their life. In times past, God spoke to us (humanity) through prophets and other means, but we are in an age (time period) that the Bible refers to as the last days, and in these last days, God speaks only through His Son:
“In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe” (Hebrews 1:1,2).
Furthermore, Christ made it clear that He speaks to us through His truth as documented in the Bible, and other truth spoken and demonstrated by God in the past, and also documented in the Scriptures:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5: 17-19).
In addition, it’s true, Christ is our savior (John 3:16), but the following is also true: Christ is also Lord, and those who belong to Him must believe in Him as Savior and follow Him as Lord:
Luke 6:46
Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?
Matthew 7:21
Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Christ also said:
Matthew 4:4
Jesus answered, It is written: Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.
Bottom line: Christ is concerned that people live according to what He says objectively, not according to subjective images. Even suppositional images of Jesus, do not convey life:
John 17:17
Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.
Images do not sanctify, this should be apparent by the obvious fact that Jesus did not see fit to leave behind His image, but only His words as documented and superintended in the Bible. Leaving behind His image is hardly a feat that would be beyond His capabilities. In fact, images that distract from the objective, life-giving truth of Scripture has been a huge problem throughout redemptive history, and is the subject of the second commandment:
Exodus 20:4
You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.
Seems pretty clear, does it not? A giant statue of Jesus is obviously an image of one who dwells in heaven. Why would you spend $250,000 (the reported cost to build the statue) dollars to break the second commandment? But throughout Scripture, God not only tells us not to do certain things, but tells us why. And again, images have always been a huge problem. When Moses died, Michael the Arch Angel had to contend with Satan to retrieve Moses’ body (Jude 9). Why? Because Satan wanted to set it up as an image for the Israelites to worship, that’s why.
Ok, so why wouldn’t God do this sort of thing all of the time? I don’t know for sure, but this I do know: God adds exclamatory events in the milieu of life to kind-of remind people that He is not a God to be trifled with. Though He is very patient (unlike us, imagine if we could call down lightning on things that displease us!), He sees fit to apply attitudinal tune-ups from time to time. We have an example of this in Acts 5:1-11. Things where going great for the first century church, but apparently, God wanted to make a statement; so, two Christians who merely partook in an act of exaggeration (which unfortunately is sin) where struck dead on the spot. Ouch. Sort-of makes us all want to keep a leery eye towards the sky, but here is what the result of God‘s action was:
Acts 5:11
Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.
I imagine. Did the first century church develop an unhealthy fearlessness toward God? If they did, the exclamation point added by God cured the problem.
But what about our last question? Why hasn’t God struck the Hustler superstore with lightning?; or my personal preference, a F-5 tornado? This is probably the easiest question to answer. The Hustler superstore is less of a threat to spiritual wellbeing because it doesn’t feign godliness. Pretty cut and dry on that side of the highway; fairly black and white for most Christians. Besides, judgment begins in the house of God:
1 Peter 4:17
For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? [Pagans, atheist, and other naysayers, please note the last fragment of this verse].
I have some advice for the church leaders at Solid Rock Church. If you are going to rebuild the statue, build a statue that emphasis what Jesus says rather than what he looks like. Build an image of an open Bible 65-feet wide and 40-feet high, the same dimensions of the old statue. Then, in big letters on the inside of the open part, inscribe the following: “Why do you call me Lord, and do not what I say?” I am positive that image will not be struck by lightning. In fact, maybe the next bolt will strike on the other side of the highway. But does lightning strike twice in the same place? It does if God wants it to.
paul
Jesus Obeys For Us? Is That What We Really Believe?
“The fact that Christians buy into ‘the imperative command is [always] grounded in the indicative event,’ is just plain embarrassing.”
I guess the belief sweeping through Christendom that saints are unable to participate in the sanctification process is just fine with everybody. Also, we know that Christ died for our sins, but did he also live on earth for our works in sanctification? Was one of the primary purposes of His first appearing to fulfill the Law for us, and thereby nullifying a necessity to uphold the Law in the sanctification process by us? That seems like a major doctrinal angle to me with serious consequences regarding life application. But hey, I guess that’s just me. This neo-Reformed doctrine can be seen clearly in a recent post by Justin Taylor entitled “Imperatives – Indicatives = Impossibilities” on his “Between Two Worlds” blog. The title of his blog is a reference to the Biblical Theology of Geerhardus Vos. “Biblical Theology” is an interpretive process initiated by an eighteenth century liberal named Johann Philipp Gabler, who emphasized interpretation based on Historicism as opposed to dogma (ideas drawn from the text using literal interpretation). Vos supposedly took Gabler’s concept in a more conservative direction. Supposedly.
Obviously, all of the grammatical commands in the Bible with the saints being the object of the action (God commanding) is a serious problem for those who propagate this neo-Reformed doctrine, sometimes referred to as Gospel Sanctification. Hence, the post by Taylor (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/05/03/imperatives-indicatives-impossibilities/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+between2worlds+%28Between+Two+Worlds%29&utm_content=Netvibes ), that states that all commands in the Bible are preceded by a historical account of God performing the foundation of the command beforehand. In other words, we are not really obeying, we are merely displaying the obedience of Christ, who obeys for us. The only problem is the following: to suggest that this is a consistent grammatical pattern throughout the New Testament is an insult to any intelligence one might possess. Throughout the NT, God also makes His actions contingent on our obedience. The fact that Christians buy into “the imperative command is [always] grounded in the indicative event,” is just plain embarrassing. I address this in one of the chapters of my book:
Click to access essay%2011.PDF
The link is the specific excerpt, and catalogs many examples.
In this particular post, Taylor also displays the attitude among GS advocates that they are on the cutting edge of a new reformation, and invariably on a mission from God to save the church from orthodox evangelicalism:
“The problem with the typical evangelical motivation toward radical or sacrificial living is that ‘imperatives divorced from indicatives become impossibilities’ (to quote Tullian Tchividjian). Or another way that Tullian puts it: ‘gospel obligations must be based on gospel declarations.’
This ‘become what you are’ way of speaking is strange for many us. It seems precisely backward. But we must adjust our mental compass in order to walk this biblical path and recalibrate in order to speak this biblical language.”
In addition, the post is very insightful because several GS cronies comment in unguarded fashion. How this theology fleshes itself out in real life can be ascertained by the many comments (which had to be closed due to the number of Kool-Aid drinkers rushing the alter to drink from the vat).
“Alex” said: “I hear Tim Keller doing this a lot in his preaching. He will often organize his message around, “Here’s what you need to do, but you’re not doing it and in fact you can’t do it. You will never be able to do this until you see what Christ has done/who Christ has made you”.
“Mike” said: “….And all along they’ve been doing it in their own strength, because no one tells them they can rest in the finished work of Christ: both His passive obedience on the Cross and, as Chad mentioned, His active obedience throughout the 33 years before the Cross.”
Is that true? In the sanctification process, are we to “rest”? And are we to totally rest in what Christ has already done in our place? Remember, Alex also said that it is not us doing it [the obedience], and we couldn’t, even if we wanted to. To exert effort is to do it in our “own strength” (Mike).
Chad Bresson, another advocate of GS and a Christian mystic / blogger, further propagates the whole “Jesus obeys for us” idea in his comment on the same post:
“I usually take it a half-step back further in the indicative, including Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. The indicative isn’t simply our position in Christ, but is (more importantly) Christ for us. IOW, not only should we be encouraging our people to become who they already are in Christ Jesus, we must be reminding them of what He has already been and done for them. We *do* the imperatives, not simply because of who we are in our union with Him, but because Christ has already done the imperatives on our behalf because we couldn’t. When I can’t do any given imperative perfectly (failing miserably), I rest in the One who has. Christ’s imputed active obedience is never far from the indicative-imperative rhythm of the Pauline ethic.”
Bresson’s comment concerning Christ’s “imputed active obedience “ should need no explanation in regard to what he is saying.
Other disturbing elements of GS can be seen in a comment by “Bruce” who reiterates the GS belief that there is no difference between justification and sanctification, and that we are “justified” every time Christ does not obey for us- via our confession:
“It’s not that complicated: the ground of all Christian obedience is the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Justification occurs EACH time a believer confesses and receives forgiveness for his sins. The pattern of justification is illustrated by Paul in Romans 4. Abraham believes in the God who justifies the ungodly (in this case gentile Abraham), David is forgiven for his adultery and murder. God’s condemnation for sin has reached into history at the cross, glorification has reached into history at conversion where believers experience a foretaste of glory. Neither Old or New Covenant obedience require moral perfection, they both require obedience of faith….so, having been justified from faithfulness we have peace with God!”
However, in all of the comments that were made, there was one voice of sanity that arose. Though I doubt the individual realizes the gravity of this false, antinomian doctrine; what he said, he said well, and I will use it for my conclusion. “Andrew” said the following:
“To be honest, at least in Reformed circles, I find that there is an equally large problem of total fear of ever trying to live in a godly way. No one would express it like this, of course, but the “I don’t want to work my way to righteousness” attitude means that almost any time a pastor doesn’t mention the gospel before he mentions godly living, the Reformed community jumps on him for it.
And of course there is something very right about this. But if I’m pasturing a church where I have been faithful to proclaim our total dependence on Christ’s righteousness in the gospel and I’m preaching through James, can’t I pound on the need to live a godly life? And here is exactly the problem: there are real parts of Scripture that simply don’t expound the indicative first.
For that matter, imagine that James was a Reformed blogger and wrote his letter as a blog entry first. Can you imagine the fury of the rest of the Reformed bloggers? “There is not nearly enough gospel in here, James! How can you expect us to live godly lives when you’ve given us no gospel?!?! Justification by works? Are you mad?!?!”
Now I don’t think that James and Paul are contradictory. But I do think that this statement: “This is not how Paul and the other New Testament writers motivated the church in light of the resurrection and the outpouring of the Spirit. They did give imperatives (=what you should do), but they do so only based on indicatives (=what God has done).” is mostly true, but overstated.”
(Andrew Faris blog: http://www.christiansincontext.org/ )
P.S. to Andrew,
Andrew,
They believe that synergistic sanctification is a false gospel.
paul
Is Elder Infallibility a Tenet of Christocentric Theology?
I am presently working on a lengthy, in-depth article regarding a particular elder that teaches at a church that propagates the doctrine of Gospel Sanctification, an extreme form of Christocentric theology. As part of my research, I decided to read one of his sermons entitled “How to Listen to a Sermon.” I know, bizarre, but welcome to my world as I research the wacky world of the “gospel-driven life.” It is a world that is like a bottomless Cracker Jack box, where the surprises never end, and the reading of this sermon produced yet another one.
In the sermon, the elder strays away from the main point to strongly emphasis the idea that spiritual growth comes primarily from *preaching and teaching,* and is an absolute, paramount necessity accordingly:
“You think, perhaps, that [you] can fill up the other half of the plate with personal study, devotions, or quiet times, or a radio program. Beloved, you cannot. Scripture is relatively quiet on such practices. But on preaching, the case is clear and strong. Neglect preaching and neglect your soul. I know that some are kept from services for legitimate reasons which are out of their control, but I doubt that is the case for most. I beseech you, change your ways for the good of this people and for the good of your own selves. Give the Word its rightful place. As I have often said, there is no better place you could be than here, under the preaching of the Word.”
Actually, I believe “devotions,” quiet times,” and “radio programs” are added-in to mask the disturbing part of this statement, “personal study.” Nowhere , but nowhere, does the Scriptures ever say that personal study is expendable when compared to preaching or teaching. In fact, if I wanted to make the case that preaching and teaching could be done without, I would cite the following:
1 John 2:27
As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.
This verse clearly teaches that when it gets right down to it, the indwelling Holy Spirit is our teacher, and that human teachers are not an absolute necessity as this elder is clearly saying. At the very least, he is in grave error concerning the level of importance between the two.
But even more disturbing is the logical conclusion that must be drawn from this assertion. If personal study is expendable (please note; in his list of examples, he names devotions, quiet times, and radio programs in the same list. One can only assume that if they are in the same list to make his point, they share the same level of importance. Surely then, no one would deny that Christians could not do without radio programs or devotionals), then how could it (personal study) be sufficiently empowered to discern the truthfulness of the sermon? The conclusion must necessarily be that personal interpretation is always at the mercy of preaching. Do you think my statement is a subjective conclusion in regard to what he is saying? Think again. He actually uses Acts 17:10,11 (a text that clearly states the importance of personal study to confirm truthfulness) to imply that preaching is a critical link in the learning process, with personal study being secondary:
“In addition to coming with anticipation, we must come to a sermon prepared. Coming to the hearing of the Word prepared is both a matter of our hearts and our behaviors. I think the example of the Bereans in Acts 17 is helpful. Verse 11 says, “Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” We can note from earlier in the chapter what exactly it was the Bereans were responding to – verses 2-3 tell us that Paul’s pattern was to reason with his hearers from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that Jesus was the Christ. What made the Jews in Berea more noble than the Jews in Thessalonica? Well for one, they did not run Paul out of town, and secondly, they took Paul’s preaching seriously enough to go to the Word to test it [he is not talking about a test in regard to the truth, but rather, a nebulous concept of testing the Christocentric interpretation in everyday life. He covers this idea in another part of the same sermon. Note that “it” in his statement refers to God’s word, not Paul’s preaching]. The text here implies that there was an interactive nature between three entities: The preacher, the hearers, and the Word. Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word. An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word. The Bereans eagerly prepared by paralleling their own Bible reading and study with Paul’s preaching. So a good preparation for the public preaching of the Word is the private consumption of the Word. It will be the seasoning that brings out the flavor – salt on your French fries, if you will.”
Where to begin in the unraveling of this hideous twisting of God’s word! First of all, I had to actually draw a diagram to unravel what he is saying in regard to this part of the quote:
“Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word.”
Read the quote carefully. Think about it. God’s word goes *through* the “preacher” first, before getting *to* the “people,” making the preacher’s words synonymous with God’s words. Also note that he cites 17:1,2:
“We can note from earlier in the chapter what exactly it was the Bereans were responding to – verses 2-3 tell us that Paul’s pattern was to reason with his hearers from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that Jesus was the Christ.”
Let me cut to the chase here: what he is saying is that all Christocentric and gospel-centered preaching is infallible. Hence, any preacher teaching from a Christocentric perspective is also infallible. He also emphasizes this in his conclusion:
“On to our last point, then. It is simple. The lens set forth by Christ himself on the road to Emmaus, in Luke 24, is the lens through which we should hear very sermon. Here it is from the text: …everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled… You should always listen to a sermon looking for Christ and the redemptive plan that God has set out in history to accomplish through his Son. We must be Christ-centered listeners.”
In other words, when the Scriptures are being taught from the Christ / gospel perspective, error is impossible, and likewise, neither can the preacher teaching from that perspective be in error as well. If the mere intention is to present Christ from the text, the Holy Spirit then becomes involved, making error impossible. Another elder at the same church projected this same idea in an article entitled “The Word of God is a Person.” He quotes Robert Brinsmead to make his point:
“That which makes the Bible the Bible is the gospel. That which makes the Bible the Word of God is its witness to Christ. When the Spirit bears witness to our hearts of the truth of the Bible, this is an internal witness concerning the truth of the gospel. We need to be apprehended by the Spirit, who lives in the gospel, and then judge all things by that Spirit even the letter of Scripture.”
Said another way, the Holy Spirit “lives in the gospel,” so when your doin’ gospel, your doin’ truth, end of discussion.
Going back now to the elder’s use of Acts 17 and the original sermon of interests here, he completely ignores any sort of basic grammatical rules at all to draw his conclusions. He gives the following reasons for the nobility of the Bereans:
“What made the Jews in Berea more noble than the Jews in Thessalonica? Well for one, they did not run Paul out of town, and secondly, they took Paul’s preaching seriously enough to go to the Word to test it.”
But the excerpt he speaks of is a compound sentence:
“Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”
In a compound sentence the ideas must be related, this is a hard-fast rule. Therefore, the specific reason for their nobility is obviously in the second independent clause, which does not include anything mentioned by the elder. Furthermore, in the second clause, the proving of what Paul taught is obviously the (purpose) object of both verb phrases, both directly and indirectly. Clearly, the reason for their nobility was the fact that they proved what Paul was teaching to be true through personal study. Not only that, the elder also says the following:
“An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word.”
But this is clearly an improper correlation. “Daily” in this sentence refers to “examining the Scriptures” and not Paul’s preaching (which is not even in the compound sentence which begins with “now“ -introducing a separate idea). The elder is suggesting an inseparable correlation between preaching and personal study that cannot be separated from the word. Instead of personal study proving the truthfulness of preaching or teaching, he is making preaching an absolute necessity to understanding truth, with personal study supplying a mere “seasoning” to the preaching, instead of testing its truthfulness. Besides this, he also assumes that the Bereans knew what Paul was going to teach before he came:
“The Bereans eagerly prepared by paralleling their own Bible reading and study with Paul’s preaching.”
Not only is this an assumption, given the technology of the time, it is also highly unlikely. What tense in the text even remotely suggests that the Bereans “examined” the Scriptures before Paul preached? Clearly, the intent of this elder is to discourage a proving of truthfulness in regard to Chrisocentric preaching after the fact, but rather a prior, personal study that merely “flavors” the preaching instead of proving its truthfulness. At any rate, it is a complete bastardization of the biblical text.
I might also mention that another elder in this same church, and previously mentioned, preached a sermon entitled “Adam’s Insurrection, Man Jettisons God from the Educational Process, “ in which he argues that the essence of Adam’s fall was a rejection of Christocentric teaching that was outside of himself (Adam). The theme of that sermon seems to be similar to the sermon that is the subject of this post; namely, and at the very least, it strongly discouraged a mentality that elevates personal discernment to the same level of teaching outside of ourselves.
So, it now begs the question that is the subject of this post; in regard to elders teaching from the Christocentric perspective, does Christocentric theology teach that they are infallible? Or, is this just unique in regard to this particular church? Yet, another question could be asked: how many parishioners who heard either of the above mentioned sermons ran for the exit doors? But to answer the first question, I suspect that this belief is more than likely to be prominent among churches that hold to Christocentric theology.
paul
2 comments