The PyroManiacsdevote some space each weekend to highlights from the lifetime of works from the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon. The following excerpt is from Till He Come, pages 333-334, Pilgrim Publications.
"If we lose the cross,—if we miss the substitutionary sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ, we have lost all."
“Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree.” These words in plainest terms assert that our Lord Jesus did really bear the sins of His people. How literal is the language! Words mean nothing if substitution is not stated here. I do not know the meaning of the fifty-third of Isaiah if this is not its meaning.
Hear the prophet’s words: “The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all;” “for the transgression of my people was He stricken;” “He shall bear their iniquities;” “He was numbered with the transgressors, and He bare the sin of many.”
I cannot imagine that the Holy Spirit would have used language so expressive if He had not intended to teach us that our Saviour did really bear our sins, and suffer in our stead.
What else can be intended by texts like these—“Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many” (Heb. 9:28); “He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor 5:21); “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree” (Gal. 3:13); “Christ also hath loved us, and hath given Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour” (Eph. 5:2); “Once in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself” (Heb 9:26)?
I say modestly, but firmly, that these Scriptures either teach the bearing of our sins by our Lord Jesus, or they teach nothing. In these days, among many errors and denials of truth, there has sprung up a teaching of “modern thought” which explains away the doctrine of substitution and vicarious sacrifice.
One wise man has gone so far as to say that the transference of sin or righteousness is impossible, and another creature of the same school has stigmatized the idea as immoral.
It does not much matter what these modern haters of the cross may dare to say; but, assuredly, that which they deny, denounce, and deride, is the cardinal doctrine of our most holy faith, and is as clearly in Scripture as the sun is in the heavens.
Beloved, as we suffer through the sin of Adam, so are we saved through the righteousness of Christ. Our fall was by another, and so is our rising again: we are under a system of representation and imputation, gainsay it who may. To us, the transference of our sin to Christ is a blessed fact clearly revealed in the Word of God, and graciously confirmed in the realizations of our faith.
Every Friday, to commemorate the stellar contributions to internet apologetics and punditry made by our founder and benefactor, Phil Johnson, the unpaid and overworked staff at TeamPyro presents a "Best of Phil" post to give your weekend that necessary kick.
This excerpt is from the blog back in February 2009. Phil points out the disastrous consequences of Evangelicalism ignoring the warning of James 4:4.
As usual, the comments are closed.
William Butler Yeats wrote a poem shortly after World War I called The Second Coming. Despite the title, it was a very pessimistic poem. Yeats was observing the rapid dissolution of society, and he foresaw nothing but certain doom. An unbeliever, he dreaded the idea of Christ's Second Coming because he saw in it nothing but the end of the world.
As he looked at the dissolution of the social order, Yeats wrote,
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
And at the end of the poem, he pictured the coming day of doom as a
". . . rough beast, its hour come round at last,
slouch[ing] towards Bethlehem to be born."
[...]
As we look at the state of Christ's church worldwide today, we see an even more frightening prospect. By and large, the church has fallen in love with Gomorrah, and has veered off that direction in a dead sprint. Christians seem as if they are on a collective quest to see how much of the world they can absorb and imitate. Instead of trying to win the world the way Christ commanded, the church seems determined to see how much like the world she can become.
It is a safe bet that whatever is popular in the world at the moment will soon be embraced by the church. Virtually all of today's secular fads will have Christian counterparts tomorrow. Seriously: there are even several "Christian" nudist colonies. Evidently there is no worldly novelty that someone, somewhere won't try to drag into the church.
For more than four years here at PyroManiacs we have been pointing out laughable examples of how the contemporary church has played the harlot with the world. When you listen to the rationale of people who advocate worldly innovations in the church, they invariably insist this is the only way to reach unbelievers.
Under pretexts such as "contextualization," "missional living," and "relevance" an unbridled willingness to accommodate Divine truth to human preferences is now going on virtually unchecked in the modern and postmodern evangelical movement. Multitudes of Christians today think it is their prerogative to mold and shape everything—worship, music, and even the Word of God itself—to the tastes and fashions of the world.
[...]
That kind of thinking is all too typical. Until Christians recover their convictions and their passion; until we realize that the gospel itself is the power of God unto salvation; until we quit tinkering with the message to try to accommodate it to the tastes and preferences of every subculture; and until we give up these foolish efforts to make the gospel "appealing" and concern ourselves with proclaiming it accurately and making it clear, the church's impact on the world will continue to diminish and the world's influence will continue to define what the church looks like.
In my ongoing series on marriage, the Bible, and you, I came to a point of pivot recently. Having laid the foundation somewhat extensively, I'd just taught for several classes with a focus on singles approaching marriage, and considering how even to make the decision. Now I was about to turn to address wives, then husbands, with specific Scriptural teaching.
So in turning to this section I felt it important to lay down some ground-rule guidelines dealing with how to listen to the classes to come. After all, first husbands would be listening to a series of lessons focusing on their wives; then those roles would reverse. So in preparing for that, I expounded a preventative list of ways to prevent spiritual growth. Here's that list:
1.Focus on what your spouse is doing wrong (Rom. 14:10-12; 2 Cor. 5:10)
2.Make your obedience to Christ depend on his/hers (cf. Gen. 3:11-12)
3.Keep the focus on statistic equality (previous Scriptures; cf. Prov. 28:13)
4.Isolate marriage from the rest of your Christian life (1 Cor. 10:31)
5.Be a fool (Prov. 9:7-8; 10:17; 12:1, 15; 17:10; 29:1)
Last week, you got a best-of from me, and you'll get more of it this week as well due to the complications of being me.
This is the second of 4 parts in that series from 2005. It is slightly modified for the sake of minor matters of reference.
Enjoy.
Last time, we left off by hypothesizing that if we could determine what the writers of the NT meant in context when they used the word "muthos," we could have some insight into their view of the epistemology of language and their view of how to handle texts. Specifically: their own texts, the anthology of books and letters we call "Scripture."
After greeting Timothy, Paul writes this to him:
3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, 4 nor to devote themselves to myths ("muthos") and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship {Or good order} from God that is by faith.
5 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.
1Tim 1:3-7 (ESV)
This charge to Timothy by Paul comes (as Paul says) not as a new direction but as part and parcel of the teaching Paul has given him before -- "As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus". Paul has sent this letter as a supplement to Timothy to do what has already been set out before the young man. That point is made clear with the clause which begins "that": the purpose of Timothy's mission in Ephesus comes after the word "that".
So what is Paul's purpose for Timothy? "that you may charge certain persons" are Paul's words, meaning that Timothy ought to indict or accuse some of the people there with a certain wrongdoing. What kind of wrongdoing is it? Paul says, "charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine".
The express reason Timothy is in Ephesus is to teach the same doctrine as Paul, in opposition to any different doctrine that may exist in that city. That may seem somewhat commonplace to those who have never heard the charge that evangelicals are slaves of enlightenment thinking when it comes to the Bible, but it is an important foundational matter in this discussion.
What Paul has begun to lay out here is a category distinction in kinds of teaching. This idea is in almost every letter of his: there is a true teaching, which is the Gospel, and there is false teaching which is not the Gospel which must be opposed by returning to true teaching. This idea that there is content which undercuts the Gospel message is important for making some headway with those who want to claim that placing NT claims into Enlightenment categories defaces the text.
Thus, if there is a false category which Paul classes as any different doctrine, what is he talking about? Well, he's a smart guy under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so he makes his point clear by saying "not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies". Now think about this: Paul says that teaching any different doctrine is to be charged in the say way as devotion to myths and endless genealogies. That is to say, these myths and genealogies have the same value as any different doctrine. Now what value might that be? Paul says, "[myths and genealogies] which promote speculations rather than the stewardship {Or good order} from God that is by faith". That is itself an interesting charge – because it underscores the non-factual nature of these classes by saying they "promote speculation rather than {spiritual} stewardship".
Paul's concern for Timothy (and for those in his care in Ephesus) is that the young man teach a sound doctrine which has sound results and does not turn people toward speculative endeavors that interfere with right stewardship in the faith. Again, I think most Protestants would be somewhat bored by this claim because it seems so obvious and foundational to us: there is a right teaching, and there is a wrong teaching, and wrong teaching leads to wrong actions.
What is important about this, however, is the nature of this claim: it says that it matters how you teach the Gospel message in substance. That's not an Enlightenment claim but a first-century claim which Paul presents to Timothy as marching orders. If this is Paul's view of the method of presenting the Gospel, we have to challenge the view that Paul would have had what Prof. Enns and John Dominic Crossan would call a "pre-enlightenment" view of the text which says that things can be "real" and "true" but not necessarily "factual" or "literal".
Let's also keep in mind here that we are not disqualifying genres from existing inside the NT: we are demonstrating that Paul's view of truth demonstrates epistemological classes that distinguish from made-up stories which are false or lead to falsehood and the Gospel itself which is neither "muthos" nor rhetorical but factual.
In that, Paul describes this first charge to Timothy rather boldly for our cause: "The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith." Paul is giving this direction from "good conscience" and from "sincere faith", which are interesting qualifiers to maintain over against "myth" and "different doctrine". Paul's charge is for a purpose which is completely wholesome, and he continues: "Certain persons, by swerving from these, ..." Now to what does "these" refer to? It refers to "good conscience" and "sincere faith". So those who are teaching a different doctrine, and teaching myths and endless genealogies, are here impugned by Paul as swerving away from good conscience and swerving from sincere faith. Again: this underscores Paul's method of thinking about the Gospel not as a set of non-propositional truths transmitted by likely stories of some artistic and (ultimately) theological value, but as propositional truth – things clearly distinguished from falsehood that are falsified only by those with bad motives.
For clarity's sake, let me say that I am not sure that Paul would use the Greek (or Hebrew) words for "propositional truth" that I might use to describe his thinking here. I'm not sure that rhetorical formula existed in his time in that way. But what I am saying is that Paul's methodology for teaching was (1) toward a specific, objective truth that was manifest in history, and (2) against any other assertion that manifested counterclaims which effaced that truth by using loose talk or "made up" stories.
He continues: "[they] have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions." In this last assertion, Paul makes one last ting clear: there is a difference between knowing the truth and not knowing the truth. The ones Timothy was sent to Ephesus to charge with teaching a different doctrine were devoted to myths, not of good conscience, not of sincere faith, and they did not understand what they were teaching, but taught anyway because they wanted to be seen as "teachers of the law". Those are fairly comprehensive charges by Paul – charges which set the stage for Timothy's ministry as discussed in the rest of the letter. But the foundational matter which Paul bases these charges on is that there is a difference between the right method of teaching the Gospel and the wrong method. In that, the use of "muthos" or "myth" is plainly disqualified as useful to those with "good conscience" and "sincere faith".
I know you don't read any of the little blogs, or people who are trying to make their own tribe, but others do, and I think it's worth writing a brief open letter to you this week based on your epic video from this weekend:
I think it's fantastic that you can walk away from the Gospel Coalition, and hand over the reigns to Acts29, and with no muss and no fuss start your own tribe. It's proof that you have something which most of us don't have. I'm sure there's a Greek word for it, but unfortunately I don't speak Greek.
Someone with more time on their hands might want to go through this 21-minute monologue and find all the ingrown hairs and blemishes, but sadly: I'm on a tight schedule this week. I'm writing today about the funniest parts of this video. In your attempts here to get tribes to talk to each other, you have somehow done two things so well that they deserve a mention.
The first is this: you are fantastic at making much of yourself. You are the master of the humblebrag now that the meme is dead and the ship has sailed. Like a self-aware version of Ari Gold from Entourage, you drop all the names you know to demonstrate your position -- but dutifully, you're not like any of them. T.D. Jakes didn't hardly even know you when he met you, for pete's sake. And thankfully: you're nothing like the homeschooled fundies who can't make a tribe for themselves, who act drunk even though they would never touch the stuff. You're a tribal leader.
If anyone knows how to salvage his own reputation from the doctrinal and moral pratfalls and frankly-insulting egoisms for which you are actually well-known, it's you -- and it's funny to watch you do it as you get older and your audience stays the same age.
The other funny thing you do so well is, if I can be so bold, the fifth attribute of a tribal leader: you're the world-champion enumerator of enemies. You brandish the keen condescending tongue of someone high-school famous who knows that his popularity is only durable as long as he can demonstrate there are others who are uncool, infamous, unacceptable and undefended. Rarely has this been more evident than in this 21 minutes of video. You elevate yourself by making anyone who is like you were 10 or 15 years ago into a completely-unacceptable hayseed.
The truly-spectacular part, though, is how you wrap both of these objectives into one key omission in the schedule for this conference: in an allegedly-open discussion between tribes, you have simply overlooked asking anyone who would actually challenge you, anyone who disagrees with you in a substantive way.
Now, I get it: a fundie homeschooler presbyterian who is cessationist and dogmatically concerned about the fundamental truths of the faith -- so much so that they draw necessary conclusions about those items which cause them to rule out some tribes as unacceptable or actually unChristian -- is not a successful, fruitful tribal leader in your view of it. They are no Billy Graham or Francis Shaeffer.
But: the point of your omission is very clear: you personally have nothing to learn from someone like that. You would never let someone like that (whom you labelled "mental" in this video, and accused of being ignorant in almost the same breath "thanks to the cold medicine") influence the people who still come out to see your road show. Like a very amusing parody of Syndrome from the Incredibles, you list the shortcomings of all your past heroes and all your past fans who have, frankly, found you lacking and then you say, in effect: "You're weak! and I've outgrown you."
Now: so what? So what if you're a Punch-like parody of a pastor? Can we all just get the joke and move on to the next big thing?
In my view of it, explaining the joke ruins it, so my apologies for that. Sorry to spoil it for you. But here's the thing: I can't just list my grievance and walk away. To be a helpful critic, I need also to offer you a remedy or a better example. That's what the popular kids say, anyway, so here's my thought about what you could do about it.
1. You could start talking to people who have pointed out your mistakes -- rather than talking about them.
Now, I realize that there are some people who are actually not worth talking to: people who have unreasonable ways of talking about you; people who have unreasonable expectations about how to resolve the problems (you know: turn yourself in to the police for your crimes against humanity); people who, frankly, don't understand what they are talking about; etc.
You don't have to talk to those people. You could talk to a Carl Trueman, or a Phil Johnson, or any number of Acts29 guys who are regretful that you really aren't who they thought you were. Jonathan Merritt seems to get you in a pretty succinct way - you could try him. You know: in the same way you brought tribes together in this event last weekend. Publicly, and as if you respected them.
That requires actual humility and actual repentance and actual wisdom, so decide for yourself if that's something you want to engage in. Ask yourself, "will that be good for me?"
2. You could reconsider your utterly-superficial notion of being a pastor
Let's face it: this one may get categorized by you as "unreasonable expectations" because in your eyes, you were audibly called by God to be mightily used. Who is anyone to accuse the Lord's anointed, after all? But: the crazy thing in the New Testament (the part where Acts 29 would be if it were a real chapter in the book) is the categorical absence of offices like the one you hold. The guys to whom the Lord actually did audibly speak all wind up travelling the world -- in chains, to their death. The others wind up staying in local churches -- and a lot of them wind up dying for the faith. Timothy, for example, who you might say was prophesied over as having the gift of an evangelist, was stoned to death in Ephesus.
You might consider yourself a "Bishop," I guess, but as it turns out in history (the part where the actual evidence is, not the part where you imagine the evidence is for receiving the gift of Spiritual Skinemax) the guys who were like the kind of Bishop you are were the guys fellows like Francis of Assisi were very worried about -- because those fellows were more concerned about influence and power than they were about Christ and his Church. They only associated with the rich and famous, and they didn't like it when anyone else pointed that out.
What you could do is take all your tweets about how much you "love your job" and rather than think a book or a conference is what saves marriages and souls, go back to the Bible and remember: what kind of man does it takes to shepherd a local church? What kind of life it is to lead a local church? You could turn back to that. Live that life, and the rest, I think, would take care of itself. Ask yourself, "will that be good for the people God has given to me?"
3. You could actually repent of your obsession with being famous and influential.
That's a fairly loaded suggestion from a fellow like me who, let's face it, is a blogger with any kind of an audience -- and that audience due entirely to the men who have allowed me to be their friends. But here's what I think: if you took 2 years off from the circuit and the book-writing and spent it instead on unpacking your own need for speed at the expense of other people, I'll bet when you returned to the big stage 24 months and one day later you'd have something very interesting to say to the rest of us.
Something along the lines of, "I have learned how to abound, and how to be abased." Something most people could relate to in the normal Christian life -- in every culture, not just affluent Washington and Chicago. You could ask yourself, "Am I concerned about the normal Christian life of real people?" And with that question answered, do that -- rather than trying to do what Oprah and Rob Bell have done and are doing to the Christian faith.
Those things said, if this note reaches you, thanks for the laughs. I hope this finds you in good humor, good spirits, good health, and good conscience. As a fellow father and husband, I wish the best to your family, the blessings of God upon them, and the wisdom and humility of Jesus to you as their shepherd and provider.
And what I really wish, with all sincerity and all real good will, is that you will repent for the sake of your own soul, and the sake of those who follow you.
Each of the terms in the title is problematically broad, yet both are unavoidable. So let's proceed. I'm sure others have done this better than I, but I feel compelled to put in what I've got.
I feel about parachurch organizations the way I do about denominations. The concept makes sense, but the execution usually ends up being problematic. Parachurch organizations, at their best, address specifically targeted needs in ways that span churches and denominations. They might be clearing-houses for defense against cults, or response to scientistic attacks on our faith. They're Bible colleges, seminaries. A kid's at a secular college for some time, and a parachurch organization provides some on-campus fellowship, encouragement, instruction, camaraderie. I completely get that.
But here's the problem. Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her (Eph. 5:25). Not the parachurch. Christ is the Head of the church (Eph. 5:23), not of the parachurch. He gave pastors and teachers for the equipping of saints for the work of service (Eph. 4:11). The church is created for, founded upon, and united in, its allegiance to the person of Christ who exercises His headship through the specific truths of God's Word (Jn. 8:31-32; 17:17, 21, 23; Eph. 4:4-5). The task of enlisting and cultivating students of Christ has been entrusted to it (Matt. 28:18-20). The task of preaching God's Word come what may has been thunderously pressed upon its leadership (2 Tim. 4:1-6). Assuring doctrinal purity, and guarding against (and repelling, and shutting the mouths of) unbelievers is Divinely mandated for that local church leadership (1 Tim. 1:3-11, 18-19; Titus 1:5-16; 2:1, 15; 3:9-11).
Let me rephrase that last thought as a question, and come at it from a different angle. Do you feel the need for instruction, for equipping for service? Do you see how much more there is to learn of Christ, of His person and work, of His will for your life? Are you boggled by the maze of differing and competing views, and longing for guidance and guarding amidst them? Christ already thought of all that, and more. He already made provision for those needs (Eph. 4:7ff.). The provision He made is men who are pastors and teachers, His personal ascension-gifts to His church. You find these men leading local churches, where they watch over and are held accountable by God for the souls of the people in their care (Heb. 13:7, 17). It is their responsibility, as well, to make sure that the teaching within those local church is sound, is in accord with apostolic doctrine (cf. Titus 1:9-11, 13-16; 2:1, 15; 3:9-11).
What's more, these guys aren't just anyone — or they're not supposed to be! They are held to certain publicly-detailed standards, and profess and demonstrate rock-solid allegiance to certain doctrines by which they are to be measured and assessed (1 Tim. 3:1ff.; Titus 1:5ff.).
So where do parachurch personnel come in? Well, that's the problem. Their leaders may or may not be (or be qualified to be) pastors. So that means that they may or may not be held to the specific standards spelled out in the Bible. They may or may not even be accountable to such men as specified by God, in the Bible. I've known more than one person working for Christian organizations who did not even attend a local church.
So what happens in these relations, when Christians get involved in parachurch organizations? That can be the problem. Do the folks in these parachurch organizations, whatever they are, point the folks they serve to local churches? Do they make sure that they make God's stated priority their priority, that participants not (for instance) be heavily involved in the parachurch organization, while remaining only occasional and uninvolved visitors at their church? Do they, for instance, follow the example of the radio Bible teacher I heard years back who regularly cautioned supporters not to regard their financial support of his ministry as equivalent to local-church support?
I imagine pastors will weigh in here, and welcome it. I recall an earlier ministry, years ago, where someone was all about a parachurch organization, but "iffy" on her church. She had — and I have seen this often — a sort of presbyopia that made distant things clear and vivid, but things at hand fuzzy and hard to make out. She was all about this parachurch organization, but took her church, and her role in it, for granted. You see this when folks enthuse about this or that ministry, but never speak of their own church.
It's easy to see how this happens: The organization focuses on something Christian A thinks is important. So Christian A focuses on that organization. So now — at worst — there's one more person not diligently pouring his/her time and gifts and resources and energies into the building up of a particular local church (Eph. 4:15-16).
Let's suppose all this parachurchical energy is going into a genuinely important function. Could the church (God's express institution) do it? Usually, the problem is lack of qualified and willing personnel. I daresay most pastors would eagerly welcome stable, maturing folks in their membership, already clearly committed to the church's ministry, who'd say "Here's an area of ministry where I'd like to serve and help us extend the breadth and depth of our outreach." Then they could do thus under elder oversight, guidance, instruction and protection (Heb. 13:7, 17). Instead, folks may find a parachurch organization, latch on... and the church sees that much less of them. Though perhaps it hears much of their ministry.
Back to where I started: there are parachurch organizations that serve the local church. They embrace and support its role in God's plan. Their personnel are committed church-members, and they point those who come to them to local church involvement. They treasure Christ's church. They don't try to arrogate the role of Christ's church to themselves or supplant it.
Can anyone see a parachurch organization in the NT? If not, I still wouldn't conclude that there's no place for them, any more than I would for organs or guitars or pews. However, these would seem to be the least we need to insist:
The local church, led by qualified men, is God's specifically designated organization.
As such, the lion's share of our time, talents and treasures should be invested in our local church.
"Leftovers" should go to parachurch ministries, not to local church ministries.
Any other organization should tread lightly and humbly, explicitly giving pride of place and emphasis to the local church.
The PyroManiacsdevote some space each weekend to highlights from the lifetime of works from the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon. The following excerpt is from Come ye Children, pages 111-112, Pilgrim Publications.
"Give us the first seven years of a child, with God's grace, and we may defy the world, the flesh, and the devil to ruin that immortal soul."
We are not at a loss to tell who instructed youthful Timothy. In the first chapter of this epistle Paul says, “When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.”
No doubt grandmother Lois and mother Eunice united in teaching the little one. Who should teach the children but the parents? Timothy’s father was a Greek, and probably a heathen, but his child was happy in having a venerable grandmother, so often the dearest of all relatives to a little child. He had also a gracious mother, once a devout Jewess, and afterwards also a firmly believing Christian, who made it her daily pleasure to teach her own dear child the Word of the Lord.
O dear mothers, you have a very sacred trust reposed in you by God! He hath in effect said to you, “Take this child and nurse it for Me, and I will give thee thy wages.” You are called to equip the future man of God, that he may be thoroughly furnished unto every good work. If God spares you, you may live to hear that pretty boy speak to thousands, and you will have the sweet reflection in your heart that the quiet teachings of the nursery led the man to love his God and serve Him.
Those who think that a woman detained at home by her little family is doing nothing, think the reverse of what is true. Scarcely can the godly mother quit her home for a place of worship; but dream not that she is lost to the work of the church; far from it, she is doing the best possible service for her Lord.
Mothers, the godly training of your offspring is your first and most pressing duty. Christian women, by teaching children the Holy Scriptures, are as much fulfilling their part for the Lord, as Moses in judging Israel, or Solomon in building the temple.
Every Friday, to commemorate the stellar contributions to internet apologetics and punditry made by our founder and benefactor, Phil Johnson, the unpaid and overworked staff at TeamPyro presents a "Best of Phil" post to give your weekend that necessary kick.
This excerpt is from the blog back in December 2007. Phil draws out the implications of 1 Corinthians 1:21-22.
As usual, the comments are closed.
The gospel is an announcement that seems foolish and naive to the fallen human mind. What is it?
According to 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, it's the news that Christ died for our sins and then rose from the dead. That, of course, is shorthand which Paul develops more thoroughly throughout his epistles. But notice that even the Cliffs-Notes version is full of ideas like propitiation, justification, and resurrection—and it culminates in a demand for repentance and a call for faith. So it's nothing the typical person wants to hear, and in the mouth of a determined preacher or Bullhorn Guy who persists in proclaiming it anyway, it sounds like sheer foolishness.
But Paul says this supposed "foolishness" is actually the wisdom of God, which is wiser than men. It's the most potent weapon we could unleash against the sin and darkness that holds people in bondage: the gospel, a message worldly people will always and invariably deem absolute foolishness, until the Lord opens their hearts to receive it.
Paul is directly arguing against the mindset that prevails in most of modern evangelicalism. The driving concept behind church growth and church marketing today begins with the idea that we need to find out what people want and adapt both our message and our delivery accordingly in order to reach them effectively. Pastors expend great amounts of energy taking opinion polls and canvassing their communities to find out people's tastes and preferences (especially with regard to style and subject matter). Then they make it their main object to reach those "felt needs."
Now there's no question such an approach has sometimes been effective in drawing huge crowds. You can see it in several of the largest churches in the country. But can it be effective in the long-term? Is it more effective in reaching people for Christ, so that their lives are transformed and they truly live for him?
The answer to that question is clearly no. It is not a biblical strategy. It is precisely the thing Paul says not to do.
Does anyone seriously think Paul would have passed muster with any of the self-styled experts giving pastors marketing advice these days? No wonder he died virtually alone, after reporting to Timothy, "All who are in Asia turned away from me" (2 Timothy 1:15). Paul made the biggest marketing blunder of all: he failed to deliver what his "customers" wanted. In fact, he knew full well what people's preferences were, and he flatly refused to cater to them.
[...]
But notice what strategy Paul actually followed instead: "We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness" (v. 23). The Jews want a sign; we give them a stumblingblock. The Greeks want wisdom, we give them foolishness.
Now, why did he do that? Did Paul just want to be perverse? No. Keep reading: "We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God."
[...]
What seems mere foolishness to the worldly mind is actually the only thing that can reach sinners because it is the true wisdom and power of God.
PREMISE: DO NOT comment at all if you think the "right way" to handle Christian disagreement is to make an appointment and chat over coffee first. The vortex of irony you will create by commenting will sap the hair-care products off your stylish bed-head, and we do not want to be responsible for that.
Remember that you are our guests. We will, at our discretion, delete comments that we find off-topic, derailing, un-civil, slanderous, trollish or troll-feeding, petulant, pestiferous, and/or otherwise obnoxious and non-constructive. If we warn you, stop it. After no more than three warnings, you will find yourself banned, and all your future comments will be immediately deleted.
See an error in the post? How clever of you! Email the author. If you comment a correction, expect the comment to disappear with the error.
If you are confused about how the specifics of these principles play out in practical terms, you'll find a longer list of rules HERE.
