Showing posts with label communicating better. Show all posts
Showing posts with label communicating better. Show all posts

01 August 2014

If I could give only one piece of advice to bloggers who want to be heard, it would be...

by Dan Phillips

...write less, but more often.

Oh, there, I gave away the punch-line without any buildup! And yet, you're still reading. Why is that? Probably three reasons:
  1. Some: because you've learned you like my writing style. (Thank you! I appreciate you!)
  2. Some: because the dialogue-style of this post has you engaged. And...
  3. Some: because your peripheral vision tells you it isn't that long of a post, so a huge investment won't be necessary.
Now, there's a lesson in all of that. The first category has been earned, perhaps, by my ten-or-however-many years of blogging. I've built a readership. Again, thank you!

The second is something I've developed over the years.

The third is just the way it is. Unless your name rhymes with Zigon Zuncan or Xon Xiper or Pevin PeYoung or Qug Qilson or suchlike, you haven't earned the expectation that a huge time-investment in reading your writing would surely be rewarding. So don't write 30,000 word dissertations and ask everyone what they think. I'll tell you what they think: "That's too danged long!"

Seriously. I can't tell you how many times I've felt truly bad, because some good brother says "Please read this, tell me what you think." And, dutifully, I click over, and... my eyes go down, down, down, down, and yes once again, down. As they do, they glaze over, hope fades, my heart sinks, and I don't even want to start because I know I won't want to have to endure to the end to be saved.

So: you are bursting with a message. That's great. You want people to hear you. Of course you do! So write something snappy, to-the-point, and short. It won't say everything you want to say. But if you want anyone to want to hear what you have to say, you'll need to earn that. Start by respecting their time, and not overstaying your welcome.

After all, it's your blog. Today's a great day for Part One. Part Two can come tomorrow. Leave your readers wanting more, and they'll come back.

Put another way: use words like you have to pay for each one, instead of like you're paid for each one.

I'm done. See? Like that.

You're welcome.

Dan Phillips's signature


14 March 2013

Homosexual "marriage": Debating a plate of animated spaghetti

by Dan Phillips

If I wanted to attend a doctoral-level course in gracious patience, I would want it to be taught either by Doug Wilson, or Thabiti Anyabwile. (Happily for us, both are beginning a public dialogue on race and slavery; more on that another time, perhaps.)

As to Doug, whenever I've seen him in debate, he's the soul of unflappable patience. This quality is on display in his, er, "debate" with Andrew Sullivan. Now, you'll note I didn't hypertextualize that as is usual in blogs. That's because I do want to issue a warning: I don't particularly recommend that you listen to it. It is painful listening. Most times the case for homosexual "marriage" is given voice here, and every time the audience gives voice, you can feel IQ points gushing out your ears. In my case, I don't have them to spare, so it was less fun than a colonoscopy.

But if you insist, or if you may figure into the public debate on homosexual "marriage," you've been warned: here y'go. Don't blame me.

My purpose isn't to analyze the entire debate, though I'll throw out my impressions. Others have offered post mortems. I would say that Doug Wilson won the debate in terms of graciousness and providing anything resembling a rational case. But... and I can't tell you how reluctant I am to say this... I don't think he won the day. I found myself extremely reluctantly agreeing with Sullivan (ow, that hurt) that Wilson should not have kept  his positive case for his position for the end of the debate. I think he needed a stronger case.

I have to rush to clarify that I am not saying, implying nor thinking "I would have done a better job." I just found myself wishing that Wilson had. But in that Wilson eloquently posed and insisted on an unanswerable question that is rationally devastating for Sullivan's position ("Any argument for your demand that we call homosexual pairings 'marriage' equally validates polygamy"), he scored a body-blow. Also, he kept raising the central "By what standard?" question. And I love that Doug preached the Gospel.

But it's taken a half-dozen graphs to come to my point: I fear Wilson was in an unwinnable situation. He was debating almost sheer emotion, a flood of emotional purging and manipulation. Almost all Sullivan had was (literal) sob-stories, emotion, and untrammeled subjective self-reporting. Witness this fact: with great emphasis and gravity, Sullivan insisted, "Believe me, I have deeply searched my conscience and my heart" — adducing it as if it were the trump-card, the final winning argument. As if it were, in fact, an argument at all. And both he and the audience clearly felt that all this was more than sufficient, while Wilson's emotionally cool responses fell far short of resonating or convincing.


Bringing us to our question: How do you counter that? How do you respond to a mess, to a pile, to a plate of animated spaghetti?

To be clear: I refer to Sullivan's argument; not to Sullivan. Andrew Sullivan is a bright man, articulate and passionate and emotionally very evocative. I refer to his position, his case, his presentation. In terms of truth and content and logic, it's a disaster, an absolute trainwreck. Wouldn't matter if it were enunciated by Buckley or Plato or Shakespeare: it's a mess.

Sullivan insistently repeats a case that I'll paraphrase thus:
"I am a Christian, God made me this way, God loves me as I am. I am happy the way I am, this is my identity. I have hopes and dreams. I am a victim. When I told my father I was a homosexual, he wept and wept [voice breaking]... because of all the suffering he knew I'd been through without his help. So now why do you want to deny me of personhood, of my hopes, of my future, when my God accepts me and wants me to be happy? Why do you want to persecute me and rob me of fundamental rights that you enjoy, that everyone should have — just like people such as you did to blacks, to slaves? Shouldn't I be able to love and live and have hopes and dreams? Aren't I as worthy as anyone? Besides, look at divorced straights. Why do you want to condemn me to misery and hopeless despair and promiscuous irresponsibility and government assistance?"
I know exactly what most of you are thinking. You're thinking the same as I. You want to dive in on the first statement ("I am a Christian"), and dismantle it. Then proceed to the next ("God made me this way"), and then the next and the next and the next...

And in so doing, we come off as uncaring, loveless automatons, religious bigots, the whole nine.

Maybe that's just the way it has to be. Someone has to be the adult in the room. God's truth mustn't, shouldn't and can't be flushed just because it "won't work." But is it simply a doomed enterprise?

It may be. The wise man says, "When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, The foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest" (Prov. 29:9). One thinks of this often, listening to the Wilson/Sullivan debate. The wise man is "cool," while the fool is molten passion.

Is the key in the famous paradox of Proverbs 26?
4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.
How would that work, in this debate? The entire case for homosexual "marriage" rests on the narcissism that drives our culture: affectio ergo sum, "I feel, therefore I am." We see it in the constant cry, "You must follow your heart." Well, the homosexual's heart tells him all sorts of things. As did Ghandi's. As did Hitler's. As did David Livingstone's. As does the rapist's, the philanthropist's, the child molestor's, the neurosurgeon's. As does yours. As does mine. (This is why in our day any explanation of Christ's true saving Gospel has to involve exposing our culture's false gospel at some length.)

So again I ask: how do we respond to sheer verbalized emotion that fixes on facts and logical arguments like a caddisfly larva does with gravel and twigs? Do we construct a rational argument expressed in emotional terms? How would that go? Like this?
I care very much about the miseries felt by homosexuals. Nobody should live in despair and hopelessness, or be cruelly oppressed. But is giving someone what he asks for always the most loving thing? Here is an addict. All he wants is more meth, more heroin. Shall I give it to him? He will tell me that he needs it, that he is miserable without it. He will tell me that it makes life hurt less, makes him happy. If I withhold the drug, he will be angry with me, he will be in pain... but would I not be more loving? After all, I know that every use moves him closer to illness and death and ruin.
Or again, consider the young man who just doesn't want to get a job. He wants me to support him. He doesn't feel like working. I have enough; aren't I obliged? If he doesn't work, he'll be unclothed, unfed, and eventually homeless.
Or here's the fat person. He hates being fat, he hates being called "fat." He implores me to call him "thin, lean and buff." He would feel so much better if I would just call him "thin, lean and buff." Why won't I? Why won't I give him what he wants? Doesn't he have the right to be happy just like everyone else, just like all the actually thin, lean and buff people? Is it unloving of me to refuse his request? Does my refusal cause him pain?
But is pain always bad and unloving? Aren't those pains motivators? Aren't they built into the universe by God to say in effect, "This is no way to live. There is a better way"? And is it not possible that the pains and frustrations of the homosexual are of the same sort — and that if we remove each obstacle, we are only speeding him towards self-destruction?
I want an answer that is loving, compassionate, and true. The only way to answer those questions is if I have an authority that is itself the epitomy of love, compassion, and truth.
Which I do. So let me explain:... 
Would that move us forward?

One problem: it isn't a secular argument.

So should we simply abandon secular arguments? Is this the watershed issue that shows our culture how bankrupt the path of autonomous narcissistic secularism really is? When (Sullivan to the contrary notwithstanding) the pedophiles and incestuous and polygamous who now cheer the "gay" "marriage" crowd knock at the door for their entrance using the same emotionalism, and we find ourselves fresh out of responses?

As a card-carrying Pyromaniac, I don't much like ending with a question. But there it is.

Dan Phillips's signature


07 February 2013

"God Listens." True. But not necessarily good news

by Dan Phillips

Driving home the other day I saw a truck with the bumper sticker "God Listens." It's advertisement for a local Christian radio station about which I know next to nothing, since most of the programming fires well wide of my tastes.

My first thought was, "Isn't that the quintessence of 'getting-it-wrong'?"

Doubtless, it's meant to be a great warm and loving invitation, and maybe it strikes a lot of people-who-aren't-me exactly right. But what does it actually say? Doesn't it tacitly confirm our fundamental Adamic belief, that what really needs to happen is that God needs to listen to us?

Remember the story. Remember the source of absolutely every bit of misery and sadness and brokenness in our universe. What happened? A perfectly adequate summary would be:

God spoke
We didn't listen

And now here is an outreach that says, not "God has spoken, and we'd better listen," but "God listens." God is made passive, we are made the actors. God is a harmless, benevolent Grandpa just waiting for us to climb up in His lap and vent, or a submissive servant waiting for us to work the machinery to extract our Best Life Now©, as The Gospel Coalition's Golden Boy's Golden Boy is fond of saying. It's up to us. We control the relationship.

Of course, you'll search in vain for this note in any of the apostles preaching in the NT. The closest I can think of in the prophets is of a very different spirit. First is Hosea 14:2, which indeed says, "Take with you words and ...to the LORD; say to him..." Okay, that sounds close. Until we quote it in full:

Return, O Israel, to the LORD your God, for you have stumbled because of your iniquity.  2 Take with you words and return to the LORD; say to him, "Take away all iniquity; accept what is good, and we will pay with bulls the vows of our lips. 3 Assyria shall not save us; we will not ride on horses; and we will say no more, 'Our God,' to the work of our hands. In you the orphan finds mercy" (14:1-3)
Then there is the more famous word in Isaiah 1:18, "Come now, let us reason together." That sounds like an invitation to a conversation. Until, once again, the context is brought in:
Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil, 17 learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause.  18 "Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool. 19 If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; 20 but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be eaten by the sword; for the mouth of the LORD has spoken" (1:16-20)
Once again, it is a call to repent in view of the already-known word of God (vv. 2-4, 10).

In both cases, then, you could apply the prophets' words to the bumper sticker in the sense, "When we respond to God's Word with repentance, God listens."

However, if the thought is meant to be, "Just as you are, unrepentant and unbelieving, all you have to do is pray, and God cares and loves and accepts you and will help you fix what you think needs fixing," then it simply is not true. It may be a "precious promise," but it's a false one.

To take some passages opened and developed at length here, Prov. 28:9 says, "If one turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination." If "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD" (Prov. 15:8), his prayer won't be more acceptable, because "The LORD is far from the wicked" (Prov. 15:29).

My second thought was that the statement is certainly true, taken all by itself — though I don't think it is true in the sense intended.
Proverbs 15:3 — The eyes of the LORD are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good.
Ecclesiastes 12:14 — For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.
Matthew 12:36 — "I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak."
So: those times you lied? Those times you manipulated the truth to get your way, to work your will on someone weaker? Those times you denied or twisted the truth of God? Those times you made excuses which amounted to lies and deceptions, to get out of work or trouble?

God listens. And God will judge.

So really, the bumper sticker is true, as-is.

And, to sinners outside of Christ, and apart from the Good News, absolutely terrifying.

Dan Phillips's signature



14 August 2012

Charismatic lexicon - Part One

by Dan Phillips

In the interests of communication and instruction, and because I'm here to help, I offer this lexicon. I'm calling it Part One because (A) I'm sure there'll be more, because (B) I'm pretty sure readers will supply some great stuff that (C) I will steal, publish here, and claim as my own.

First, then: the term as used by a Biblically-oriented Christian (BibC); then the Leaky Canon Charismatic equivalent (LC2). I paint, as I must, with a broad brush... but not that broad.

BibC: Culmination of millennia of revelation in a completed, wholly sufficient and closed Canon
LC2: Whatever. (Alternate: And then that happened...)

BibC: Feeling.
LC2: The Holy Spirit.

BibC: Hunch.
LC2: The Holy Spirit.

BibC: Silly passing thought.
LC2: The Holy Spirit.

BibC: Impulse, best to be rejected after a bit of wise and critical reflection.
LC: The Holy Spirit.

BibC: Testing by Scripture and rational examination.
LC2: Unbelief.

BibC: Walking in gracious, faith-driven obedience, which definitionally and consciously rests on the written Word alone.
LC2: Deism.

BibC: Living impulsively and irresponsibly, eschewing Biblical analysis and responsible decision-making, and blaming the whole mess on God.
LC2: Moving in the Spirit.

BibC: Undocumented anecdote allegedly done in a corner thousands of miles away and transmitted through the world's longest game of "telephone."
LC2: Proof that "the gifts" continue.

BibC: The undeniable absence of substantiated and globally-accepted claims to revelatory/attesting gifts among the Biblically orthodox from the first century until 1906.
LC2: "The man behind the curtain." (Alternate: "Look! A comet!")

BibC: The undeniable fact that modern instances of substantiated and globally-accepted claims to revelatory/attesting gifts among the Biblically orthodox depends on drastic reinterpretation of Scripture and playing fast and loose with the laws of evidence.
LC: (See above)

BibC: Prophecy is an explicitly Biblically-defined phenomenon in which God gives inerrant, binding, direct revelation to someone and assures that it is communicated as such. It is objectively verifiable.
LC2: Whatever you say it is. Except not verifiable or falsifiable.

BibC: Insisting on redefining the Biblical teaching about and descriptions of revelatory and attesting gifts so as to smuggle pale imitations into a time-frame some twenty centuries after their disappearance.
LC2: Non-negotiable essentials.

BibC: Affirming the all-over-the-Bible teaching of the sovereignty of God in salvation.
LC2: Totally negotiable, relatively minor.

...and one reverse:

LC2: A divine healing that undeniably proves all charismatic claims.
BibC: Answered prayer, God healing — which all Christians have always confirmed and distinguished from the gift of healing.

UPDATE: Chris Rosebrough of Pirate Christian Radio had a lot of very creative, hysterical fun with this.

Dan Phillips's signature


15 May 2012

Decisions, decisions: choosing to serve the Lord

by Dan Phillips

I've remarked before (notably here, and in all these posts) that I think some highly-caffeinated Reformed types don't help The Cause much when they pick apart just about every word that comes out of most Christians' mouths.

Another example is the use made of Joshua 24:15 — "And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

Popularly, two clauses are singled out from this verse: "choose this day whom you will serve," and "as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." The popular use is to call people to decision, to call them to decide for Christ, to choose to serve Him.

Hypercaffeinated Calvinists (imho) retort with a sneer that this is "decisional regeneration," or "decisionalism," or something like that. Forced to expand, they point out that Joshua is not saying "Choose whether or not you will serve Yahweh." Rather, he is saying, "If you will not serve Yahweh, then choose what false god you will serve."

Fair enough, as far as it goes. That is what the verse says. And anyone who's read the whole eighth chapter of TWTG, which is devoted to the Biblical doctrine of regeneration, knows that I don't see the Bible as teaching that new birth is caused by a human decision.

But don't humans make a decision? Is it helpful simply to dismiss the whole thought? I mean, dude, bro — what is repentance, if it doesn't involve a decision? What is faith? Don't we say that it has a volitional element? And what is the volition, if not the faculty that chooses? Don't we teach that we're all born heading south, and we have to do a 180? Isn't a reverse direction — though enabled by a work of sovereign grace — a decision?

Even putting all that aside, I don't even think the exegesis of this text stands up as a hypercaffeinated Calvinist critique.

Isn't context an important element of exegesis? Hypercaf critics do do a better job that popular Christians, in that they go back to verse 14, read all of 15, and note that the specific words are not a call to choose whether or not to serve Yahweh. Fair enough, as far as that goes.

But.

Keep reading. Read verses 16-27, and what do you see?
16 Then the people answered, "Far be it from us that we should forsake the LORD to serve other gods, 17 for it is the LORD our God who brought us and our fathers up from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, and who did those great signs in our sight and preserved us in all the way that we went, and among all the peoples through whom we passed.  18 And the LORD drove out before us all the peoples, the Amorites who lived in the land. Therefore we also will serve the LORD, for he is our God."

 19 But Joshua said to the people, "You are not able to serve the LORD, for he is a holy God. He is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions or your sins.  20 If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, then he will turn and do you harm and consume you, after having done you good."

 21 And the people said to Joshua, "No, but we will serve the LORD."

 22 Then Joshua said to the people, "You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen the LORD, to serve him." And they said, "We are witnesses."

 23 He said, "Then put away the foreign gods that are among you, and incline your heart to the LORD, the God of Israel."

 24 And the people said to Joshua, "The LORD our God we will serve, and his voice we will obey."

 25 So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and put in place statutes and rules for them at Shechem.  26 And Joshua wrote these words in the Book of the Law of God. And he took a large stone and set it up there under the terebinth that was by the sanctuary of the LORD.  27 And Joshua said to all the people, "Behold, this stone shall be a witness against us, for it has heard all the words of the LORD that he spoke to us. Therefore it shall be a witness against you, lest you deal falsely with your God."
The people retort that they will serve Yahweh. Joshua replies that they won't be able to, because of their fickleness. They insist that they will serve Him. So Joshua formalizes this declaration, indicating his approval — first saying "you have chosen the LORD, to serve him" (v. 22).

In other words, they did choose Yahweh, in response to Joshua's challenge. They did choose Yahweh.

And, in conversion, so do we.

Dan Phillips's signature

19 April 2012

The odd little man and what he says to preachers

by Dan Phillips

The Pastoral Ministry class in seminary was of uneven value. I think the professor tried to make it valuable, and he was a very genial and likable fellow. One thing he said has stuck in my mind ever since. So here's what we'll do. I'll tell you what he said, I'll warn you against taking the wrong point from it, then I'll tell you the good truth I keep from it.

The professor told us to picture the most absurd-looking man imaginable. He said something like that we should make him round in shape, put him in a bright green suit with a bright orange hat, and adorn the suit with a big flower, and the hat with a big propeller. That way, you can't possibly miss him.

Then he said to put the man in the front row.

Then he said to imagine that the man only knew three words in English, and to imagine that he kept repeating those three words over and over, all the way through the sermon.

The words:

"Tell me how."

Now, the wrong way to take this exercise is to conclude that all sermons must be pragmatic, they must all be how-to sermons. It is possible that this is how the professor intended that we take his exercise. If so, I would disagree. Such a bent would cut out a lot of Scripture and a lot of truth. Arguably, one might never preach the Gospel, let alone the doctrines of the triune God, or prophecy, or a host of other truths found all over Scripture.

However, that is not the way I apply the exercise. I take it to mean that I should tether myself to reality, to my hearers. My goal is not to soliloquize the Word of God, to speak for my own amusement or edification or aggrandizement. My goal is to preach the Word, to communicate it.

My goal in studying is to connect with the Word myself, heart and mind and soul. My goal in preaching is to connect the Word with my hearers, heart and mind and soul. To do that, I need to aim for where they are. Whether I am preaching on "Husbands, love your wives" or "God is light and in Him is no darkness at all," whether on "Flee fornication" or "God is Spirit," whether on the fruits of the Spirit or the seals, trumpets and bowls of Revelation, my job is personally to connect with the text myself, and then to connect my hearers — the sheep entrusted to me — with that same text.

If I don't understand it, I fail. If I don't help them understand it to the best of my ability under God, I fail.

Beyond argument, God has done exactly this, hasn't He? That is what Calvin was talking about when he said that God "lisps with us as nurses are wont to do with little children." He did not mean that Scripture communicates error, but that all words from God to us are necessarily accommodated. The Infinite is speaking to the finite. How does He do it? Well, you have read the Book, right? What do you see? Narratives, legal documents, letters, parables, poems, songs, often featuring the most striking and arresting and inescapably bold figures and images and turns of speech that one could ever hope for. God, we could say, is all over the map in assuring that we can connect with His truth.

So, shouldn't we do the same?

Do I dumb it down? Sure, I have to — in order for me to understand it! Don't tell anyone, but that's my secret, in writing and in preaching: I'm very, very dim. (Not much of a secret, the reader might observe unkindly.) So that makes it easy. Once I understand it, I'm ready to explain it to anyone, whether by book, blog or sermon.

So: should our sermons be pragmatic? When the text is, sure — and it often is. So should we preach on God's aseity, on the hypostatic union, on the Trinity, on predestination and election and the effectual call and the atonement and a hundred other lofty Biblical truths? Absolutely.

Just never forget the odd little man, and make sure that you do all you can to connect God's truth to his own understanding.

That's pretty much what you're there for, right?

Dan Phillips's signature

21 April 2011

Mouth, lips, heart

by Dan Phillips

Proverbs has a lot to say about use and abuse of mouth, tongue, lips.

For instance, Proverbs 18:6 warns us that "A fool's lips walk into a fight, and his mouth invites a beating" —constantly writing checks that the rest of his body isn't up to cashing. Over and over again, "By the mouth of a fool comes a rod for his back" (14:3a), and he never learns: "Crush a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain, yet his folly will not depart from him" (27:22).

By contrast, "The lips of the wise spread knowledge" (15:7a), and "feed many" (10:21a), because "The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life" (10:11a). "The tongue of the righteous is choice silver" (10:2a) and "brings forth wisdom" (10:31a), but "the perverse tongue will be cut off" (10:31b).

That is why we see cautions against being overly wordy, overly garrulous. "When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent" (10:19). Indeed, "Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent" (17:28). For "Whoever keeps his mouth and his tongue keeps himself out of trouble" (21:23).

So is that the solution? Simply exercise mouth-discipline? Learn to keep your mouth shut? Watch what you say, learn some Bible verses so you can make yourself say helpful and edifying things? Watch encouragers, learn how they talk, and do the same? There's some value in all that.

Yet I've known of folks in public and private life who lament the fruit of their lips, vow to do better... then simply repeat the disaster. What's the problem?

Of course, one problem is our common problem as Christians: remaining corruptions (Romans 7:14-25; 8:13).

But beyond that, I think the problem is when we don't go beyond the effects to the cause. Why do we say what we say? Jesus knew, because He knew man (John 2:25), and He knew Proverbs. Hear Him: "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil" (Matthew 12:34b-35).

What does that have to do with Proverbs? It points us to what I think is an absolutely critical verse to understanding the book, second perhaps only to 1:7/9:10/31:30. That verse is Proverbs 4:23. Here's my ad hoc translation, to catch the doubled verbal synonyms most versions overlook: "Keep watch over your heart more than all you guard, for from it flow the issues of life." Solomon emphatically traces it all — not merely to choices of behavior and action, but — to the heart. Every detail of our lives flows from our hearts, so we must maintain a watch over them more than we guard anything else.

Cutting right back to our topic, then, why do we say such bad things? Because we believe, cherish, and think such bad things. What fills the heart goes out the mouth. We can't really change our mouths until the atmosphere and furnishings of our hearts change.

This underscores the utter necessity of regeneration, of being born again and made new people (John 3:1ff; 2 Corinthians 5:17). We don't merely need to adjust our hearts, we need new hearts (Ezekiel 36:26). We cannot merely learn new habits; we must be made new people by God's sovereign grace. But having been made new, we still are in constant need of continual renewal of our minds (Romans 12:3).

So why does this wife keep saying poisonous things to her husband, making it hard for him to trust her (Proverbs 31:11-12)? It is because, when she does, she laments how her mouth got her into trouble, and perhaps blames her husband for his reaction to her shaming speech. "I'll just keep my mouth shut," she vows — stoking the flames of martyred, bitter self-pity that rage in her heart. She does not realize that God calls her to think of her husband in a respectful way (do read that linked essay), and so to battle and put to death and wholly replace the poisonous thoughts that give birth to the poisonous words. They are her enemy, not her husband. If her heart changes, her mouth will change.

Or why does that husband keep belittling and objectifying his wife? Maybe he is mulishly unaware, or maybe he has some dull consciousness that his words aren't feeding an intimate relationship. Or maybe he just thinks she's too touchy. Whatever grain of truth there may be in any of that, his main problem isn't his mouth, it's his heart. It is that he does not see her as a gift from God (Proverbs 18:22). He does not value her as befits a fellow image-bearer of God (Genesis 1:27). He does not make the decision to assign her great honor and value as the weaker vessel who is his equal in being heir to the grace of life (1 Peter 3:7). He does not love her — an activity of the heart that moves the hands and feet and lips — as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25f.). So he does not say words that are tender, appreciative, and loving, because those are not the thoughts that fill his heart.

These same principles could be applied to how we speak to children/parents, bosses/employees, church leaders/church attenders, and on and on. Attend to the mouth, yes, Proverbs calls us to do that, and to learn wisdom for how we speak.

But don't forget to start with the heart, or all efforts are doomed.

Dan Phillips's signature

12 April 2011

Urgency: friend, and sometimes foe

by Dan Phillips

If we really believe what we are writing, blogging, talking, and preaching about, should it be difficult to find notes of passion and urgency in what we say and how we say it? I think not; yet urgency can be both friend and foe.

Friend. I remember one towering Biblical scholar (no longer with us), a good man, who has generated work that will be useful for years. Yet his writing tends to be dry, dry, dry. Even a work of his meant for devotional reading was solid, sound, orthodox... and fairly desiccated.  No passion, no urgency, just detached discussion of things and facts. Merely stylistic? Perhaps.

I've long argued that Biblical academes should not count themselves exempt from thinking and writing as Christians. (BTW, my previous example in this post was not Bruce.) I do not mean that every work needs overtly to be an evangelistic tract, or to be filled with personal testimonies. I do mean that a Christian scholar/pastor/whateverer should write as a Christian, who believes he is dealing with eternal truths of eternal consequence to the eternal souls who are reading his writing, and who are themselves a literal heartbeat from eternal judgment.

A really fine example would be Jim Hamilton, in his work God's Glory in Salvation by Judgment: a Biblical Theology. Since I plan to review the book within the next week or two, for now I'll just say Hamilton is a model in this regard. His scholarship is thorough, sound, and up-to-date... and Christian. He writes as a Christian. He writes as if what he is treating is true, and matters.

But don't just think smugly of Those Scholars and Their Dry Ways. The problem isn't necessarily aridity nor academics. We garden-variety believers sometimes unintentionally belie our own urgency, and communicate the opposite of what we believe, by bad (or ill-considered) habits we slip into.

For instance, church services should be both somber and joyous, and loving... and urgent. But when we saunter up to the podium and fill time with chit-chat, casually meandering around as if there's no particular hurry in getting to the Word, I think we undercut what we believe. I think we send conflicting messages.

There was a church with a terrific pastor, and sweet, genuine, loving people, plus a sound doctrinal position. Services started off at varying times, in a meandering, wandering way, with chit-chat and this-'n'-that amid general continuing buzz and conversation, followed by maybe 60 minutes or so of choruses and ditties sung a few times through, crowned by about a 25-30 minute sermon. Not bad, far from it. But not urgent.

Whether 60 minutes, 90 or 120, church services or other words given in Christ's name should be urgent affairs. Stephen's hearers saw in him the face of an angel (Acts 6:15). Perhaps that meant he literally glowed with a reflection of God's glory. Perhaps it was that he was a consummate messenger, clearly urgently intent upon what he had to say, as if it were the last message he would ever impart — which, in fact, it was.

Never forget: each confrontation with the Word is a crisis. Crisis comes straight from the Greek krisis, which means judgment. God's word is living, powerful, unimaginably sharp, and it judges us (Hebrews 4:12). Jesus' words judge us (John 12:48). Angels apparently watch (1 Corinthians 11:10; Ephesians 3:10; 1 Timothy 5:21), and wonder (1 Peter 1:12). Souls hang in the balance, lives are at unknown crossroads. This tidy fellow may be on the verge of a heart-attack; that polite couple could be headed for divorce; this young single might be hovering at the brink of a terrible decision; that young lady could be desperately snared in the jaws of a deep, dark, papered-over depression....

It's not teatime on the deck of some luxury cruiser. It ain't Oprah. It's strategy-time, for soldiers under fire, in the midst of a war.

Foe? At the same time, that very urgency, once it grips us, can also work against us us, or dampen our effectiveness.

Here it is too easy for me to dip into the deep well of my own frailties. My late father heard me preach a couple of times, and said "It just amazes me that you can think of things to say every week." I said, "Oh, Dad, the Bible is so rich that my problem is never thinking of things to say. My problem is stopping."

This has always been my struggle. When I was first offered chances to teach or preach, I grabbed at such opportunities as if I'd never have another. Consequently, I would try to say everything in one sermon. And again in the next. And in the next. Because — who knew? So much to give, so few opportunities.

Of course this is wearying to listeners. Folks can only hold so much; I of all people should have known that. A favorite Far Side cartoon of Valerie's and mine is the "my brain is full" one. I'm certain that I've been guilty of overfilling more than one brain, due to excess of passion and urgency. Perhaps some preachers here can identify as well, themselves?

The same temptation attends writing. I have two books coming out, Lord willing. Both are very exciting to me, culmination of years and years' worth of dreams, hopes, preparation, practice and effort.

And they're both not short! But when and if you put your hands on them, please know this: they could easily have been twice as long. In both cases, almost immediately after submitting them, the wincing and the cringing started as I thought of this thing I could have explained more, that application I could have included, this excursus I could have inserted, those passages I could have opened up.

I hope that urgency will be plain to each reader; at the same time, it had to be moderated, tamed, formed, aimed, directed... or it would have been undone by a verbal flood. The preacher feels it when he tries five ways to say one thing, or takes 10 minutes to close a sermon (like Spurgeon's mariner, rowing back and forth, back and forth, in search of a harbor). We need to pray, think, aim, select, and fire a single well-aimed shot.

But why the temptation to go on and on? Urgency! I don't know whether I'll ever have the opportunity to write again. What if I take all the rest to the grave undeveloped, unpreached, ungiven?

Bottom-line. In the final analysis, that would be God's concern, wouldn't it? He knows to a nanosecond how long we have left. He'll accomplish what He intends to accomplish through us.

Meanwhile, we who lack such knowledge do nonetheless have the guidance we need (Deuteronomy 29:29). On the one hand lies Scylla's warning against hiding God's investment in a field under pious-sounding protestations (cf. Matthew 25:24-30). On the other stands Charybis' admonition not to risk ruin by excess (Proverbs 10:19; 15:2b, 28b; Ecclesiastes 5:3).

The golden mean is to have a heart aflame with zealous love for God (Romans 12:11; Revelation 3:15-19), and then wisely to ponder, choose, fashion, form, and launch just those words that best convey His truth (Proverbs 15:2a, 28a; 16:23).

Which may be easier said than done — but merits both saying, and doing.

Dan Phillips's signature

13 October 2009

Here's your problem: you really, really don't get Deuteronomy 29:29

by Dan Phillips

Moses writes, “The secret things belong to [Yahweh] our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law" (Deuteronomy 29:29).

This revelatory nugget sets up two distinct, discrete categories.
  1. Secret things, which (A) belong to Yahweh, and therefore (B) do not belong to us, and therefore (C) are neither our business to know, to do, nor even to be concerned about; and
  2. Revealed things, which (A) belong to us and our children, and therefore (B) are not Yahweh's concern to do in our stead, and therefore (C) are our sole business and responsibility to know, to do, and to be concerned about.
I'm going to belabor those two points, then I'm going to apply them. (Note: the following assumes, rather than repeats, the Biblical case developed in previous posts and comments on this subject.)

Belaboring
God will not do Category 2 for you. That is, He will not love your wife in your stead. He will not raise your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord in your stead. He will not think about the Word in your stead. He will not go out and disciple the nations in your stead, hold out the Word of Life in your stead, shine in the darkness in your stead, nor be ready to give every man an answer for your hope in your stead.
 
He told you to do it. He told me to do it. We mustn't try to twit God — fool's errand! — by playing ultra-Calvinistically dumb.

Now, you cannot do it without His grace, His enabling, His Spirit. But do it you must. Do it you must. Do it you must. If you refuse — however complex, noble, nuanced and pious-sounding your excuses reasons — you are sinning, and you must repent.

Equally, you cannot do Category 1 for God. It isn't your responsibility. Look on the "Need-to-know" list, and you'll only find one name. It isn't yours, nor is it mine.

What's more, you cannot prevent God from doing Category 1. Unlike you and me, God always does what He sets out to do; and, also unlike us, nothing prevents Him from doing it. No matter how lazy or hyperactive, how wise or foolish, how stupid or bright, or how bold or timid you and I are, God can and will see to every last one of His "secret things." It is sheer unbelief to reason or act otherwise.
Applying
Now, just about every one of you thinks you believes those things. But dissonant strains in metas like this one really make me wonder.

If you believed Category 2, then you wouldn't worry about whether or not it is "doctrinally proper" to call people to come to Christ, to decide, to believe, to repent, to turn, to accept Christ, to get reconciled to God, or even to get saved. Because God issues all these commands, and authorizes us to echo them in His name (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:19-20).

We wouldn't waste our (and others') time, and embarrass ourselves, by trying to find longwinded ways of making the Word not say what it plainly does say. We wouldn't write 200-page essays on how the number 2, when doubled, actually equals Varfnod. We wouldn't get out our electromicroscopes and hyper-examine every possible implication of simply doing what God says to do, rather than simply doing it.

If you believed Category 1, then you wouldn't worry about whether or not you were issuing these invitations and commands to an elect person or a reprobate person. That's not your business! That's no part of your concern! If he's reprobate, he won't hear and respond anyway! If he's elect, he will! That's a secret thing. Let God worry about it.

That's it.

Maybe you expect another 2000 words, making this all nuanced and complex and deep.

But that's really all I have to say.

Except this: if the shoe doesn't fit, feel free to drive on.

But if it does... your issue's really not with me, now, is it?
Dan Phillips's signature

06 October 2009

Communicating better: "decisionalism," or "decisionism"

by Dan Phillips

Now I'll continue what we started a while back. That time, we looked generally at some knee-jerk Calvinist reaction to using the (Biblical) language of choice or decision.

This time, we entertain a still more focused question.

What do you mean by "decisionism" or "decisionalism"? What's so bad about it? What's Biblier?


Calvinists give other Christians the impression that we're downplaying the need for being born again, the need for a radical and decisive change. Many Christians think that we pray to be born again, perhaps using the words of Psalm 51:10 ("Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me"). Or they think that we believe in God, and are then born again.

So put it plain, simple, and Bibley.

Two special rules for this thread. Decide to obey them, or I'll decide for you:

  1. Strict two-hundred-word limit on all comments. Violate that, and I'll delete, and leave the person's name dangling in the wind, as a grim warning to wordy fellow-travelers.
  2. In-house discussion; Calvinists only.
As usual, I'll probably mostly hold my thoughts for a followup post.

Dan Phillips's signature

10 September 2009

Choice thoughts on choosing

by Dan Phillips

(My thoughts on this Communicating Better post)

To be Biblical, theology at least has to deal with the raw data of Scripture. Any system will have parts it sings with, and parts it groans and sings with — but where you find yourself groaning too heartily, you should take a second look at your system.

I think it's beyond rational debate that the Bible envisions man as by design a deciding creature. "The plans of the heart belong to man," Solomon writes (Proverbs 16:1a), and the word translated "plans" suggests "arrangements." A lot of decisions go into an arrangement: do this, then this, then either this or this, depending on what happens.... This is the assigned lot of man, and rightly so. All over Scripture.

God faces Cain with a choice between doing well and yielding to sin (Genesis 4:7). Through Moses, God presents Pharaoh with a number of choices (cf. Exodus 8:1-2). To the nation, Moses cries, "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live" (Deuteronomy 30:19).

Fast-forwarding to the ministry of our Lord, we see many choices laid out, and the ringing command to choose rightly. "Repent," Jesus calls (Matthew 4:17); choose the narrow gate over the deadly broad way, Jesus warns (Matthew 7:13-14); come (Matthew 11:28), go (Matthew 28:19). Choices, choices.

Yet behind and over it all is the sovereign will of God, which is exhaustive and invincible, and which always has both the first and the last word.

So should we be reluctant to use the language of choosing and deciding? Evidently not. The Bible surely does it freely and frequently.

I think where we get hung up is in failing to deal wisely and believingly with Deuteronomy 29:29 — "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law."

Part of the problem, then, is that we concern ourselves too much with the wrong side of the equation. We gum up a critical difference that this verse reveals.

On the one hand, it is absolutely true that we can't do anything apart from God's sovereign will. We can't live (James 4:15) nor breathe (Daniel 5:23), let alone plan (Proverbs 21:1) nor do (Proverbs 16:9b). His sovereign will is a sure thing, and it is a secret thing.

But how does that rubber meet the road? Does that mean we shouldn't do anything unless we know whether it's God's sovereign will? If that's our chosen path, then evidently it's God's sovereign will that we be useless, pathetic idiots.

We needn't worry about whether God's sovereign will is done or not. It will be! Hel-lo, it's God's will! And it's sovereign! It simply isn't in our power to stop it from being done (Proverbs 19:21; 21:30)!

So look at it this way. If you're leery about telling someone to choose to trust in Christ, or decide for Christ — what would you tell him? Do nothing? Is that Biblical? Tell him not to repent, not to come to Christ, not to believe in Him? Is that Biblical?

But God urges him to do all these things! Isn't that sufficient authority for you and me telling sinners that they should? Isn't Jesus' invitation sufficient grounds for our invitation? If the King Himself invites them to come, commands them to repent, urges them to believe — what greater warrant would you ask?

In fact, isn't it tempting God and rank unbelief to refuse to issue such exhortations and invitations?

And if they tell us that they did in fact decide and choose to trust Christ as Savior and Lord, is it a godly and helpful thing to jump all over them and mock them?

Judging by that last, really-superb meta, I think you worked that one out for yourselves pretty well.

PREVIOUS META RULES DON'T APPLY
NORMAL BLOG-RULES APPLY

Dan Phillips's signature


08 September 2009

Communicating better: you don't choose?

by Dan Phillips

As a third in this series-of-indeterminate-length I raise this question:
Are Calvinists obliged to snort, jeer and mock at every use of the verb "choose" (or "decide") where God is not the subject?
This is no more theoretical than the previous ones were. I've seen it. Some poor soul mentions his "decision" for Christ, or an evangelist urges his hearers to choose to trust, or decide to put their faith in Christ... and out comes the Genevan Inquisition.

"Yeah, 'choose.' You 'chose.' It doesn't matter what you chose, because you can't choose. You're dead, unable to choose, unless God chooses you first."

Is that a Biblical way to hear and talk to such people? Is the Bible universally "anti-choice"? Does the Bible teach us that we should call sinners to Christ by telling them that they can't choose Christ, can't decide for Christ, mustn't decide for Christ, shouldn't choose Christ? If some bubbly new professor shares the great news with us that he'd decided to trust Christ, is our most brotherly, Biblical, God-honoring response to mock him and dress him right down as a Pelagian heretic?

You are headed South at full speed. Does the Gospel tell you to turn 'round and head North? Do you decide to do that? Do you decide to abandon all trust in your works and merit and goodness, and put all your faith in Jesus Christ alone? Is it right for us to call people to do that? Is it right for one seeking salvation to do that, to make that decision?

Or is all that really and truly and fatally contrary to the Gospel when understood in its Biblical, monergistic, sovereign-grace terms?

Only two special rules for this thread, and you don't have a choice about them:
  1. Strict two-hundred-word limit on all comments. I'll delete, and leave the person's name as a warning to all fellow-travelers.
  2. In-house discussion; Calvinists only
As usual, I'll probably mostly hold my thoughts for a followup post.

UPDATE: my thoughts can be found here.

Dan Phillips's signature

25 August 2009

Telling sinners how to be saved

by Dan Phillips

Last week, I posed a number of questions how to respond if asked, "What must I do to be saved?" As with the first post in this series, a spirited and substantive discussion broke out. However, the Thread Cop (yr obdt svt) was obliged to write out a number of citations for length-violations. Very sad. Nonetheless, you gave some terrific answers.

Here were the popular answers, often scorned by Calvinists, we re-examined:

  • Receive Christ
  • Pray to receive Christ
  • Believe in Jesus
  • Believe in Jesus sincerely
  • Let Christ into your heart
  • Ask Christ into your heart
  • Accept Jesus / accept Jesus as your Savior / accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior
  • Believe that Jesus died for your sins
Here are the questions, with my own responses and thoughts.
  1. Are those all really abominable answers? No, they really aren't.
  2. Are those all really un-Biblical answers? No, not really — though some Calvinists pour molten scorn on every one of them. In fact, it is some Calvinists who offer the most un-Biblical answer: to tell the sinner that he can do nothing in response to the Gospel, as if the Gospel is "sit there and go to Hell." Acts gives as many examples of that as part of bearing Gospel witness as it does of "Jesus died for your sins."

    Scripture does say we should receive Christ (John 1:12), and there is, to say the least, no Biblical reason not to pray to Him for this (Matthew 7:7-8; John 7:37). Now, there is a danger. This can be perceived as urging a blind leap, a mere existential encounter, a mystical vibration — which it is not. It may, if misunderstood, elevate the mystical and the emotional over the central and Biblically-warranted element of faith.

    But in that case, it seems to me best to redeem the image (since the image itself is, after all, Biblical) rather than abandon it or excoriate everyone who uses it. Simply teach that we must receive Christ, and we must do so by faith. Which segues nicely into...

    "Believe in Jesus" is exactly what the Scriptures say to do (John 3:16 — we do still believe that one, right?). We should make clear that Biblical faith is repentant faith, and that it involves the truth of Christ understood, accepted as true, and embraced. But we shouldn't make it sound like quantum physics, because Jesus emphatically doesn't (cf. Mark 10:15; Luke 10:21; John 6:35, 37).

    Shouldn't this faith be sincere? Mustn't Christ come and live in our hearts (John 14:23; Ephesians 3:17)? Isn't there a volitional element in faith?

    These are Biblical ideas, even if John Owen didn't phrase them exactly thus. When we carp at their precise wording, I think we advance nothing worthwhile nor essential. We don't make Christ and His Gospel look glorious. Instead, we just make ourselves look like snotty, imperious nitpickers, more excited about finding fault than in seeing people come to Christ. At best.

    Give me the brother who is doing the right thing imperfectly, rather than the man who does nothing but find fault — perfectly .

    I forgot to include another oft-criticized phrase: "accept Jesus as your personal Savior." That one is faulted because it may encourage a maverick mentality, and seems to negate that Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her. However, I believe the intent of the phrase was to counter barren institutionalism. That is, it was crafted to penetrate the thinking of cradle-Catholics and cradle-Baptists, who think that they are Christians because their parents were, or because they grew up in church, or because they attend a Christian church.

    That being the case, mightn't it also be a useful phrase to communicate a Biblical truth? After all, God has no grandchildren. The gate is narrow, admitting one at a time. I am not saved by being related to a Christian or a Christian institution. Christ must be my savior, or I am not saved.

    It may come as a surprise that my least-favorite version is "Believe that Jesus died for your sins."

    Why? Because I am really uncomfortable with making salvation the result of singling out any one fact, one statement, and making ascription to that statement the vehicle of salvation. It isn't the characteristic way of Scripture. You see more believe-Him than believe-that. I can't think of any example in Acts where this is what is preached, nor anything in the epistles that elevates this one statement above others as being essential to conversion.

    I'll return to this, but what we as evangelists want to do is get our hearers to Christ. Not to one fact about Him or His work; not even to a select cluster of facts about Him, but to Him, Himself. "Come to Me," Christ bids (Matthew 11:27). Come, believe, eat, drink, look, live (John 6:32ff.). Believe in Him, the apostles echo (Acts 16:31).

    What should I believe? Everything. Everything Jesus Himself says, everything He moves His apostles to say. But wait, I don't even know everything, when I become a Christian. For that matter, thirty-six years later, I still don't have that down. So what does that mean to a would-be convert?

    It starts with believing Jesus, with accepting Him as true, and His word as binding and true. We enroll in His school; and in that school, true students will continue and grow (John 8:31-32). But the premise is His truth and Lordship.

  3. Is it really horribly complicated, requiring a certain education-level? Saving us was horribly complicated for God, in order that it might not be so for us. We should not "improve" on what He has done and offered. Otherwise, see previous answer.
  4. Is an unsaved person who does one of these still unsaved? On what authority? If an unsaved person exercises repentant faith in the real Jesus of Scripture, he is saved, period. And that on the best and highest authority (John 3:36; John 6:35, 47, 54).
  5. And crucially, you put it simply and better, so a child or a simple man or woman could understand: what must I do to be saved?
I think what I've said probably points the way, as I see it. There are many ways of expressing the central truth of the sinner's need to exercise repentant faith in Christ alone, coming to Him by faith. They might be made to fit expression of that unchanging truth to the individual.

But of all the many really fine answers that were given, the one that echoed my own heart best was Penn Tomasetti's:
Go to Jesus to be saved! He said, "I am the way..." He said, "Come to me..." (Mtt.11:28). He said, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink..." (Jn.7:37). He died and rose again to bring us to God. Salvation is in no one else. He was dead (in place of repentant sinners), and behold He lives forever and ever, and He holds the keys to death and Hades... (Rev.1:18). He has power and authority to forgive sins (Mk.1:10). He came to save sinners... trust Him, believe Him, rely on Him, do not turn away from Him. Christ Jesus is called "our great God and Savior.” Don’t harden your heart, but give up trusting in your own goodness to save you, and whatever else you are holding to, and trust Him alone. He will never turn away anyone who comes to Him in true repentance (Jn.6:37).
Amen.

Dan Phillips's signature


18 August 2009

Communicating better: what must I do?

by Dan Phillips

With our first installment in this series-of-indeterminate-length (i.e. this could be the last one), you offered your thoughts on the famed/dreaded Altar Call. Then I offered mine.

Now let's take up a related topic: the answer to the question, "What must I do to be saved?"

Like the first, here's one in which Calvinists really puzzled me, even long after I'd become convinced of the doctrines of grace myself. It was the way they dealt with that critical question.

Christians at large would tell a seeker any or all of the following:
  • Receive Christ
  • Pray to receive Christ
  • Believe in Jesus
  • Believe in Jesus sincerely
  • Let Christ into your heart
  • Ask Christ into your heart
  • Accept Jesus / accept Jesus as your Savior / accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior
  • Believe that Jesus died for your sins
At one time or another, I have heard Calvinists pour molten flames of scorn on every one of those answers, except maybe the last one. I have heard them — not merely disagree, not merely suggest they might be inadequate, not merely express concern but — mock and ridicule and reject these responses, just as roundly as if one had said "Put on a pink tutu and dance the Conga in the rain."

You hear things sneered with much acid, like:
"You don't accept Jesus. He's a King! He doesn't need your acceptance!"

"'Believe,' pah! The demons believe. You have faith in your faith. That won't save you. You're lost!"

"The Bible never says to pray to receive Christ!"

"The Bible never says to let Christ into your heart!"
So, we're clearly supposed to think that these are horrible answers. I became very clear on that.

And once again, these Calvinists showed a wonderful facility for criticizing, shredding, tearing down, and explaining why everyone else was wrong. What didn't come across so clearly — in spite of a pretty strong Biblical background and a lot of reading and listening — is this one thing: what are you supposed to do to get saved?

All the energy goes into tearing down virtually every other Christian who draws breath. Not so much in providing a better answer. Far more concern in talking about how wrong everyone else is.

So, here are my questions:
  1. Are those all really abominable answers?
  2. Are those all really un-Biblical answers?
  3. Is it really horribly complicated, requiring a certain education-level?
  4. Is an unsaved person who does one of these still unsaved? On what authority?
  5. And crucially, you put it simply and better, so a child or a simple man or woman could understand: what must I do to be saved?
If you want to say "Believe in the Lord Jesus," all those other approaches are trying to say the same thing. Tell me how, and make it clearer and better and more Biblical than all those approaches that so many Calvinists despise.

Same rules as before: stay on-topic, and observe a firm 200-word limit. Nobody broke the rules last time; let's keep our good record. I really don't want to have to delete anything.

Also, once again: this is an in-house discussion. You're not a Calvinist, you don't have a dog in this hunt. Do the Scarlett O'Hara thing for today, please.

If you can't answer all the questions, pick some.

Have at it. Then perhaps next time, I'll share my own thoughts.

Dan Phillips's signature

13 August 2009

Altering altar calls

by Dan Phillips

We had a great confabulation yesterday, during which I didn't much share my thoughts. So, here they are, enumerated for your dancing and dining pleasure, based on some of the Scriptures and argumentation provided so ably in the previous meta.
  1. The very term altar call should give any Christian pause. We don't have an altar here. We shouldn't be calling men to an "altar," we should be calling them to Christ... and there's no way in the world I'm going to start using the phrase "Christ call." [UPDATE: btw, a few hours after writing that, something occurred to me. Premise: the only "thing" we should care about calling men to isn't a thing, it's a Person: it is Jesus Christ. Observation: but if we were to stop calling it an "altar call," and dubbed it instead a "Christ call," then it might cease immediately. Because what Biblically-instructed pastor could ever with a straight face try to connect walking somewhere on earth with meeting the Lord Jesus? But if that isn't what we're calling them to, then why are we doing it? And if they don't need to walk an aisle to do it, why make it sound as if they do?]
  2. Though it is not determinative, it certainly is significant that (A) no evangelist in most Christian history felt the need to do it, and (B) the first to popularize it was the heretic Charles Finney.
  3. I've also seen horrid, endless, manipulative altar calls (almost but not quite "anyone who loves his mother, come forward").
  4. To bid people to "come forward and receive Christ" necessarily creates the impression that Jesus is waiting for them at the front of the church (which He isn't), that there's a tractor-beam of salvation located at the front of the auditorium (which there isn't), and that to meet Him they have to relocate their bodies (which they don't).
  5. "Altar calls" with big responses may or may not puff up a preacher, but altar calls with no response make Christ and the Gospel look pathetic and powerless, though neither is either.
  6. Further, the primary purpose of assembly is not evangelism but edification.
  7. Having said all that, the fact that many Calvinists are content to leave it there isn't a happy thing, and isn't adequate. Nor is saying (literally, or in effect) "Oh just let God save them" and "Let the Word do its work" and so forth. To be more specific:
  8. Simply to say (in effect) "Altar calls are unbiblical and Finneyite, church isn't for evangelism, let people find their own way to God" simply reinforces the (God help us, it had better be) false impression that Calvinists are (A) uninterested in evangelism, (B) indifferent to seekers, (C) cerebral, and (D) arrogantly self-involved.
  9. It is always better to point out a better way than it is just to fault the way it's done.
  10. Plus, aren't we Calvinists always big about always preaching the Gospel? If there's no Gospel in our preaching of Ephesians 5, Nehemiah 1, Genesis 12, or what-have-you, don't we all say we're doing it wrong?
  11. And, that being the case, unless we bar unbelievers or check their baptisms at the door, mightn't the Spirit of God awaken an unbeliever in the assembly?
  12. And if that's the case, shouldn't we be the first to scramble to provide the answer to the question "What must I do to be saved?", if it's being asked?
  13. And, though we have wonderful arguments against telling people to come forward to be saved, should we not constantly be issuing invitations — that is, urging our hearers to repent, turn, believe, be saved?
  14. And so should we not be eager to help anyone on whom the Spirit of God so moves?
  15. So I think providing elders and others after a service to talk with anyone moved in any way by the sermon is a great idea, and we should do it — make them available, tell folks they're available, urge folks to avail themselves of them.
Thus far my thoughts on the altar call. I plan related discussions in the near future, Lord willing.

Dan Phillips's signature