Mark Dever interviews New Testament scholar Bruce Winter on “cultural contextualization in ministry, the importance of historical background for interpreting Scripture, and bad contemporary ideas of leadership.”
Dr Winter brings remarkable clarity to the nature of pastoral leadership in the church. He deals very strongly with how we have become secular in our models.
Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor? (James 4:11-12 ESV)
White Christmas is a holiday movie favorite. At the core of the plot is the tension created by a judgment of character based on partial information. Betty Haines, equipped with half truths by the mis-informed and eavesdropping Emma, concludes that Bob Wallace is taking advantage of a retired General's hard luck to make a quick profit. She and Emma judge harshly. They judge wrongly. But they are convinced they have all the information. Their hearts are set and hardened toward the transgressor. His heart is perplexed and confused at their manifest malice. Then the air clears . . . and it snows and all is well.
I make judgments like that all the time. Just the other day, I did it once more. I observed behavior in someone I know. It was, to my mind, obviously wrong behavior. They spent money extravagantly, money they could not afford. I was convinced they were sinning once more. I judged them in my heart. The thought of judgment surfaced in my heart again and again. I said nothing to them. After all, I had already said something to them a while ago. I held this judgment in my heart, until . . . .
Until, unware of my judgment, they told a group about the gift someone had given them. Guess what the gift was? It was the item I thought they had bought for themselves. Boy, was I ever wrong! Subsequent conversation revealed that they were living far more wisely than I had ever expected.
This was another instance of prejudiced judgment on my part. I would say it was another instance among hundreds. And in most of those hundreds of examples, my premature judgments were wrong. When the facts come out, even just a few more facts, I discovered I was wrong, dead wrong. I sinned against them in my heart and sometimes with my words. And I was wrong.
How can this happen?
I assume I see clearly and know all that there is to be known. When questioned, I protest, "What other explanation is there?" OR "What more is there to be learned?" Diligent investigation? No need for that! hearing all sides of the discussion? No, I have the whole perspective!
I hear from a third party of what another person said or did, and I assume that their report is accurate. I act upon it. I judge based on it. If I share the ill-will, I pile on.
I insist I have the gift of discernment and by that I mean I see things others do not see. I act like discernment is a 6th sense, and is not subject to diligent investigation and evaluation.
I assume the other person is willful, that they are doing this deliberately. I assume there is no way they could be blind to their own sin.
I am a hypocrite. I would not want to be judged by the same standards. I judge quickly, without investigation, speak ill of the other with conviction and certainty, but protest when I am treated to such arbitrary judgments.
Why do I judge others so quickly? Why do I jump to conclusions with so little evidence? Have I ever heard one side of the story and found out it was entirely accurate?
Why do I indulge in speculation -- guessing at what the real motives and actions were? when I know little or nothing about it?
James says it is because of pride. Judgment is the action of the Judge; Judgment is the action of the Lawgiver. The Lawgiver is able to give laws and judge by those laws. The Lawgiver is omniscient and always judges according to truth, not hearsay. He applies the law without prejudice.
I am not omniscient. I am not objective. I twist the facts and distort their meaning in my heart, often without knowing it. I color my judgments with my heart's affection or disaffection toward the person. I often cover over the sins of the ones I love, and exaggerate the faults of those who have hurt me deeply. If I have a grudge against another, I interpret all their actions uncharitably. If I have become impatient with their besetting sin, I judge harshly.
This is why the Bible insists that we are innocent until proven guilty, that a man may be found guilty only after thorough investigation and coroborating evidence. Hearsay is not enough. One side of the story is never enough. This is why the ten commendments include not bearing false witness against our neighbor. God wants to make clear that the pride of my heart that judges and maligns another is out of bounds.
In the presence of hearsay, one-side-of-the-story information, superficial observation, gossip, or obvious ill-will motivated backbiting -- I am best to refuse conclusions, to be silent, to insist on charitable judgments.
But my heart does not find this easy. I find help only in remembering the One who does not deal with me according to my sins or reward me according to my iniquities. I consider the One who, on the night of his preparation for death, in the face of his disciples jockeying for suprior positions in the kingdom, commended them for continuing with him in his trials.
If the thrice-holy God, whom I offend hourly, sees all and makes charitable judgments of his adopted child -- who am I to scrutinize and judge and condemn?
But judgment sells. Slander attracts a crowd. People turn with indifference from a couple huddled in affection on a park bench, but gather in multitudes when a fight breaks out. We have an ear for gossip. We love to feed on the juicy tidbits of what is "really" happening.
Judgment and gossip are bad. It is wicked enough that it goes on in my own heart. It is compounded when it becomes circulated among friends. But now we have a larger field for action. Today we do this over the internet.
Does the internet mean that there is no more privacy? That everybody's business is my business and my business is everybody's business? All because we now have a global living room? Are we all in one household with one backyard, and it is our business to go about looking over everyone else's fence and commenting on what we see going on in their territory? Or telling everyone of the fight we saw or overheard?
There have always been public debates and arguments. Public people who write public opinions or engage in public debates understand that this is their calling and life. People with large influence know that the price of their influence is a measure of loss of privacy. We can review their books, evaluate their addresses and sermons made in larger than local gatherings, and do so with humility, knowing we may have misunderstood them. But their private and local life is not ours to evaluate or critique.
Pride lurks at the door. We want to think we are important. You see, 99.9% of us are not public people, and we are deluded if we think so. We are tempted to think that all our personal battles and perspectives are of greater significance than they really are. We now have a loudspeaker to publish our personal conversations to the whole block -- or the whole world. We can extend the argument to others and get them involved to see how right we are and how wrong the other is.
We are busy-bodies and the WWW offers us large playground for our voyeurism and our malice. We can engage in the private conversations of others. Now, from the comfort our homes, we may move out of our own backyards to see the weeds in neighbors yards, and in yards of people in other cities and countries! We can get out our laser listening devices (google) and eavesdrop on publicized conversations that take place in the privacy of other's homes or churches.
Then, without knowing the whole context, but certain that we do, we publish our conclusions and engage in the argument. And we can now do this to thousands. No more is my pride and malice confined to a handful of friends or a local church. I can attract a large crowd (and a crowd will come) by taking my judgments into the net.
Imagine White Christmas was filmed in 2010. What if the wrong judgments against Bob Wallace were published on the internet? What is the eavesdropping housekeeper Emma had a facebook account and a blog? And the Haines sisters each had their own public diary? Slander against such public figures would have drawn thousands of hits. They would have checked out their stats and congratulated themselves for unmarking the hypocrisy of the great Wallace and Davis. But they were wrong. How long would it have taken the wrongful judgment and slander to be erased from the hearts of their readers?
This blog is committed to edification. This blogger wishes to feed the souls of people who read it. That means offering up meditations and observations that make much of Christ. This blogger wishes to keep his comments about others to a minimum, and only to their books or articles.
This blogger finds plenty of weed-pulling work to do in my own backyard. I have enough work to do to discern my own heart and sin, to keep my eyes upon the great Savior who has made me his adopted child, and to serve the church I love.
Ah, the holidays.
It is a season of expectations. The presence of more things to do than at any other time of the year and they need to be done well, the hope of finding just the right gift, the desire to have a pleasant gathering with family (unlike the last five years when Uncle George was rude to Aunt Myrtle), the insistence that the kids will be grateful as they open the presents . . . etc etc etc.
I want a perfect Christmas, or at least a peaceful one. I want a Christmas where people are thankful, where the kids help out in the kitchen, where the husband serves the family by cleaning up the post-present family room. I want not arguments, no conflicts, complete cooperation, meaningful conversation. I want to be invited over to someone's home so we are not all by ourselves again this year in this new city. I want the end to my loneliness. I want my heart to be healed from the breaking of the marriage and the loss of the child.
I want, I want, I want.
What I want is such a wonderful season that the purpose of the birth of Christ is undone. I want us to get our act together so there is no eed for a Savior.
But what if I got the Christmas I wanted? I would not have the Christmas I needed?
What if, instead of expectations of sinless bliss and pain-free joyful gatherings, I expected the season to be filled with reminders that a Savior was needed. When the kids squabble over who gets to play their game first, or the husband or wife acts disappointed with the gift we took so much time to select, or an argument breaks out at dinner, or Cousin Fred has too much to drink yet again . . . what if this year I said in my heart, "This much is clear, we need Him. He shall save his people from their sins." Or how about this: "The best things this world can give will not satisfy as much the the One who is bread of life, who gave himself for my sin and satisfies me deeply."
If I got the Christmas I wanted I would not get the Christmas I needed. The Savior is present in this season in the midst of the sin and disappointment -- he shows his wounded hands and side -- and bids us rejoice in Him.
see HERE for expanded post
When I speak to the issue of liberty, people tell me it sounds like a loss of unity in the midst of diverse convictions. It is not.
Paul tells the church to be "of one mind," to be "likeminded." How it is translated all depends on the version. But the notion could be the equivalent of our contemporary, "get on the same page."
Indeed, "getting on the same page" can be used as a bludgeon against liberty. "Getting on the same page" can be used to hamstring fellowship and coerce total agreement.
The person who is ruled by the notion that "getting on the same page" means full agreement on everything is hard to work with. They are a temptation to others to be diverted to side issues, to spending large amounts of time reviewing and re-considering exact agreement in all things. All this is done in the name of "being like-minded."
It is also exactly the oppositive of what Paul is talking about.
So, let's take this set of verses:
May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 15:5-6 ESV)
Surely, this means we must come to agreement? Not at all, these verses are near the conclusion of an argument which begins in Romans 14:1.
From Romans 14:1 through an entire chapter, Paul argues that "getting on the same page" means NOT agreeing in all the details. He refuses to take sides in advocating one or another position as binding. How simple that would have made this debate: One eats meat, one eats only vegetables; Paul weighs in -- its the vegetable eaters who have it right; End of discussion. Christians would have been vegetarians since. And the Gospel would have been impaired in its power, and the church distracted with being identified by a side issue.
NO, Paul insists that what matters is not agreement on every issue. He insists we remember to respect each other's conscience, serve each other in love, and consider that God's interest is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. Paul, in the verse after to the ones cited above, asks them to receive each other, despite differences, as Christ has received them.
Being of one mind is not agreement in all things. It is agreement on the main thing -- the Gospel and its intended purpose and fruit in our lives. Getting on the same page means keeping the focus on main things and not petty things.
So, we may be in agreement that men are responsible as heads of their family -- and disagree on what that looks like in the details. One man makes sure his wife finishes her PhD, another finds she floruishes in the home, and still another makes a way for her to use her nursing training part-time, even in the child rearing years. Being on the same page is rejoicing in a Gospel that makes selfish men into faithful husbands who love their wives as Christ loves the church.
So, we may be on the same page that parents are responsible for the influences that are brought to bear on their childern -- and disagree in the context for that, whether public, private, or home-school. But we rejoice in the Gospel and its power to shape parents into men and women who raise their children in the nurture and admonition of Christ.
So, we may be on the same page that we are not to love the world, and not be conformed to this world -- and disagree in what music we listen to, but rejoice in the Gospel which shapes us into new creatures in Christ.
And, we may be on the same page that the second commandment applies today -- but disagree on whether we can have nativity scenes. And rejoice in the Savior who for us and for our sins was made man, in the womb of the virgin Mary.
Getting on the same page in the right way is what God desires. Getting on the same page in every detail is a club used to bludgeon people into submission and creates a diversion from the main thing. We all know the temptation to want agreement, often to support our own uncertainty. But there are some who live with the belief that being of the same mind means agreement in all things. I have actually come to see those advocates as worthy of opposition!
We need to help each other. We all see our application with great clarity. What we do not see is that it is a personal application. It sure looks like a universal rule! That is why we need each other to see that it is not so.
The list is endless. The temptation to uniformity is powerful. The temptation to superiority of position (more consistent than thou, more Gospel-centered than thou) is very strong. But Christ will be obscured and the Gospel sidelined if we become people who are known for our applications more than our principles. Christ is most glorified when God's people in Christ are on the same page that the Gospel matters most of all, and where he is at work, and there is Gospel fruit in someone's life, we are to receive them without judgment, even though we differ in the details.
I reviewed my previous post and wanted to edit it, simply to clarify and expand. The first post was less than precise. I replaced it with this.
Here is the context: I recently received this question from someone:
Q: Many of my friends see that nativity scenes are a violation of the second commandment, especially portraying a human baby Jesus'. What do you think about it?
This is a perfect example of where I think lines between specificity of the command and modern application take us into the heart of Liberty in Christ and the application of the Gospel in various positions of conscience. My calling was to ask question to help the person discern the mind of God for them, not to discern the mind of God for every person. Why do I say that?
My Reply:(there was a lengthy discussion with a few of us, but this is a summary and additional thoughts, in a NEW FORM)
This question highlights the issue of applying the word of God to our lives. And it shows the place for personal conscience and Christian liberty. I think the person asking needs to stop asking what their friends think and what I think, rather they should go to God, with Bible in hand, and discern how they are to apply the word of God to nativity scenes -- and do so. They are not make that application universal.
I believe every Christian must take the clear commands of God in the Bible, and apply them to their lives. In many cases the application is a one to one correspondence. Not stealing means not shoplifting. Not committing adultery means no sexual union with another outside of marriage.
But in far more cases the application is not a one to one correspondence. Can I watch television? If so, what programs? What in television is a temptation to me? How much can I spend on a car? How many pairs of shoes can I own? Is it faith or unbelief to have life insurance? Can I play golf on a Sunday afternoon? If my unbelieving friend invites me to dinner to discuss the Gospel on a night when it means I miss a church function, is it OK to accept? Is it OK to listen to secular music? How shall I school my children?
And MORE . . . Is it OK for Christians to enjoy reading about War? (does it tempts me to hatred?) Combat? Sherlock Holmes? People getting killed? Terrorism? Crime? I am serious about these.
Or take this: Is watching football an endorsement of violence, greed, exploitation, and the sponsors who do the commercials?
I could make a case that they are inconsistent, endorsing the exploitation of young people by a college that uses the sports competition as a primary fundraiser. I know Christians who think nothing of spending hours watching bowl games and would not go near a PG movie. Am I to make a rule for them?
The questions are very broad and there are a variety of voluntary activities we engage in where the same principle could be applied. Is that what Paul is after?
The list is ENDLESS. I repeat, ENDLESS!
And we are tempted to develop a lengthy set of case laws governing every situation imaginable. That is entirely the wrong path. What is the right path?
In cases where there is no one to one correspondence and where multiple principles apply, seek personal application and follow it without universalizing the rule.
I must apply. I have every reason to seek the application of Scripture to my life -- and to do so as unto the Lord. To say, "It doesn't matter, I am free" is not living unto the Lord. To say, "I think this is an area of life where I may partake or abstain and know I am pleasing God, but I sense God is calling me to partake" -- THAT is conscience toward God.
I dare not add to the Word of God. I also have no warrant to go beyond what is written, and make the work of the Spirit in my heart and life the universal rule for all, and to judge all by my rule. And I must turn from the most subtle form of legalism, to think my rule is superior and if the other person "got it" as well as I do, they would agree with me. It is precisely against such pride that the Apostles speaks in Romans 14.
So, what about this question? Are nativity scenes a violation of the second command?
The second command addresses making and worshipping visible images of God, i.e. mis-representations of God and worship. The two commands work in symphony. It deals with religious imagery for the purposes of worship, representing the invisible God in visible form. The ancient context was about making an image like a Golden Calf to represent Yahweh.
But it says nothing about nativity scenes per se. And it is written pre-incarnation. I can argue this way: Jesus was made man for us and for our salvation. He was a baby. No one looking on him saw anything unusual in his humanity. He cried and fussed and nursed and slept and needed his diapers changed. To have a baby in a manger is actually quite true to fact. The command is simply not that explicit. Moses did not speak about nativity scenes. I am not saying this may or may not apply, only that it is not specific -- and to say it is risks adding to the Word of God.
But I may also conclude that imaging Jesus as a baby is a half truth, and I will flee from that.
Both are legitimate applications. The command is not clearly about nativity scenes per se. What would be clear is this: if I saw someone setting up a nativity and then bowing to it, that would be clear. But to have a representative nativity scene on a piano in the living room as a piece of art, which we have, is not specifically prohibited.
This is the genius of the Bible -- God speaks with some general principles which can be applied in any culture, and those applications will vary according to the work of the Spirit and the individual's conscience. In my early years as a Christian, I could not attend or watch or listen to baseball games.
That was God's work in my conscience. And I judged people who were so carnal as to enjoy baseball! You may think this a trivial example, but it was not trivial in my conscience.
In matters where there is no explicit command, we must all make choices before God -- and do so with a conscience toward God. One man takes path A, the other path B -- let each be fully persuaded in his own mind.
But we may not prescribe our personal conclusion as the very law of God for another. That far exceeds our authority. It is binding the conscience with a rule of man, not a rule of God.
I would press people to apply the call of redemption in holy living -- and to do it in the details. Freedom in Christ is freedom to be holy.
To the subject of television, since my previous post was not precise on this, I think we need to ask what is appropriate to watch. In these days television is no longer as innocent as it once was. There are explicit acts and scenes of immorality and there are scenes of jesting about immorality. The question to ask before God is: what may I watch for the pleasing of God? If someone thinks they can watch CSI despite occasional coarse jesting, they must do so before God -- to their own Lord they stand or fall. If someone says, "no TV in my house" they must do so before the Lord. But I may not judge or despise others for our differences.
There are thousands of applications of God's word not explicitly addressed in God's word. Go for the application before God by the Spirit! But do not take up the place of God and decree commands God did not see fit to decree. And keep learning God's word and applying it so that you can grow in holiness.
So, hear me clearly -- to walk with God we must make those choices and do it knowing that we are pleasing to God. But Romans 14 says we dare not step into the role of law-giver and judge -- despising or judging. We may help each other with good questions and with respect for the work of God in the other person. We are to lay down our rights to serve each other too.
But we must not judge or despise. I am personally tempted to despise men who add to the Word of God. That is sin in my heart.
Read Romans 14 carefully -- stew in it, soak in it -- it is remarkable. In it, God answers ten thousand secondary questions that would rise in all the cultures of the world where the Gospel is believed. Paul was wise -- he knew that when we start into the answering of all those questions and application and start developing a list of appendices to the Law, we are on a path of diversion from the purposes of God and the freedom of the Gospel.
I can think of no better time to commend a new book on serving. Christ set aside his prerogatives as God to become a slave for us and our salvation. Serving is of the essence of the Good News.
So, it is with gladness I can recommend a new book by my friend Nate Palmer, called Servanthood as Worship.
Rooted in biblical theology, the character of God, and redemption, Nate brings us to see the glorious motivations we have in Christ for getting up early on a Sunday to set the chairs in the auditorium, or run the PA for the service.
Clearly, when you read this book,you find that Nate understands the realities, the nitty gritty, the temptations of selfishness. And he answers them with clear reasoning and good examples.
The church is a body of people serving together, not a service organization that provides a commodity for its cutomers. Service is among fellow redeemed sinners in the context of the local church where we know and are known in Christ.
Cruciform Press is the publisher and there are good uses of the new technologies THERE.
And there is a blog for further discussion HERE.
Best of all, this book is brief, readable, simple, applicable. It would be a great set of training lessons for any form of serving team in the church. And it would give people renewed joy and faith at the amazing grace of serving the One who served us unto death on the cross.
This could not do better at getting my attention . . . this is for real!
We need a Gospel large enough in its end to disorient us, to sweep us up into its glory. So, if we all like to take a part and make it into the whole, if we all like to think our viewpoint is the right one, if we all tend to avoid differences, if we need a large Gospel, big enough to extend from the beginning of the Christian life to our glorification, what is it?
That, says Sanders, is the Trinitarian size of the Gospel. Let me give some quotes:
The good news of salvation is ultimately that God opens his Trinitarian life to us. Every other blessing is a preparation for that or a result of it, but the thing itself is God’s graciously taking us into the fellowship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to be our salvation. (98)
Opening his Trinitarian life sounds an awful lot like 1 John 1:3, what we have seen and heard we declare unto you, that you may have fellowship with us, and our fellowship is with the father and with His Son Jesus Christ. The eternal Son was made man for us, and through his work, we are brought into the fellowship of the Godhead.
Justification, adoption, propitiation, reconciliation, redemption, indwelling, and the rest are all to this end – that I might share in the life of God in Trinity. That is, after all, what Jesus prayed in John 17, that they may be one even as we are one. I am not given the front row box seats on the first base line, I am on the field observing the game, participating in it. I am not watching the play from the audience, I am brought into the action.
Sanders notes that the Gospel outstrips all measurements and can only be measured against God Himself. (99) He goes on to show that this is exactly what Ephesians says. Letham’s great work on the Trinity supports this view – that our salvation in bounded by the breadth of the Godhead.
Citing Thomas Goodwin, Sanders insists that God does not bless us with all good things; he blesses us with Himself. (103) This is not novel theology. It is what Protestants have held for hundreds of year. It has just been buried under the rubble of user-friendly, self-help rubbish or under a pile of “Jesus loves you just as you are” therapy. God, in Christ, gives us Himself, through redemption and indwelling and glorification. He is the bread of life. He gives us himself.
I stood in front of hundreds of people 31 years ago and gave myself to my wife. She gave herself to me. That was a radical act. It was all I could give her.
In redemption God says, “I will be your God and you will be mine.”
The Triune God has undertaken in the fullness of his glory to bring men and women -- created in his image, fallen into sin, redeemed -- into the fellowship of the Godhead. All the resources of the thee persons are put to use to make this happen. That is large enough Gospel for all of life and death and eternity. Father, Son, and Spirit by grace giving themselves to us, to me -- and inviting us into the circle of glory.
Recent Comments