BIBLICAL INSTRUCTION: Monologue or Dialogue?

Natural Extremists

We are prone to extremes.  One issue we tend to go to one extreme or the other on in the church is that of biblical learning.  On the one hand, there are those who are committed to preaching the Bible in the form of monologue.  When they think of Christians learning the Bible, they envision a lone preacher standing before a crowd, delivering a studied and crafted sermon in the power of the Holy Spirit, spitting presuppositions and propositional truth.

On the other hand, there are those who are committed to learning the Bible through sharing and dialogue.  When they think of Christians learning the Bible they picture a group of friends sitting down together to share how the Bible impacts them personally.  They see themselves sitting with friends over lattes in a coffee shop, or over dinner in a home, informally discussing what a portion of scripture means to each person in the group.   They value the contributions and interpretations of each person who is present.

I’ve seen some people who are so committed to teaching and preaching the Bible in monologue, that they are skeptical of any kind of sharing context where multiple people contribute opinions and perspectives on the meaning or relevance of the Bible.  Still I’ve seen other people who are so committed to the truth that “God can and wants to speak through all believers” come to a place where there is no room in their thinking for monologue preaching, or designated pastors who serve as primary Bible communicators for a specific community of believers.

Both/And

My contention is that both extremes are wrong, and that this is one of many areas Christians need to have a Both/And way of thinking.  I believe the reasons the monologue crowd values their preferred method are generally biblical, and that the reasons the dialogue crowd values their preferred method are generally biblical as well.  I believe that helpful leaders will help those entrusted to them by God to see the value and place of both monologue and dialogue in growing the church in the knowledge of God through His Word.

A Small Case for Monologue

1 Corinthians 12:29- “Are all apostles?  Are all prophets?  Are all teachers?”  These are rhetorical questions in context.  The apostle Paul is arguing for the unity of the body through the diversity of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.  Because we all have different gifts, we all need each other.  God has designed the body to be dependent upon Him by being codependent upon what He’s doing in each other.  Not all have a Spirit-given gifting to teach God’s truth in the same way, or at the same level.

Ephesians 4:11-12: “And He gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.”  Each of the gifts described here are Bible communicating gifts at their core.  Apostles preach the gospel and plant churches.  Evangelists major in preaching the gospel and equipping Christians to do effectively do the same.  Prophets have a teaching ministry that is trans-movement/denomination, and a ministry which applies biblical truth to timely issues under the spontaneous leading and enablement of the Holy Spirit.  Pastors and teachers give biblical counsel and didactic instruction of the Word to God’s people.  But four times we are told that only “some” are given by God to perform these functions in the ways these men do.  Only “some” are to build the body in these particular ways.

1 Timothy 3:2 tells us that an overseer must be “able to teach.”  This is not a requirement for deacons.  This implies a unique teaching ministry for those called to serve as the governing body of the church.  We can add to this verse 1 Timothy 5:17-18: “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.  For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘the laborer is worthy of his wages.’”  The Bible is to be our method for determining how to think about these issues.  That’s why Paul built his case from “Scripture.”  And what Scripture demands, according to Paul, is that some of the governing leadership work hard at teaching the Bible more than any other Christian or leader in the church.  Their job is so important that they are to be paid to fulfill that role as they do it well.

We could go on, but these texts amply demonstrate that God intends there to be monologue-style Bible preaching and teaching in the church.  He has not gifted all to teach the same way.  He does not gift all to deduce the meaning of Scripture the same way.  Specifically, men who are called to be the leader of the leaders in the church are Spirit-gifted to preach the Word, and be the doctrine-setting authority in the local church.

A Small Case for Dialogue

But I’m not just for monologue in the church, but for dialogue as well, and so is the Bible.

Colossians 3:16- “Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.”  This exhortation was given to all the members of the Colossian church.  They were all to play a part in “teaching and admonishing one another.”

Hebrews 10:24-25: “And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.”  If there are a couple verses that support the idea of believers encouraging each other in small group community over lattes, these are them.  Considerately stirring each other up to love God and people, and serve God people as we “gather,” is the job of “us” as believers, not just “me” as a pastor.

Conclusion

Preaching the word in monologue is biblical and necessary.  If a Spirit-gifted man isn’t at the helm, preaching the Bible faithfully in collaboration with other Spirit-given leaders in the local church community, heresy abounds, and the church becomes a pool of ignorance.  Men who are specifically called to fill such a “leader of the leaders” function are not allowed to function in their gift.  Frankly, some need to repent of their radical commitment to the autonomy of the individual in the church.  Some would reduce the church to a leaderless weak state in the name of all believers being “equal” and “usable by God.”  We are all equal.  God does use us all.  But the question is how does God use us?  For some, they are called to be primary teachers and preachers in the church in ways others are not.  Let them do their job for the health of the church and the glory of God.

Additionally, God really can and does speak through every believer.  God wants to display how He has changed His kids through sharing in dialogue in small group type contexts and house churches.   The Holy Spirit wants to manifest Himself, and His edifying work, through every Christian.  This means that while pastors need to uncompromisingly engage in the monologue preaching of God’s Word with authority, they also need to help the local church develop contexts of dialogue and sharing.  We need to get over our need to control everything that is thought and said, and remember that Jesus is the real senior pastor of His people.  To be sure, you are His instrument in a unique way when it comes to teaching His truth.  But the goal of your ministry is to enable the body to do “the work of the ministry” which includes “teaching and admonishing one another” without you standing over peoples shoulder all the time.  As pastor James Macdonald said recently, “The biblical picture isn’t that the pastor ministers to the body, but that the body ministers to the body.”

So, pastors, lets preach the Word like crazy, and take no guff for doing our God-given job.  But let’s also make sure we don’t quench what the Holy Spirit wants to do by not developing and encouraging contexts of sharing, where each member of the body of Christ can have a voice and be used.  I don’t do this perfectly, but I’m working on it.  Join me.

R U, Am I Bearing Fruit?

When life changes occur, and when the years ahead of us are fewer than the years behind us, we tend to grow a bit more philosophical about pretty much everything. I know for many, this sort of philosophizing is a good thing… especially when it results in the kinds of adjustments that glorify God.

I’ve been in that stage of life for the past six years or more. I’m learning things now that I wish I’d known when I was in my 20s. Here are some thoughts that have been either in the back or front of my mind for a while now. Thoughts about bearing fruit, which have to do with the meaning of life. I’m coming from John 15, which contains one of Jesus’ eight “I AM” statements in that gospel.

First, the John 15 scenario.

“I am the True Vine, and My Father is the Vinedresser,” Jesus told His men the night before He went to Calvary. Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit.” (John 15:1, 2)

Here Jesus introduces two possibilities. One is the possibility of the person in Him that does not bear fruit. The other is the possibility of the person in Him that does bear fruit. Later in the passage, Jesus describes the bearing of more fruit, and then much fruit.

Fruit … the New Testament has a lot to say about it. In some passages, fruit is equated with good works. In other passages, fruit is described as Spirit enabled qualities that show up in and through one’s life… qualities like love (agape), joy, peace, etc. In other passages, fruit is what shows up when someone repents. The new repentant one is now different. A noticeable change has occurred. It (fruit) can refer to a person’s behavior, which indicates what he/she is inside. Fruit is descriptive of soul-winning in John chapter 4. Sanctified worship is even called “fruit,” when we, with the fruit of our lips, give thanks to His name.

However we might describe fruit and what it actually is, it’s very clear that the Lord is looking for it in our lives. He expects it, and rightly so. After all, “it is He who has made us, and not we ourselves; we are His people, and the sheep of His pasture” (Psalm 100:3). Since He made us, it’s His obvious right to expect whatever He might desire from us. According to Jesus, those who bear fruit will bear it with in varying degrees—“some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty” (Matthew 21:19).

So there are branches in Christ that bear no fruit, those that bear some fruit, those that bear more fruit, and those that bear much fruit. Of course, Jesus Himself is the One that originates this fruit, just as the vine originates the fruit of each of its branches. It’s our live in Him, and His life in us, that gets it done.

No Fruit

Unfortunately, many believers in Christ don’t act like it, and don’t live like it. Notice from the passage in John 15 that these are clearly believers. They are “in Him,” which can only describe true children of God. Yet at a certain time and for whatever reasons, believers sometimes bear no fruit. Is it sin in their lives that’s the problem? Is it because they’ve set aside the Word of God and are walking with their own limited wisdom?

In any case, what the Lord does with this kind of believer is take it away. The Greek word used by Jesus is airo, which Strong’s defines as meaning “to lift; by implication to take up or away; fig. to raise (the voice), keep in suspense (the mind); spec. to sail away (i.e. weigh anchor);:—away with, bear (up), carry, lift up, loose, make to doubt, put away, remove, take (away, up).

I greatly favor and agree with Bruce Wilkinson’s interpretation of this verse from his classic little book The Secrets of the Vine. In that book Wilkinson translates airo as meaning to lift up, in the same way that a vineyard owner lifts up the branches that are hanging low and too close to the ground. When that happens, these branches are subject to dirt, mold, and disease. So the grape farmer comes by and literally lifts up these branches, cleans them off with water, and then attaches them securely to the trellis. In practically no time at all, life returns to the branch, and eventually fruit is the result.

This “lifting up” of a branch that’s too close to the earth (i.e., carnality and worldliness) takes place through the twin processes of conviction and discipline. The Lord convinces us of the bad place we’re in, and He also may bring circumstances into our lives which give us a good spanking. This is done because He loves us and has our absolute best in mind (see Hebrews 12:5-11).

Fruit

This condition generally describes the believer that is not currently under discipline or conviction, at least not to any large degree. The Word of God within him is doing its work, and fruit is the result. It’s not more fruit, and it’s not much fruit, but it’s still fruit… a very good thing. It’s been produced by Christ Himself, who is the Vine. The branch is somewhat healthy, lifted up from the earth/world, and is receiving His life.

More Fruit

The process of producing more fruit has to do with pruning. Have you ever seen a vineyard after it’s been pruned? It looks like there’s nothing there, like it could never again produce a single grape!

Of course, pruning has to do with removal. Removal of the unnecessary. Removal of that which is using up too much of the Vine’s life, and wasting it. Removal of hindrances and barriers to greater fruitfulness.

Ouch. Naturally, we don’t like to be pruned, but it has to happen. This attitude must go and be replaced by a new one. That habit must go. This character flaw must be severely adjusted. That possession/toy/recreational pursuit/business interest/hobby is sapping my spiritual strength and diverting the Vine’s power from the core of my being. The Vinedresser cuts it off. He prunes it away. At first, we object. We don’t understand what’s happening. But eventually, we experience another level of life, freedom, and fruitfulness. We didn’t need that thing after all. It was just dead wood. It needed to be lopped off, although we didn’t know it at the time.

This, of course, is the work of our Eternally Wise Heavenly Father. Father knows best, and He loves us. When He takes out His pruning shears and saw, He is not trying to hurt us. He is zealous to get more of the life of His Son flowing through our lives. Therefore, He cuts away. But in the cutting, He knows exactly how much and when to cut. Again, He is our Eternally Wise Heavenly Father. He does not cut randomly or carelessly. He knows which parts of us have to go. He does all things well.

Our part in this is to cooperate and not try to wiggle out from under His shears. We also need to recognize this process, because that will help us endure it. We will eventually say to ourselves, as we obtain more experience being under the Vinedresser’s masterful care, that we need this.

The lovely result is “more fruit.” At this point, we’re closer to fulfilling the purpose for which we’ve been created than ever. We are starting to be like Joseph, described in the following passage:

“Joseph is a fruitful bough, a fruitful bough by a well; his branches run over the wall. The archers have bitterly grieved him, shot at him and hated him. But his bow remained in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the Mighty God of Jacob (From there is the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel)…” (Genesis 49:22-24)

Much Fruit

There is a way to go from “more” fruit to “much” fruit, but it’s sort of a tricky thing. It runs counter to our natures. In our way of thinking, “much” fruit must be the result of trying harder to produce “more” fruit. We just ramp things up a bit, and much fruit will be the result.

Not so. Going from more fruit to much fruit happens through an unexpected process called abiding. It’s not a step forward in the sense of more activity and human inertia, but rather a step backward perhaps. It may even be a “less is more” sort of thing. Less work, less effort, less anxiety, less striving, maybe even less planning. In the place of these things is this mysterious, elusive, yet wonderful thing called abiding. Remaining. Resting. Living. Being at home with. Resting comfortably in the presence of. Dwelling in. Being present with. That’s the key, according to Jesus.

Abiding is a two way deal. The believer abides in the Vine, and the Vine abides in the believer. The believer learns to remain in, rest in, live in, be at home with, rest comfortably in the presence of, and dwell with Christ Himself. Conversely, the believer learns to allow Christ to remain in, rest in, live in, be at home with, rest comfortably in the presence of, and dwell with him/her. Paul tells us that this part of the relationship happens by faith:

“…That Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith…” (Ephesians 3:17a).

In this stage of fruit-bearing, there is a conscious attempt to let go and let God. It’s the New Covenant as Paul described it in 2 Corinthians 3:5:

“Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God…”

“Everything coming from God, nothing coming from me” (as Ray Stedman phrased it in his great book Authentic Christianity).

I have to ask myself the question, which measure of fruitfulness describes my life?

Am I in the fruitless stage, where I need the conviction of the Holy Spirit and discipline of my Father to free me from self and worldliness? Have I allowed the world to squeeze me into its mold? To put it another way, do I need a spiritual spanking from the Lord?

Or is my life bearing some measure of fruit. If so, then I must expect pruning. No vinedresser would ever let his vines grow wild year after year. They must be pruned, or eventually they’ll be incapable of bearing any fruit at all. Are you going through a time of pruning in your life right now? If so, rejoice! The good news is that you must have been doing something right. Now it’s time for more work to be done, usually inside of the heart.

Finally, there is the possibility that pruning has been taking place for many years. Now the Lord is asking for me. He wants my heart, my love, my devotion, my very life. He wants to produce fruit, more fruit, and much fruit, true… but He also wants me. He wants that kind of closeness that John the apostle knew with Him, leaning upon His breast. What a wonderful picture that is! A grown man leaning on the breast of the Savior. John would refer to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” John knew about abiding, that’s for sure. It’s no wonder to me that he was also known as the apostle of love. Fruit. The fruit of the Spirit is love.

Personally, I’m aware of the fact that I’m currently going through a very challenging period of life. I know the Lord will work it all out for good in the end, I’m confident of that. I’m also very blessed to know that the Vinedresser and the Vine are active in my life. He is working a work that will last and that is real.

Thanks for reading.

 

Bill Holdridge

 

Intentionally Limiting…

I love living in the day and age in which we live. We have immediate access to information and I love information! Let’s be honest, I am an information junkie. Growing up in a heavily technological age and then with the internet coming onto the scene, I feel that I have lived my entire life on information overload.

God has been doing much in my heart and life lately. Things like quietness, solitude and simplicity have been at the fore of my heart and mind. I find God is continually simplifying and refining my life. But as God has been stirring my heart for simplicity, I have begun to realize something about all of this information. When you have access to everything, you end up being an inch deep and mile wide. Let me explain it to you. Back in times before there was unlimited access to information, people got to go down deep with just a few things. Instead of scavenging everywhere in unlimited fields, people knew one field very well. Today it is not so. For most people (including myself), we have such access to information that we rarely ever connect to the ethos of few things. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not making a moral judgment about this. Instead I am trying to articulate that the sword cuts both ways, in some ways amazing and in other ways limiting.

Let me give you some personal examples. When I first got into listening to jazz, I owned 3 jazz albums (Miles Davis – Kind of Blue, John Coltrane – A Love Supreme & Bill Evans – Sunday at the Village Vanguard). I listened to those albums over and over and over again for the better part of a year. Even to this day, I can sing many of the solos on every one of these albums. I soaked myself in them and they became part of who I am. But then the world of unlimited music kicked in. Before I knew it, I owned thousands of albums. I grazed in each field but never truly got to know any of those fields nor internalized the music.

Fast forward to my conversion. I had a Bible and I devoured it. Someone gave me a copy of JI Packer’s Knowing God and Andrew Murray’s Humility (I think they were trying to tell me something ;-). I devoured those books. Read them over and over and over again. But in the same way, ultimately the world of Christian books opened to me. Now thousands of titles later (in print, e-book, and on various computer programs), I find myself an inch deep and a mile wide with everything. I imagine that many of you are like me. You get a new book (or album), you read a bit of it and then you never finish it. You get going, you get distracted reading something else and then you put it down.

So I decided to take action and intentionally limit my reading. I decided that I was going to focus on a few authors for the entire year. I decided that I was going to spend an entire year with Eugene Peterson, Abraham Heschel, Henri Nouwen and John Stott. I have to be honest, it has been a total blast! I feel like I am soaking in these men’s writings in a much more special way than just grazing. By making an intentional decision to soak rather than graze, I find myself being shaped in new and different ways.

So my question would be this, “If you were to chose four authors to focus on this year, who would they be and why?” I’m not saying your ‘Desert Island Authors’. But those who would be nourishing your soul specifically right now and why. I am also assuming that you would be reading the Word of God.

Blessings

PREACHING FOR DECISIONS

To Preach or Be Personable

As I survey the landscape of much of Christian ministry, it seems clear that the preferred evangelistic method of the day is to be relational, and missional.  For many, the days of preaching the gospel openly to a crowd (at church or anywhere) and calling for people to believe then and there isn’t effective or necessary.  Instead, people say what we need is to focus singularly on making long-term friendships with people who don’t know Jesus, and evangelize them through acts of service and conversation in the context of our friendship.

Let me be clear up front about the fact that I’m all for missional living!  I’m all for relational evangelism.  I’m all for organic witnessing.  But I think that our current obsession with the missional/relational approach to evangelism is only half of the portrait of biblical evangelism.  I believe that as we engage in the one-to-one relational evangelistic mission, we must not ignore or despise the place of preaching to crowds, and calling for decisions.  We need a both/and approach.

I come from a theological and philosophical background which promoted skepticism about calling people to respond to the gospel on the spot in a public way.  This is partly due to the abuses sometimes seen in the ministries of so-called evangelists.  But nut-jobs aside, I can remember hearing godly men give legitimate invitations to believe the gospel, and criticizing them.  I thought that it seemed like emotionalism, and lacking in emphasis on discipleship.

 Encountering Invitations in Acts

Today I give public invitations for people to believe the gospel and be saved every week at the church I serve.  I’m in a very different spot than I used to be on the issue of invitations.  What ultimately brought me to where I am today on this was surveying the points of appeal that are recorded in the Book of Acts.  As I set out to try and get a biblical perspective on invitations I had two questions: 1. Are on-the-spot invitations to believe biblical at all? 2. What is the primary thing offered to unbelievers for believing in Jesus in the appeals recorded in the Bible?

What I discovered in my survey of Acts were numerous points of appeal where the apostles called their hearers to respond to the gospel in faith right then and there.  Secondly, I discovered that the main benefit of believing in Jesus that the apostles offered to people publically was the forgiveness of sins.  It wasn’t a better life now or even a personal relationship with God (though of course the latter of these is not wrong).  The primary thing they promised people for believing in the gospel was forgiveness.  This makes sense considering Jesus’ declaration that the Holy Spirit is right now on a mission convicting the entire world of sin, and failure to believe in Christ. (See John 16:7-11)

A good example of this is seen in Acts 2:38 and 40: “Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins; and you shall receive the promise of the Holy Spirit…And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying ‘Be saved from this perverse generation.’”

Peter believed in calling people to make an immediate, public profession of faith in Jesus.  He believed in having them demonstrate that profession of faith with action (baptism).  He offered forgiveness to all who heeded him.  He didn’t do so casually or briefly, but with many words exhorted them to be saved!  This same kind of process permeates the testimony of the book of Acts.  On your own time consider the following passages: Acts 2:38-40; 3:19 and 26; 10:42-43; 11:14 and 21; 13:38-39;14:21; 16:3-34; 17:30-34; 18:4-8; 19:4-5; 26:17-18 and 28-29; 28:23-24.

 Objections to Decisions

For various reasons people object to any kind of public appeal to immediately believe in the gospel.  For some their reason is theological.  I’ve heard some from strict Calvinistic backgrounds object to such an appeal on the basis that it is God who makes the decision.  If you believe a person has to be born-again before they believe, there’s no cause for passionate appeals to respond to Jesus right now!  God will take care of their response in His time, so just relax.  They believe it to be miss-leading to tell people to believe.  In response I’d point out that Peter disagrees, if you consider his appeal in Acts 2 alone.  Whatever theology drove him there, he was perfectly content to make passionate, persuasive pleas for people to believe in Jesus right now for salvation, and get baptized.

Others object to appeals for decisions on the basis of emotionalism.  To be sure, some evangelists are simply able to stir emotions and get professions whether they preach the gospel or not.  But this doesn’t mean its wrong to be emotional when you preach the real gospel.  I would contend that if you believe people will spend eternity in hell without trusting in Christ, you’d better be a little passionate and emotional when you call them to faith!  If you’re not, I wonder where your hearts at, and how much you believe the gospel you preach.  I heard Pastor Pedro Garcia tell a story about a question he was asked at the end of an evangelistic service he preached.   At the closing of the service a man inquired, “Are you always this passionate when you call people to receive Christ?”  What was Pedro’s emblazoned response?  “How can we not be!”  Some of us need to ask that question.

 Objections to Common Methods

Still others are bothered by methods utilized to give people a chance to express faith in Christ publically.  We’ve all heard the “Now with every head bowed and every eye closed, if you want to receive Christ just raise your hand up, and I’ll pray for you” approach.  I used to criticize it heavily, and others like it.  Now I even use it sometimes.  Why?  The truth is that the most biblical way to call people to faith in the gospel is to call them to believe, and then call them to demonstrate that belief by getting baptized right away.

As a church meeting in a school, our baptismal is an inflatable portable hot tub originally designed for camping!  So I can’t call people to believe and get baptized at every service.  When we do baptisms we do them open invitation style, and its always beautiful to see how God uniquely blesses the call to believe and be baptized with conversions.  On the other weeks, I figure that giving people some practical way to respond is better than giving them none.  So sometimes I ask them to raise their hands as a symbol of appeal for God to save them in light of the gospel.  Sometimes we just invite them to come pray with us after the service if God’s spoken to their heart.  I find God blesses the offering of a variety of opportunities for people to publically express the faith of their hearts.  What I know is we see people come to Christ in our services when we give them practical ways to express faith way more often than we did when we weren’t offering methods like this.  It also helps us see who God’s been working in so we can follow-up with them.

The funny thing I’ve found is that most who criticize people who use methods other than baptism to immediately demonstrate new faith in Christ don’t call for immediate decisions followed by baptism either.  They don’t really call for belief at all.  When you consider the biblical record, to me, the burden of proof is on them.

How About You?

Do you ever make an appeal for an immediate response of faith to the gospel?  Why or why not?  What practical methods do you use to encourage people to demonstrate their heart’s response of faith to the gospel?  Do you think your theology or practice in this area promotes or hinders you and your church from experiencing the blessing of seeing people come to faith in Jesus the moment they hear the gospel?  Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments!

 

 

Good Friday….it’s the SHAME….not the physical pain/death

Heb. 12:2 …looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

As this verse makes clear, Jesus despised the shame of the cross.  He regarded it with contempt, He loathed it, He basically gave it no regard–He assigned no credibility to it.

But what specifically did He despise?  The SHAME of the cross.

The Romans were brilliant.  They perfected a method of execution that would declare they were an empire governed by a “rule of law”.  Certain violations of certain laws would cost the violator his life.  But before that life was extinguished, the maximum amount of bodily pain would be inflicted upon that person.  Crucifixion was the stroke of genius that made that possible.

But, they also recognized that the people they conquered and ruled didn’t navigate with regard for the “rule of law” that they believed they navigated by.  Those they ruled were primarily honor/shame based cultures, not a progressively growing rule of law based culture like their own.

In an honor/shame based culture, bodily pain isn’t the most damaging thing that can be done to someone else.  SHAMING them is.  And the Romans knew this.

They understood that something other than an incredibly slow and painful process of taking someone’s life was needed to demonstrate that their laws MUST be obeyed.  In other words, the threat of an excruciatingly painful  death was insufficient for motivating people to obey the law.

Honor/shame based cultures place honor/shame above the law.  They aren’t “ruled by law”.  They are ruled by their foundational cultural traits.  And any time the law of the land comes in conflict with their foundational cultural traits and they have to choose between the two….culture trumps the law.

How do you communicate that your laws are what must be obeyed in those times when they conflict with the culture of those you desire to live under your laws?

You use one or more of their cultural traits in such a way as to reinforce the importance of obedience to your laws.

The physical pain and the death produced by crucifixion was insufficient to be a proper deterrent for honor/shame based cultures.  Shame was the only thing that could serve that purpose.

So, those who were crucified were crucified completely NAKED!

As difficult as it is to say it…unless the Romans made a huge exception for Jesus, our Lord was buck naked when He was crucified.  (And because honor/shame still held a high place in Western European cultures, even the artists of the past would also portray those crucified by the Romans with some kind of cloth covering the person crucified even though that was not accurate!)

Public nakedness not only dishonored the one who was naked, it also shamed the group that their identity was derived from, (their immediate and extended family, fellow villagers, fellow vocational group, etc.).

Having lived and served extensively among honor/shame based cultures, I can tell you firsthand that the majority of the people in those cultures would prefer to suffer intense physical pain rather than bring shame upon the group that supplied them with their identity.

As Americans, we don’t get all of this.  But our rule of law culture and the individual identity component of our culture, actually filters the way we understand the bibles that we read.

Good Friday and what we focus on as we commemorate the crucifixion are an example of this.  When we think of the brutality inflicted on Him and we try to project ourselves into that kind of situation, we think about the terrible physical pain He suffered on our behalf.  And He did suffer incredibly.

But is it possible that it wasn’t primarily the physical pain He suffered and His death that caused Him such inner turmoil?

Is it possible that it was SHAME that really crushed Him.

Heb 12:2 tells us that He didn’t despise the cross.  He despised the SHAME of the cross.

The dishonor and the shame that crucifixion cast upon His group, (maybe including the other members of the Godhead, but certainly His family members and disciples), was something He despised, loathed, and ultimately gave no credibility to.  The SHAME of the cross was worth bearing for the joy that was to be found for the family  that He considered Himself to be a part of.

The Historical Problems with Preterism

I am more familiar with Preterism than I care to be. I will be frank in that I believe it is one of the biggest false doctrines in the church today. If you don’t know what Preterism is let me give it to you in a nutshell:

Pretersim:

The belief that all prophecies in Matthew 24-25 and Revelation 6-18 were fulfilled prior to 70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman Army. The period commencing after this event is known as the Church Age or Millennial Reign.

We won’t even get into the literal or figurative definition of Millennial (Thousand year) Reign. Let me also preface this with the suggestion if you don’t have wade into the knowledge of Preterism then don’t. In my opinion it is a complete waste of time. I was drug into this debate when I had a rogue employee who was causing grief in several churches over his zealousness for this topic.

The position that I want to discuss is the historical issues that plague Preterism. Most scholars agree that the Book of Revelation was written between 88 and 92 AD. Preterists argue that John wrote Revelation during the reign of Nero in the 60’s AD and not during Domitian’s reign (81-89 AD).

The question I want to present to you today is: “What was the age of the Apostle John when he walked with Jesus?” This gives us a key how old John was in 60 AD and 80 AD. You see John was old and frail when he wrote Revelation and his epistles. Stories have people carrying him into churches because he couldn’t walk. One has to be advanced in years to be in that state. (It is true injuries could’ve have caused that but no where is it mentioned that he suffered that and that he was the only disciple not to die a martyrs death but from old age)

Let’s look at an obscure passage to help us determine John’s age:

Matt 17:27 However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel.Take that and give it to them for me and for yourself.”

This is an interesting scene that is usually over looked but it points out some important cultural things about John’s age. The first thing we see is that only Jesus and Peter pay the tax. What about the other disciples? Was Peter alone with Jesus? Jesus wasn’t alone with Peter but only Peter and Jesus had to pay the tax because they were of age. You only paid a temple tax when you were over twenty years old. So this shows us that of the disciples who were present (likely Peter, James, and John) the rest of them were under the age of twenty. This would fall in line with how old disciples were who followed Rabbi’s during that time. Grown men with families did not follow Rabbis. Teenage boys who showed promise in the Torah followed renowned Rabbis.

If that is the case then John is probably between sixteen and eighteen at this time, which was likely 32 AD. If this is the case then John would’ve only been at most fifty years old in 64 AD and probably not the old man who is ready to die of natural causes. If you have him penning the book in 88 AD then he would be close to seventy five years old and more likely to be old and frail from all of the travels and the attempted boiling in a vat of oil.

So you see there is a history problem with Preterism based on the age of John when he walked with Jesus. He just wasn’t old enough in 60 AD to exhibit the characteristics that history attributes to him in his old age, couple that with the fact that there is no mention of Nero persecuting Christians outside of Rome and you have some major obstacles to overcome to prove this theory.

INEXPERIENCED AND ALL-KNOWING

When I Knew Everything

I had been a Christian for two years.  I was sitting in a service at a church I’d recently started attending.  As I listened to the pastor preach his sermon I found myself asking hosts of critical and, I thought, righteous questions.

“What is this guy even talking about?  Why doesn’t he preach expository sermons?  Why doesn’t he emphasize this or that doctrine more?  Why does he use that method to invite people to trust in the gospel?  Is this series ever going to end?  Why doesn’t he just hire someone else to take his spot and move into a subordinate role?  Why can’t he come up with a vision and mission I can get on board with?  Does our church even have a mission and vision?”  Blah, blah, blah.

 The funny thing (perhaps sad thing) is that when I was in my season of offering church leaders my hardest and most continuous criticisms over these kinds of issues thinking I was all-knowing about everything to do with church/ministry, I was totally inexperienced.  I’d never spent a single day in the shoes of a pastor, delivered or prepared a single sermon, led a Bible study, crafted any kind of mission or vision statement, trained teams, planted a church, or anything else.  And yet, I thought I had all the answers about how to solve everything those above me were doing wrong.

I describe myself during those days as suffering from what I now call “New-believer syndrome.”  This isn’t to be a knock on new followers of Jesus at all!  Not all new Christians go through what I did.  But the truth is that its very common for new Christians to go through a season after only being saved for a short time in which they get really critical and arrogant.  That was me.  My mindset was like, “Well of course I know everything about Christianity and the church!  I’ve been a Christian for six months, haven’t I! “

Getting Educated

Fast forward.  Now I’ve been in vocational ministry for over seven years.  And what God has slowly showed me through granting the education of actual street-level experience beyond the education of books I’d read and messages I’d heard early on about ministry is that I really knew far less than I thought I did!  I think back to those days of criticizing and challenging my leaders with embarrassment and shame.  I praise God that He was gracious and didn’t give me the cosmic knee-capping I deserved in my arrogance and ignorance.  As I got opportunities to lead I began to discover why leaders do things at times that I used to scoff at.  I learned that there are many things about ministry that you just can’t understand unless you actually are in the positions and go through the experiences.

 Meeting Others Who Know Everything

Now that I’ve been in vocational ministry, served as a pastor and planted churches, and have done lots of leadership training I’ve had the wonderful experience of meeting people who currently have the critical mentality from which I used to suffer.  The saddest and most heart-breaking thing I sometimes see is when people are stuck in this mentality five, ten, or even twenty or more years after meeting Jesus.  As I look back at my own experience and journey and observe others who are stuck in a spirit of criticism there seem to be some common contributing factors to developing this mindset:

1. Pride has always been a struggle

If you have a history of being arrogant, self-important, and a know-it-all in general before becoming a Christian, pride becomes an area of temptation the enemy really hammers you on in your new relationship with Jesus.  Much of those critical thoughts come from your own sinful flesh, and the rest of them come from demonic temptation at work in your mind.

2. They read far more books about the Bible than the Bible itself

For about the first two years of my relationship with Jesus the only times I’d actually crack my Bible open was when I was looking for a proof text to support a doctrine I’d learned from another book, or when I was at church.  What this led to was me using other books as my lens through which I filtered the Bible rather than me using the Bible as the lens through which I filtered the other books I read.  Because of this, when I got into debates about the criticisms I was voicing I would inevitably quote human authors instead of God’s word to prove my point.  That’s a dangerous place to dwell.

 3. They do most of their studying in isolation

Many people who come to Jesus today don’t get involved in local churches.  There is a huge disconnect here.  In the book of Acts no one who got saved refrained from getting involved in the life of the local church.  That isn’t to say you’re not saved if you aren’t in consistent community with other believers who make up a local church.  Its simply to point out that your willful practice of not being in community with a local church is way out of step with the biblical example.  God isn’t merely saving disconnected individuals scattered throughout the world; He is saving a people, a called-out assembly, and an interconnected, interdependent body.[1]

 The biblical example shows us that studying is to be done in community under experienced and equipped, spiritually gifted leaders.[2]  Personal Bible study is so valuable and necessary.  But so is study in community. Without others who are more spiritually mature and biblically educated challenging our conclusions and criticisms we develop unhealthy perspectives and unhelpful attitudes.

If pride has always been an issue for you, you read more books about the Bible than the Bible itself, and you do most of your study in isolation, you are a prime candidate to become today’s Inexperienced and All-knowing!

 Exhortations

Maybe you are one of today’s Inexperienced and All-knowing in the church. Or maybe you’re dealing with one of them right now.  If you’re dealing with one, chances are that you played the part of the Inexperienced and All-knowing of yesteryear.  But let me wrap this post up with encouragement for you both.

To today’s Inexperienced and All-knowing, please stop!  You don’t know as much as you think.  You’re hurting your leaders, not helping them.  And Jesus really is quite able to take care of His people without your arrogance and methods.  He’s chosen the leaders who are over you and you need to submit to Him by submitting to them, even though they are weak.  Have you considered that their weaknesses might be the precise reasons God chose them?  Read 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 and ask God for illumination.

To yesterday’s Inexperienced and All-knowing the message is simple- Don’t kill anyone!  Humble yourself and remember your own journey. First, repent to God for your former attitudes.  Next you may need to repent to the person you used to criticize.  After being a lead pastor for two months that is exactly what I had to do and it was healthy for me and the other pastor.  Lastly, deal with this mentality in those who come your way with grace and boldness.

“And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient…” 2 Timothy 2:24 NKJV

 “Preach the Word! Be ready in season and out of season.  Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.” 2 Timothy 4:2 NKJV

Peace


[1] Eph. 4:11-17; 1 Cor. 12; Acts 2:41-47; Ephesians as a whole.

[2] Acts 2:42; Titus 1:9

“I Love Jesus But Not the Church”

There was a recent Youtube video by a guy out of the state of Washington who talks about his hate of religion but his love for Jesus. There have been countless replies and I guess mine is no different except for one… I love the Church.

You see whenever people lop in religion, church, Christianity, politics, etc. they always arrive at the final destination that we are all Pharisees and that Jesus came to rebuke them. Anybody who has studied the Bible for more than five minutes knows that it is not only false but the exact opposite… Jesus didn’t come to rebuke the religious but instead point out their errors in hopes of seeing them repent (which in the end many of them did).

The church, or religion as they like to call it, is the Bride of Christ and it has a special place in God’s heart. You only have to read Revelation 19 to see that Marriage Supper of the Lamb is to the church, and most specifically the New Testament church. Jesus cares for and nurtures his Bride like any man would who is engaged to someone he loves.

We could point out a lot of flaws in the church but if we truly believe that God is sovereign and all knowing then we have to believe that when He created the church he knew it would be a place for perfectly flawed people. I, as a pastor, am comfortable with that. I love nothing more than seeing seriously broken people come into the church and be restored. That is what God designed it for and it is the only place it happens.

Let’s address some of the issues. The first knock is that the church doesn’t feed the hungry. Hmmmm, I don’t know about your town but in Lompoc the church is the ONLY group that does feed them and I am sure that is true in most cities. To say that feeding the poor should be the main focus, which is asserted by it reference, it shortsighted. No one ever has come to Christ because of a bowl of soup, but because the Holy Spirit was working through the church in their service to Him to move on the heart of the people.

Second, Christians don’t vote Republican because that is the Christian thing to do. They vote against the liberal, progressive, freedom-stealing policies of those politicians who usually happen to fall into the Democratic camp. Sadly the younger generation see politics from a social justice perspective where as older generations see politics from a personal freedom perspective. I grew up in a family that voted for Democrats by default and we rejoiced when Jimmy Carter was elected. What a train wreck! Now thirty-six years later he is seen as a knight in shining armor.

Finally you could say that you love Jesus but hate religion but if you profess to be a Christian then you would essentially be saying that you hate yourself. As a Christian you are part of the church (religion) and thus the Bride of Christ. And Christ laid down his life for you, the church, and all those Pharisees.

A Conundrum for Calvinists

I am reading Roger Olson’s “Against Calvinism.” It is a well researched and well reasoned exposition of the Biblical and logical flaws of that doctrine.  It reminded me of a few ‘conundrums for Calvinists’ I wrote up a few years ago.  Please allow me to present one of them to you.  Implicit within the story is why I, too, reject Calvinism.

I have been invited to your home for a visit.  Upon arrival, I hear noise in the back yard and note that the side gate is open.  Walking around the house and into the back yard I discover that the noise is being made by your two year old little girl in the swimming pool.  It takes but a second to realize that the sound isn’t the joyful glee of play, but the frantic effort to keep from drowning.  And drown she will if I don’t intervene.  But I have chosen not to intervene and allow that event to unfold into the eventuality of her death.  I stand and watch as your daughter thrashes wildly around, takes her last breath, and closes her eyes forever.

After a moment you emerge from the back door of the home calling the name of your daughter.  Your eyes are drawn to my figure and are surprised to see me there and say so.  My gazing into the pool pulls your eyes down and you see her lying silent and still.  Jumping into the pool you grab her and immediately, instinctively know that she is dead.  The realization overwhelms you.  You yell for your wife to call 911 and begin the attempt to resuscitate her, but all to no avail.  The emergency personnel arrive and their attempts also prove futile.  She is lifted into the ambulance and transported to the morgue.

In an attempt to understand the tragedy that has taken place and how it came about, you question me.  To your utter horror, you discover that I was a witness to the final moments of your daughter’s life.  I recount how I came around the house through the side gate and saw your daughter in a life and death struggle in the pool.  “Why didn’t you jump in and save her?”  Your question is asked through a veil of tears and in rising anger.  “Yes, I could have, but I chose otherwise.  I was under no obligation to save her.  It wasn’t me who left the back door of your house open.  It wasn’t me who forgot to close the gate to the pool.  It wasn’t me who lost track of the where-a-bouts of your daughter.  And though I could have intervened and saved your daughter, I am in no way responsible for the course of events that led to her drowning death.”  I defend myself from your unjust charge that somehow my failure to rescue your daughter reflects poorly upon me and throws my character into an unfavorable light.

Regardless of what I say, no matter how vigorously I defend myself, in spite of how logically I shift all the blame to you, you will think me the most despicable, most damnable person who ever walked the face of this planet.  I could have saved her, but I didn’t – that’s all you see, that’s all you know, and that’s how you will judge me the rest of your life.  “But”, I protest, “I loved your daughter so much that I would have done anything to save her from this fate.”  Your anger towards me turns to confusion as you think through the hypocrisy of my actions as measured against the illogic my words.  I say that I loved your daughter so much that I exhausted all my efforts to save her – except jumping in and saving her.  From that day on, you will want nothing to do with me and my bizarre way of thinking and nonsensical notions.

The Calvinist has a problem.  Within the Calvinist position, God has the power to save all, but not the will to save all.  God has done everything in Christ to secure the salvation of sinners, except to savingly elect them.  He can, but He chooses not to.  God can save all from the unceasing terrors of hell, yet He chooses otherwise.  Why?  To the praise of His glory (or so we’re told).  I could jump in and save your daughter, but I have made a choice to let her drown.  You have considered me (rightly) the most despicable, damnable person on the planet.  God can save all, but chooses to save some.  My choice to allow your daughter to die a cruel death makes me damnable in your sight.  God’s choice to do nothing while sinners go to the eternal horrors of hell makes Calvinists praise Him all the more.  What you find despicable in me you find laudable in God though His decisions affect billions for eternity.  I do nothing and your daughter has a few moments of pain and terror.  God does nothing and billions suffer the agonizing torments of hell for all eternity.  I am to be damned and God is to be praised.  My refusal to make a choice for life reveals my utter depravity.  God’s refusal to make a choice for life reveals His holiness.  Here is a moral disconnect.  I, too, reject Calvinism.

Calvinists give theological priority to the will of God, not the nature of God.  Yet the nature of God is more basic to Him than His will.

The fundamental error of Calvinism is giving theological priority to the will of God.  Nature is more basic than will.

Will is the expression of nature.  God’s nature isn’t arbitrary – God is love.  The sovereignty of God expresses the nature of God – His love.  Sovereignty doesn’t mean that God is arbitrary.  It doesn’t mean that He can do anything He wants to.  It means that He can pursue whatever course He desires that is in keeping with His nature.  The Bible says, “God is love.”

The Bible doesn’t say, “God is will.”  God has a will, but He is love.  What you are is more basic than what you possess.  God cannot will to be what He is not.

Calvinism desires to maintain the freedom of God, but freedom is not something God is too terribly afraid of losing.  The nature of God is love.  Love binds you to people.  I am in glorious bondage to my wife, children, grandchildren, friends, and church.  I am not free to do as I will in an arbitrary manner.  I am free to love; I am not free not to love.  Not to love is sin to one whose nature is love.  Again, I believe the error is giving priority to the sovereignty of God rather than the love of God.  Calvinists bend God’s love to His sovereignty.  God’s will bends to His nature; sovereignty bends to love.

 

Israel – Part 2

I received several great responses to the questions I posed in my last post; exactly what I was hoping for when I posted them. So with this post I’d like to give some of my own answers.

What should be the response of the church to National Israel in the last days?

I think it should stir us to be keenly aware of what God is doing [prophetically] in our day. As I see it the Nation of Israel’s regathering and existence in these days is fulfillment of both Old and New Testament prophecies. I do recognize that my amillennial brothers (Daniel) will not agree, but you will one day 😉 (sorry I had to). Therefore, I think that the church should respond by doing just what Matthew 24 and 25 say in parable, be watching, waiting and continue working for the glory of Christ’s kingdom.

That said, I’m concerned that we (the evangelical church in America) sometimes turn a blind eye to certain unethical dealings of National Israel because, “Well, they’re ISRAEL.” Israel is an incredibly secular society filled with sinful people who need Jesus and therefore we ought to respond evangelistically. Yeah, I know, that’s a given.

How should we interpret and apply Paul’s words “To the Jew first” in the context of 21st century Christianity?

Let me preface my remark by saying, James Class, I totally respect your desire to serve among the Jewish People in Israel. I believe your heart for this was developed in prayer and by seeking God’s direction. Therefore, if any leader comes to the same conclusion by seeking the Lord for missions strategies, I applaud them.

That said, I don’t believe, as a general rule of missiology that the church should begin all missions endeavors by beginning with “the Jew first.” Furthermore, Jesus commission to His disciples, to begin at Jerusalem, move to Judea, Samaria and the uttermost parts, should not be held over all that we do in fulfilling the commission. In other words, a church in New Mexico doesn’t need to send missionaries to Jerusalem or Jews before they go to Africa or China. I think the principle has more to do with doing at home and in your own sphere first what you plan to do else where in missions.

How should we interpret and apply Paul’s words “To the Jew first” then? Just as they were intended to be when Paul wrote them. The gospel, by order of who it came by, came first to the Jewish people, but was never God’s intent to stay only with them. The power and magnitude of the gospel is not only for Jews. Praise God, it’s for us non-Jew gentiles too.

Should the evangelization of lost Israel take precedent over other lost peoples?

In line with the last answer, I don’t believe so. Lost peoples are lost peoples and there are a lot more lost non-Jews than there are lost Jews. Fact is we need more people fulfilling the great commission everywhere.

Does the promise of Genesis 12:3 (i.e. “I will bless those who bless you…”) mean that we—the church—should seek to bless, monetarily, the nation of Israel to receive a blessing ourselves?

So I’ll admit, this is kind of a trick question. If you read carefully you’ll note that I said “seek to bless… to receive a blessing.” I point this out because I believe the worst form of giving is giving that gives for the purpose of getting. This is akin to prosperity teaching that says, “You give to the Lord and you’re sowing a seed, you’re going to get tenfold, maybe even a hundredfold in return.” I am [personally] bothered when I hear people encourage physical or monetary blessing to the nation or people of Israel so that we can get a blessing in return.

Do Jews and Christians worship the same God? Do Muslims?

This may be the toughest question of the lot. It is, however, a relevant question to ask in light of discussion this past month  prompted by some articles surrounding Pastor Rick Warren and Saddleback Church’s reported associations with Muslims in Orange County, CA.  I’m not sure I have the best answer for this, my own question, but I do have a few thoughts.

True worship of God must be offered through Jesus Christ as He is God, and [is] the way by which we are given access to God. Some could argue that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God, but I’d say that only worship offered in Christ is acceptable to God. Therefore, worship of the right God in the wrong way is [essentially] idolatry and therefore sinful. To this I would add that Muslims have a far greater respect for Jesus than Jews (twice in the last 6 months I’ve had Jewish Rabbi’s make rather condescending/mocking remarks about Jesus to me, that wouldn’t happen from a Muslim), which is, at least, an interesting thought for consideration.

Like the scribe of Mark 12, I think there are many Muslims in the world who are “not far from the kingdom of God.”