And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, 6 and said to him, “To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. 7 If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.” (Luke 4:5-7)You recognize this as Satan’s temptation of the Lord Jesus. Isn’t it interesting that Satan says that all the power and glory of the kingdoms of the world,“has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will”?
Is this simply a lie? It surely seems like it. In almost the same language, we read that “the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will” (Daniel 4:32). This accords with
many other Scriptures.Or is some bestowal of earthly power delegated to Satan, “the god of this age” (2 Corinthians 4:4), “the ruler of this world” (John 12:31), in whose power the world lies (1 John 5:19)?
Or is it a half-truth: Satan gives it, but it isn’t to whomever he pleases?
I actually think these questions are beside the point of the passage. What is interesting to me is that the Lord does not contradict Satan’s claim.
Now, I don’t take that in itself to constitute an affirmation or a denial. I take it to mean that it doesn’t matter to Jesus. It doesn’t matter whether or not Satan can deliver on his promise.
Jesus simply refuses, flat-out. No Sale.
Why?
And Jesus answered him, “It is written, “‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.’” (Luke 4:8)Do you see what a devastating rejection this is? Had Jesus said, “It isn't yours to give,” His refusal might have seemed ambiguous. That is, some (— Satan, for instance) might have imagined that His refusal hinged on Satan’s inability to “deliver.” But (some might foolishly have imagined) if Satan could have delivered on his promise, then he might have been able to close the deal with Jesus.
But Jesus’ rejection is more sweeping and categorical. He does not even take up the question or whether or not this power and glory was Satan’s to give. It simply does not matter to Him. Whether or not he is offering what only God can offer, Satan is in fact demanding what only God can demand: worship.
To Jesus, doesn’t matter whether it “works,” in the short run. What matters is that it is not of
God. It puts God out of place. God is the all-glorious center, acme, pillar, ground, summum bonum and sine qua non of the universe. Nothing is worth more than He.Is there any lesson for us in this?
Of the many applications of our Lord’s example, I take this: we need to give up the all-consuming idolatry of pragmatism, of what Works. We’ve become addicted to what makes us feel better now, feel happier now, feel more powerful now; to what gives us our best life now; to what makes us look cooler, seem "edgier," be more popular, have a larger church. Whether in youth ministry, general pastoral ministry, marriage, business, politics — when we get bitten by the pragmatic bug, we’re bitten.
Then gradually, we care less about what tends to God’s glory, and more about what tends to ours.
And we find ourselves open to the world’s oldest sales-pitch…
…if we think it might Work.
66 comments:
Excellent post!
You've hit the nail on the head, whether is is warrenism, or 'hip' youth ministries, or 'miracle-healers' or any pro-(unrepentant) homosexual bishops, or politic-christianity alliances, tell all suscribe to the big P -
Pragmatism.
Excellent post. Wow.
Typo
Tell = they
Sry abt that
Dan --
As I read your post, I understand it to mean that often we want to take the big, easy win which we make ourselves over the long-term win of faithfulness and obedience in order to get what we think ought to be our historical, physical just desserts.
Somebody might say to you, "well, Dude: I'm going to stop preaching in English now because plainly, that's pragmatism -- I do it becuase it seems right to me and it seems to reach more people than reciting the NT in Greek."
What's the difference between preaching in English (for example) and swallowing goldfish or having a Rave at the Youth building when it comes to pragmatism?
{... and the soft ball hovers over the plate as Dan sets up to hit it ...}
Notice my punctuation inside the quotes, btw.
Very good words. Good lesson.
"Nothing is worth more than He."
Amen.
God is worthy, and the Lamb of God is worthy. It's all about God, not me.
That's my struggle every day. From when I first rise, until a lay my head down.
Loved the post, and I'm looking forward to watching DJP take a swing at the pitch his teammate has delivered.
And something we'll notice, too, is even though Jesus didn't go to the pragmatic, what-works answer, His actual answer -- which was the Truth of God -- was the only thing that worked... and the only thing that would have worked.
So pragmatism isn't really pragmatic at all. And notice also that the choice of pragmatism is paralleled by the choice of worshiping God by being grounded on, in, and by His Word. Which one are you going to pick?
And that's really the reason why we say that in the desire to become relevant we become irrelevant --- because we make our immediate goal something other than worshiping God for all He is, and especially all He is for us in Christ.
Great thoughts, Dan. (Really appreciating the Proverbs lectures, too.)
Dan,
Your comments are as perceptive and insightfull as usual. Thanks for pointing out something that most of us probably read over hundreds of times and never noticed.
Brazilian Greetings,
Daniel Portela
Frank — Notice my punctuation inside the quotes, btw
Sweet!
As to the other... oh, dear. It's the ones I have time to think about that I muff — the hovering pitch, the perfect volleyball set....
I'll begin by (ahem) quoting myself from the previous meta, then launch out further.
That's the challenge, and there are the Scylla and Charybdis, no? On the one hand, not to lay out the truth in a way that is edifying only to the speaker because it is so out-of-reach to the hearers; and, on the other, not to so water and dumb it down that the nutritional content is gone.
When we remember (as Calvin often said) that ALL Scripture is itself accommodation, it challenges us to work harder at (A) communicating (B) the truth — and not neglect either aspect of that little phrase. That is, it had better communicate, and it had better be the truth.
We read that "The tongue of the wise commends knowledge" (Proverbs 15:2a), and "The heart of the righteous ponders how to answer" (Proverbs 15:28a). The challenge is always how to get the food straight out of the kitchen, fresh and hot — and presented in an adorning, appealing way without a dram of compromise. Connecting the There with the Here, the Then with the Now, the Theory with the Practice.
God could have given the task to angels, but He gave it to men and women, in our different callings. So we have to be gripped with Paul's drive to preach to others (1 Corinthians 9:27) and not to ourselves.
The NT itself is our model. Jesus and His apostles did not host a "Return to Hebrew" movement, insisting on preaching and teaching and evangelizing in God's Own Language. They didn't even insist on using the highest, most literary Greek (though Luke and Apollos come close). They choose street Greek, using metaphors drawn from the kitchen, the field, the workplace, the sports arena.
So here's my sum-up: we can press many sorts of methods into service, as long as those methods serve the message.
We are called to be servants of the Word (Luke 1:2); we mustn't force the Word to serve of us or our brilliant methods.
Oh, and: pragmatism and practicality are not synonyms.
I think we also must ask this pertinent question. What is meant by "works?"
My point is that what appears to "work" in terms of putting lots of cheeks in the pews and checks in the plate might not "work" in the eternal sense.
Is that too esoteric? Feel free to slap me if it is.
I was just getting ready to punch an Emergent in the nose (because it works), when I read this article. Ruined my day! Thanks a lot!
:)
It's what I do.
The difference between pragmatism and practicality is that pragmatism places a higher value on what works than on what is right (scripturally). The mere fact that it works is considered (at best) God's blessing on the method, and at worst, as proving that the new method is right and the older methods obsolete.
Practicality simply asks, since doing this is required by Scripture, how best can we carry this out? If the word must be preached, how can we prepare and present the message most effectively?
Pragmatism's main problem is it looks at the wrong goal - it is "results oriented", but very often mistakes the desired result. And the reason the goal is often mistaken is that what God really wants in His people is not easily countable - as a pragmatic goal must be. And so we count attendance rather than discipleship, because the quality of disciples is not so easy to measure.
Dan,
Excellent post. Something to which we need to be called back often.
Meanie,
For what it's worth, I think your bang on. The trouble with pragmatism is we forget just what it is that's supposed to work in the first place. That is, are more pew people, more this more that, the "what" that's supposed to work?
No.
What's supposed to work is for all glory to be given to God, in all things, all the time. It seems like we get seduced into thinking that if we do such-and-such we can defer God's glory, now, for a greater glory, later. That is, maybe these methods don't appear to glorify God now, but just wait until the results start coming in...then God'll REALLY get the glory.
Trouble is, God deserves all glory, NOW. What happens later isn't our problem.
wow....that's good, really good, that encourages me as I start my day working with rascal kids whom I love but wear me thin sometimes...
Your post was again most excellent and sniffs out what the rankest stench is that emanates from the whole "seeker sensitive" movement... such a low, low opinion of Who God is and the glory we should value most.
BTW, Dan..
What would Pecadillo say about the chicken photo? He was disturbed enough with the cats.
djp,
I have been reading the posts here lately. My father is one of the editors over at CRN and he pointed out your site to me.
Thanks for being an encouragement to him, and also myself.
You jammed the tent spike right into the temple on this one.
God Bless
You jammed the tent spike right into the temple on this one.
I think I have a new motto.
Dan Phillips: jamming tent spikes into temples since 1977
Could be a T-shirt.
Thanks!
your welcome!
I only demand a small royalty of course.
:)
As I was told at a pastoral convention this past week:
If you don't use modern choruses you won't get the youth in because they don't like the hymns.
I had to smile a sad smile because I once believed that too.
I think pragmatism is so engrained in our Christian culture that we fail to recognize it anymore. We have used semantics to make it appear more godly - The Lord wants us to..... The Holy Spirit is moving.....and my personal favorite - 15 verses of Just as I am
So now we're going to call Dan Phillips "Jael" as a new nickname? Isn't that a case of transgendering? Fie!
Brother Dan:
I know you know and meant this, but because I had to pause and reread the paragraph in question:
Street Greek is what the apostles used for writing, but vernacular Aramaic (in a Galilean dialect, at that!) is what Jesus and his apostles would have spoken....
Actually, something just occurred to me: in more anciently settled parts of the world, markedly different dialects often exist cheek-by-jowl beside each other (e.g., England, Korea)—and oftentimes, provincial dialects are looked down upon by those speaking the capital and/or educated dialect. So I wonder, if there was a distinct Galilean dialect, would this have been one more thing that set Jesus and his Apostles apart, and would have reinforced in some folks' minds the "nothing good comes from Galilee" bit? And it would have been one more reminder that God often elects outcasts through whom to work out his redemptive plan (the prostitute in Jericho; Ruth the Moabite; a shepherd who is chosen to become King).
Sorry, that was a totally off-topic tangent. Then again, it's expanding on your implied point that the pragmatic approach would have been to affect the manners and speech of the elite in ancient Jerusalem, not speak in the everyday language of the common folk that rural carpenters, fishermen, and even tax collectors represented....
Stefan,
I think you're right. A modern day example I am familiar with is German. In Germany there are many local dialects/accents but everybody writes in High-German.
I know you meant to save me from myself, Stefan, and I appreciate it, and heaven knows I need it often enough.
But I meant what I wrote: I'm with Dr. Robert Thomas (and others) in believing that the Lord taught in Greek as well as Aramaic, and that the discourses we have are pretty much as He taught them — not translations.
If you don't use modern choruses you won't get the youth in because they don't like the hymns.
Phooey.
Each time we use classical music in our worship services (which is often), we receive the most positive comments from (surprise!) the Junior and Senior High kids!
The music of J.S. Bach has stood the test of time. I wonder if churches will still be singing "Shout to the Lord" even 20 years from now?
Dan:
I wasn't aware of that thesis. My first reaction is "what?" but I'll try looking into it when I have some time. Are there any good online sources on that theory?
I guess I was assuming something like what Daryl described, or what was the case in Korea until 100 years ago: virtually all writing was in Classical Chinese, but everyone (even the elite) spoke Korean, which is a completely different language (except for some common vocabulary).
I think you are right on with this. I am doing a missions internship in France right now and I heard a Christian leader in a ministry the other day say, "If its not about the Gospel it doesn't matter what I believe." They were speaking this in defense of mixing christianity and evolution. Talk about the worst of pragmatism.
Teampyro,
If you are willing, I would like to add a link on my site to yours.
Check out mine first and let me know if you would have any problems with that.
In Christ
SW
DJP - Dan Jael Phillips. Sounds nice.
I wasn't aware of the practical effects of pragmatism: Results change the meaning of truth.
prag·ma·tism (prăg'mə-tĭz'əm)
1. Philosophy. A movement consisting of varying but associated theories, originally developed by Charles S. Peirce and William James and distinguished by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences.
"The early pragmatists argued that the truth of an idea lay primarily in its ability satisfactorily to orient individuals to the world of which they were a part but also in its consistency with other ideas and its aesthetic appeal. Ideas were plans of action and would be deemed true if action in accordance with them "worked" in the long [sic] run."
"For the pragmatists, philosophers should not look for answers to speculative problems by cogitation in the library; rather, the practices of communities of inquirers should be explored."
Dan,
Where can I find Dr. Thomas' thoughts on the language Jesus actually spoke and taught in? I've wondered about this issue myself and I have read snippets from other scholars who take the same position.
Thanks,
Steve Lamm
Steve, I am pretty sure that there is an appendix on that subject in Thomas and Gundry's Harmony of the Gospels. I also think he wrote on it in JETS. Thomas believes the Gospels contain the ipsissima verba of Jesus, not merely (as commonly thought) the ipsissima vox.
Google robert thomas "ipsissima verba," and you'll get a number of hits.
Great stuff. I was thinking about the Pyromaniacs ministry. Here it is: hip (the site design and graphics are outstanding, and, um, cool!), contemporary (no thees or thous here), relevant, and above all else, exegetical Biblical teaching that hits a home run pretty much every time. When I want to look to a ministry that has the true balance between cultural relevance without compromising the Word one sheckel, this is one of only a few I can think of. Every post is pretty much like a thick slab of baby back ribs cooked perfectly, dripping with the tastiest sauce and the best meat, all the while slapping your soul upside the head with truth, conviction and (sometimes really tough) love.
"Nothing is worth more than he". I need to remember that, unfortunately, considerably more than I do now. Thanks again for the edifying post!
And speaking of heresy, when Pecadillo doesn't post for 6 months on his blog or here...
I know. I'm looking for the Scripture verse that backs that one up. I hope he's well. We miss him!
Oops, somehow "He" came out as "he" in the prior post. Mea culpa.
Mmmm, ribs....
Yes, quite excellent insight on the times indeed!
Phooey on Dewey! I say
His notions are obscure in the theoretical, and devastating in the practical...which is where he wanted to see them work!
I like his decimal system, though—oh, sorry, wrong Dewey!
Great post. It really is ironic how highly we value pragmatic plans and ideas, when the Bible is full of the most outlandish, long-shot, least likely scenarios being brought about specifically so that God alone can take the glory. Gideon is one of my favorite examples. The mighty warrior of God who tore down his father's idol alter at night because he was afraid of getting caught!
Travis,
Either that, or we start calling him "Spike." Somehow I just can't imagine Dan in black leather wearing a dog collar while astride a Harley. Maybe Spike Jones?
I'd best vacate before I get spiked.
Yes, good decimal system!
In all seriousness though, when I say "phooey on Dewey," I'm just scraping the surface of something larger--a root system that is vast. It is interesting that this topic came up today, because just a few days ago I sent a letter to a former pastor, attempting to explain to him that much of what we see in the EC (doubt/scepticism, relativism, determinism,etc.) can clearly be traced to Hegel and Kierkegaard (John Dewey's pragmatism is heavily influenced by Hegel). Yes, the problem(s) began with the moderns, and have only been multiplied and expanded upon exponetially by the postmoderns. For the critic who thinks that anyone who opposes the EC simply equates modernism with sound Christian doctrine, let me say empirically that such is not the case: being opposed to postmodern epistemology and/or ideology does not mean embracing modernism! Just had to get that off my chest, as reductionistic, either/or comments I've heard with regard to modern/postmodern distinctions still bug me.
Anyhow, a great resource in looking at all of these connections is Francis Schaeffer's "The God Who is There," wherein he describes something he calls the "Line of Despair". I'm sure most of you have familiarity with this overview of a submerging--not emerging--culture around us. For anyone who is not familiar with this work, check it out! It would take too long on this post to go into all of the stages it incorporates, but essentially Schaeffer illustrates a decline that occurred in the modern age as manifested through a number of areas in society (philosophy, art, theology); he explains how the destitute and athesitic thinking of men like Hegel and Kierkegaard crossed a line and shaped society more than they ever knew--the "line of despair" Schaeffer calls it--in which the ramifications of a worldview that is under-the-line, especially in theology, are devastating. The practical manifestations of such thinking not only haunt us in this present, postmodern day, but are becoming increasingly more pronounced through postmodernity.
Dan,
Thanks fopr the tip on the Gundry/Thomas "harmony" which I have. The appendix is there and also gives a couple of other sources.
A good place to start.
Steve Lamm
If the teaching was originally all in Aramaic, it's sort of hard to explain why the occasional representation of Aramaic words ("Abba"; "Talitha, qum," etc.), as if they were exceptional.
Sola,
After viewing this picture I realized that "Spike" is a suitable nickname for DJP.
LOL — that thread is about the funniest thing that EVER happened to me.
Talking about church growth, it is undeniable that some people have compromised the integrity of the message through rampant pragmatism. But it doesn't follow that all pragmatic decisions will lead to compromise. Nor does it follow that idealistic decisions necessarily maintain the integrity of the gospel message. Often I think that today's idealism is simply yesterday's pragmatism dignified by the passing of time.
Dan:
I know this thread is NOT the place to get into this discussion, and I'm sure Thomas et alia have sound reasons for maintaining that Jesus taught in Greek. The Aramaic exceptions that have been preserved certainly support (rather than counter) such a hypothesis.
...But would Greek have been widely spoken in first-century Judea? I was under the impression that Greek was more the language of (a) the upper class within Judea, and (b) the bulk of the diaspora.
Then again, we all know that scriptural quotations in the NT suggest a familiarity with the Greek Septuagint, even by those authors who would have lived in Judea, and (I would have thought) read Hebrew and spoke Aramaic.
Help, anyone?
Knowledge of Greek was quite widespread. Further, my understanding is that the Jewish community in Egypt, where Jesus spent His earliest years, was a Greek-speaking community. Some of His disciples had Greek names (Philip, Andrew); some of His word-plays would have been impossible in Aramaic (petros/petra in Matthew 16 ["Peter/rock"]).
To say the least, it's not a weak case.
I'd suggest that (resorting to) pragmatism, in itself, is already compromise because so much of its tenets are contrary to a biblical model/approach...it need not "lead" anywhere, as it has already arrived...at failure.
Yes, let's do keep in mind the difference between pragmatism and being practical.
It is interesting to note that anytime Satan "comes a calling" it is most always with something that is desirous for us. Not what is best for us, but what is exciting, what is far-reaching and what is magnifying of ourselves. We must see it for what it is. Satan doing "his thing!" may each one of us continue to walk in the path that leads to Him. May we REJECT the Liar from the beginning. It is only when God is glorified that we can be pleasing to Him. When we turn "from" the one who wants to lead us astray and we turn "to" the One who saves, we glory in His Name. Excellent post!
Absolutely DJP!
This ever-so-subtle distinction, and ever-so-valuable distinction I might add, is the same territory in which we often find ourselves shut out of the EC "conversation" because methodology and theology are as distinct from one-another as practical is from pragmatism. We wouldn't be alarmed if the EC agenda was merely practical.
I guess we also shouldn't discount the Alexandrian and Seleucid control of the land, from the 330s to the 160s; followed by the Hellenized Hasmoneans. (Even the Hasmonean-era term "sanhedrin" is apparently a Greek word.)
Actually, the more I think of it, the case looks stronger for Greek than for Aramaic. How well this jives with prevailing theories on the contemporary currency of Aramaic, I don't know. There could be other interests at work—like trying to reconstruct an extrabiblical, "historical" Jesus, based on the Q hypothesis.
A Google search for 'jesus greek' (without the quotes) yields various results of interest.
Pragmatism - in order to arrive at a pre-determined end we take this verse to mean ...
Praticality - Understanding how the Scripture, as understood by it's original hearers, impacts my life, now.
The Daryl Little Dictionary of Pyro Verbiage.
Okay, last comment on this. But since I opened this can of worms, might as well finish off with a quick summary:
It seems that a fair number of people in Judea would probably have been familiar with both Aramaic and Greek, and to a lesser degree Hebrew. Aramaic could have been the mother tongue (so in Jesus' most intimate moments, he reverted to the language he first learned), and was the language of the Targums (translations of Hebrew Scripture, read side-by-side with the latter in synagogues). The Dead Sea Scrolls are in Hebrew. The Jerusalem Talmud (which emerged in its final form after the time of Jesus) is in Hebrew and Aramaic.
Pretty much a mixed bag! So maybe the way the entire Scripture in its original languages is an admixture of Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek (cf. Daniel, Malachi, Matthew) properly reflects the complex reality on the ground!
It was intemperate of me to hint in my last comment that there might be ulterior motives in backing one or another language as being the one Jesus primarily taught in. Mel Gibson and the Jesus Seminar would have very different reasons for backing Aramaic as being His primary language, and it seems to be the majority opinion overall (but then again, salvation by works and the essential goodness of humankind are also majority opinions). But it turns out this is quite a complex field of study, and one needs to question all of one's assumptions. Thank you for bringing this matter to light, Dan.
(Or thanks to Cent for sidetracking this thread with his softball pitch to Dan.)
Dan,
Solid post. Very encouraging...very thought provoking as well. My life is busy now, but this really helps me focus back on the Savior.
"So here's my sum-up: we can press many sorts of methods into service, as long as those methods serve the message."
Yeahyes!
Can you imagine the look on Satan's face when he heard "you" shall worship the Lord....
What a turn around.
Dan: First, thanks for the tip on Thomas & Gundry. I have that book on my shelf as well, but have never taken the time to read the appendicies. (As an aside, am I the only one who gets a chuckle when I imagine those two working together?)
I wanted to follow up with this question. We're studying Acts at church, and in my readings I came across this quote:
I thoroughly agree...that the addresses recorded by Luke are almost certainly compressions of the original speeches. Luke may have worked from his own notes of the salient points of an address, or from the recollections of those who heard the words first hand. It seems exceedingly unlikely that a verbatim report of any speech could have been made in those days.
My question is this: Do you believe the same thing about the speeches of Peter and Paul as you do about the teaching of Jesus? And as a corollary, does it matter if the speeches we have recorded are "compressions," as the other Mr. Phillips believes? What are the implications if he is correct?
Thanks.
I haven't read through Thomas' arguments in JETS nor the rejoinders, so I don't think I'm in real command of the question. I'd lean towards accuracy, but my understanding is that the historical standard (i.e. Herodotus) was to give the gist of speeches.
If my youngest asks whether he and his brother can stay up late to watch Bionicles again, and I say, "You know, you both need your sleep; and if this were for something useful or worthwhile, I might consider it. But for Bionicles? I just don't think it's a good idea"....
...and if his brother asked him what I said...
...and if he says, "Dad said 'No'"...
...I'd say it was pretty accurate.
Having said that, I say again: I lean more towards exact wording. It's just something I need to look into more closely.
Dan,
I have another take on Satan's control of the world. God created it, but placed Adam in charge of subduing it. But when Adam sinned, he did so in obeying Satan. Adam effectively transferred control of the earth from himself to the serpent. It was given to him by Adam, not God.
Now, an analogy is like this. Let's say you were given a family heirloom by your father, with the responsibility to transfer it to your sons. Even though it is your sons' by inheritance, you control it. You then take it to the pawn shop and hawk it. The pawn shop now controls what is your son's rightful property. Your father realizes what you've done and sets about to take control back. He needs to redeem the heirloom. This is where the second Adam comes in. And all this is why Jesus doesn't contest Satan's claim.
Scott,
Sounds really good but what you end up with is God saying "You did what???" and having to change his plans to fix things. Not very sovereign, not very biblical.
Yup.
The insidious thing about pragmatisim is that it works.
Post a Comment