Phillips' axioms

by Dan Phillips

When you get old, experienced and opinionated, you build up a stock of axioms. Here are some of mine, for whatever use, ponderance, reflection, passing whimsy, and/or outright theft, you might make of them. They range from the theological to the practical to the political. What use will you make of them? None, maybe. But I've used various of them variously in sermons, conversation, evangelism, counseling, teaching, and writing.

Unlike Biblical Proverbs, they're uninspired. Like Biblical proverbs, the aim is memorable, thought-provoking, stick-in-your-mind brevity.

Strictly, some of these are proverbs or apothegms... but that would make too long a title!

If this list has no interest to you, I'd just ask you graciously to remember what you paid for it.

1. If you ever weren't God, you never will be.
2. When you sin, or say or do something really foolish, you have two choices: repent, forsake, and rectify; or start an endless cycle of doubling-down degradation. Most people do the latter.
3. Don't be the last to know you're wrong.
4. Trolls are thoughtful people. Nail them for what they are, and they immediately prove you right.
5. Pastors who don't pastor aren't pastors, they're lecturers.
6. Anyone who claims to be an apostle today is 'way, 'way too young.
7. Any woman who seeks to lead men in church is eo ipso disqualified—if open rebellion against the Lordship of Christ is still a disqualifier.
8. Folks who are full of themselves don't leave much room for anyone else.
9. Every vote is a vote for the lesser of two evils.
10. Men shouldn't let our eyes rest anywhere our hands shouldn't.
11. Looking may just be looking, but doing starts with a look.
12. Only way to be certain not to forget something is to do it now.
13. Preach like God's watching, like you'll never get another chance, and like every second of your hearers' time is precious.
14. Don't let truth lose by default through your laziness, indifference, cowardice or ignorance.
15. If nobody else has ever seen what you're seeing in the Bible, that's probably because it isn't there.
16. The world is far better at being the world than the church ever could be, so don't even try.
17. Don't be shocked when unbelievers act like unbelievers.
18. Do be shocked when believers act like unbelievers. Especially when it's you.
19. Counsel the person who's there. 
20. Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
21. Excelling at anything is a matter of wisely investing odd moments.
22. Better to know a little truth, and believe it deeply, Than to know a lot, and not.
23. Anyone can be taught — except the dead and the proud.
24. Everyone does what he does because he thinks it will make him happy. (Added 12/5/12)
25. Unhappy complainers are always louder and more insistent than happy people with praises. This works both horizontally and vertically, and is equally a reproach to both categories of people. (Added 1/3/2013)
26. When a man opposing God's truth is destroying his own argument with every word, sometimes it's best to stay out of the way and let him get on with it. (Added 1/18/2013)
27. Kid, life's not a game. Hasty decisions cast long shadows. (Added 4/8/2013)
28. When someone wants to misunderstand, no power on Earth and no amount of explanation can make him understand. (Added 9/26/2013)
29. Everyone in the embrace of a sin dismisses Biblical rebuke by claiming to be misunderstood. (Added 9/27/2013)
30. The problem with the person who thinks he's too strong to be able to join himself in fellowship with imperfect Christians in a local church is that he is actually too weak to sustain it. (Added 9/27/2013)
31. Being married is like being a Christian, only more so. (Added 9/27/2013)
32. Sin is always the problem, never the solution. (Added 9/27/2013)
33. Every time someone tries to be a "'progressive' Christian," (s)he ends up being a whole lot of the one, and not much of the other. (Added 2/24/2014)
34. With stubborn, unrepentant sin, lack of information is rarely the real problem; so pouring in information is rarely the solution. (Added 2/24/2014)
35. God didn't give kids sense. Instead, He gave them parents, told the parents to teach the kids His Word, and told the kids to honor their parents. (Added 4/26/14)
36. If anyone makes you feel better about thumbing your nose at God, that person does not love you. (Added 5/6/14)
37. Arguing X does not necessarily mean that there is a real argument worth making for X. (Added 7/8/14)
38. The hands do what the hands do because the heart is what the heart is. (Added 8/22/14)
39. "Love" should not be defined as the compulsion to force others to subsidize the idle, the immoral, and the illegal. (Added 2/20/15)
40. When one loves God, no reason is a large enough obstacle to prevent us from serving Him. When one does not love God, no excuse is too puny, paltry, or pathetic to keep us from serving Him. (Added 5/11/15)
41. The moral obligation of leading by example is absolute; its efficacy, however, is often grossly, grossly overstated (2 Chron. 27:2). (Added 8/26/15)
42. Racism is not the cure for racism. Only the Cross of Christ is. (Added 2/12/16)
43. Atheists tend to blurt bombastic clichés rather than read, reflect, and respond. (Added 11-7-2017)
44. Big names are often small people. (Added 1-9-2018)
45. Youth, dirt-ignorance and hubris are a deadly combination. (Added 1-9-2018)
46. The mark of a truly big person is how he treats "little people." (Added 1-9-2018)
47. No human authority has the right to command what God forbids, or forbid what God commands. (Added 4-11-18)
48. Obedience isn't a technique. You don't "try" it, to see if it "works." (Added 5-14-2018)
49. {Instant acclaim + massive soapbox} minus {coherent, thought-out, well-grounded, long-demonstrated convictional, Biblical worldview} = disaster. Generally not a matter of if, but when, and how bad. (Cf. 1 Timothy 5:22). (Added 5-14-2018)
50. Sin snowballs. That's its propensity. No sin likes to remain alone. (Added 7-23-2018)
51. You can't make someone see what he doesn't want to see. (Added 5-12-2020)
52. The existential distance between "humiliated" and "humbled" is so much vaster than the lexical distance. Many who are the former, are not the latter — to their destruction. (Added 4-5-2021)
53. Once Pride makes an investment, it will defend it to the death...of everything. (Added 8-2-2021)
54. You can lead a "continuationist" to Scripture, but you can't make him think. (Added 12-15-2022)
55. God is good, but He plays the long game. (Added 2-22-2024)

There y'go.

---

The mugging: a parable

by The Pyromaniacs: Dan, Frank and Phil

A few people noticed that a mugging was about to happen. There was no doubt. It was unmistakable: an act of violence was about to unfold right in front of their eyes, and it was going to be gruesome.

Something had to be done. Those who saw events begin to unfold could not imagine not doing what they could to prevent it. So they let out a shout of warning.

The moment they began to cry out, however, a circle of people formed around both victim and perpetrator. The circle was composed of big, respectable, decent folks. Their backs were turned towards those crying out.

Oh good. The right people were on the scene! Surely they saw what was going to happen. Surely they'd intervene.

And yet... they did nothing.

So the outsiders, really alarmed now, raised their voices. They were pointed, they were specific, they were passionate, they were eloquent to the point of heart-breaking. It was a life or death situation; this was not the moment for collegial tea and crumpets on the deck. But there was enough time, if someone did something in response to all their shouts and cries.

To all this, the inner circle of watchers maintained absolute, lofty silence, as far as could be told. It was as if they couldn't hear.

But how was that possible? The folks who were sounding the alarm were right there, and they were plenty loud. Yet these good, decent folks just stood there. But this one... did he actually have his hands over his eyes so as to "not see" the people waving their arms? And that one... were those his fingers, stuck in his ears so as to "not hear" the cries of warning?

Others formed in the crowd as well, onlookers...

Then, suddenly and inevitably, it happened. It was every bit as brutal and shocking as the outer circle had warned. Worse. Still, they gasped. They gaped. How could this have happened?

And then, at long last, the inner circle finally turned around and faced outward.

As the bodies were being carted off.

They made hushing, calming gestures with their hands. "Now, now," tutted a central figure:

"No doubt what happened was regrettable. It's a sad day, and a sad, sad thing that happened. We are all deeply grieved. All of us love peace. We all detest violence. We cherish exactly what you cherish. We are with you. We are you.

"No doubt many will be upset. No doubt many will wonder why something wasn't done. Well, just be assured, your leaders are in charge. They have the situation well in hand. There is absolutely nothing to be alarmed about, nothing to be upset or energized about, certainly nothing to raise your voices about. If there had been, you know we would have told you.

"Perhaps something good may even come of this! 

"Now, back to your homes and churches with you, go on, that's a good lot.

"We may even write a book about this. If one of us does write a book, we'll be sure to let you know. And if we don't tell you, you don't need to know."

And to the slack-jawed amazement of those who had cried alarm and had been ignored, to their ears came the sound of...

Applause!

Applause, and shouts of praise for the inner circle of silent spectators. Praise for their sagacity, their "nuance," their "judiciousness," their "carefulness," their "graciousness" (towards the muggers), their "thoughtfulness," their "helpfulness"; the hours they'd put into such careful and intelligent watching and spectating, and then for so articulately commenting... after the mugging.

And so, in the end...

...nothing changed for the better.

---

The importance of "not"; or, Machen's zombies

by Dan Phillips

Listening to Moisés Silva's lectures on Galatians at Westminster sent me back to Galatians 1:1. I have long noted (as has everyone and his uncle) that Galatians is a "hot" letter, a letter that hits the ground running and is very aggressive, alarmed, and passionate in tone. The entire first chapter makes that impression with crystal clarity, and Paul really doesn't let up until he has thrown down the quill.

But here I single out the very first three words in the letter: Παῦλος ἀπόστολος οὐκ. To break them down, we have:

1. Παῦλος (Paulos) — his name, "Paul."
2. ἀπόστολος (apostolos) — his office, "an apostle," a plenipotentiary of Christ, speaking on His behalf and with His authority.
3. οὐκ (ouk) — "not."

Third word is "not." That didn't take long. No other letter starts like that.  "Paul, apostle —not..."

To open up the impact of this abrupt negation, I offer the podium at length to a guest writer. Sir, the floor is yours.

[The third word] is a word that is now regarded as highly objectionable, a word that Paul, if he had been what modern men would have desired him to be, never would have used. It is the small but weighty word "not." "Paul an apostle," he says, "not from men nor through a man, but...."

That word "not," we are today constantly being told, ought to be put out of the Christian's vocabulary. Our preaching, we are told, ought to be positive and not negative; we ought to present the truth, but ought not to attack error; we ought to avoid controversy and always seek peace.

With regard to such a program, it may be said at least that if we hold to it we might just as well close up our New Testaments; for the New Testament is a controversial book almost from beginning to end. That is of course true with regard to the Epistles of Paul. They, at least, are full of argument and controversy—no question, certainly, can be raised about that. Even the hymn to Christian love in the thirteenth chapter of I Corinthians is an integral part of a great controversial passage with regard to a false use of the spiritual gifts.That glorious hymn never would have been written if Paul had been averse to controversy and had sought peace at any price. But the same thing is true also of the words of Jesus. They too—I think we can say it reverently—are full of controversy. He presented His righteousness sharply over against the other righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.

That is simply in accordance with a fundamental law of the human mind. All definition is by way of exclusion. You cannot say clearly what a thing is without contrasting it with what it is not.

When that fundamental law is violated, we find nothing but a fog. Have you ever listened to this boasted non-controversial preaching, this preaching that is positive and not negative, this teaching that tries to present truth without attacking error? What impression does it make upon your mind? We will tell you what impression it makes upon ours. It makes the impression of utter inanity. We are simply unable to make head or tail of it. It consists for the most part of words and nothing more. Certainly it is as far as possible removed from the sharp, clear warnings, and the clear and glorious promises, of Holy Writ.

No, there is one word which every true Christian must learn to use. It is the word "not" or the word "No." A Christian must certainly learn to say "No" in the field of conduct; there are some things that the world does, which he cannot do. But he must also learn to say "No" in the field of conviction. The world regards as foolishness the gospel upon which the Christian life is based, and the Christian who does not speak out against the denial of the gospel is certainly not faithful to his Lord.

...The Church of our day needs above all else men who can say "No"; for it is only men who can say "No," men who are brave enough to take a stand against sin and error in the Church—it is only such men who can really say "Yea and amen" to the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

We know not in detail what will take place when the great revival comes, the great revival for which we long, when the Spirit of God will sweep over the Church like a mighty flood. But one thing we do know—when that great day comes, the present feeble aversion to "controversy," the present cowardly unwillingness to take sides in the age-long issue between faith and unbelief in the Church—will at once be swept aside. There is not a trace of such an attitude in God's holy Word. That attitude is just Satan's way of trying to deceive the people of God; peace and indifferentist church-unionism and aversion to controversy, as they are found in the modern Church, are just the fine garments that cover the ancient enemy, unbelief.

May God send us men who are not deceived, men who will respond to the forces of unbelief and compromise now so largely dominant in the visible Church with a brave and unqualified "No"! Paul was such a man in his day. He said "No" in the very first word of this Epistle, after the bare name and title of the author; and that word gives the key to the whole Epistle that follows. The Epistle to the Galatians is a polemic, a fighting Epistle from beginning to end. What a fire it kindled at the time of the Reformation! May it kindle another fire in our day—not a fire that will destroy any fine or noble or Christian thing, but a fire of Christian love in hearts grown cold!

Timely words. This brother certainly understands the current scene here in 2011, doesn't he? Not only in some churches and movements, but in some would-be leaders and speakers and writers in various venues, wouldn't you say? We really should invite this guy to become a Pyro.

The trouble with that (as many of you recognized right away) is that the writer has been with the Lord for many decades. The "now" and "modern" time of which he wrote was the 1930s, for the writer was the great J. Gresham Machen, writing on pages 6-8 of his collected notes on Galatians. I quoted with only the addition of a bit of emphasis.

This is the great thing that even a bit of knowledge of history gives to anyone looking at the Emerg* crowd and all the wannabes and spin-offs and penumbrae. They present themselves as deep, nuanced, cutting-edge pioneers, when all they are for all the world are Machen's zombies. Machen (and his fellows) killed those errors dead eighty years ago; but here they are again, shambling about in search of fresh brains to devour.

I said "Machen's zombies," but should I perhaps say "Paul's zombies"? Hadn't the great apostle also killed the same errors dead two millennia earlier? He did. But as always there are dainty-souled men who consider themselves so much smarter than Machen, than Owen, than Calvin, than Augustine, than Paul; and, in the final analysis, so much smarter than God.

But are they really?

They are not.

---

Documentiasis

A Manifesto against Manifestos
by Phil Johnson

Another silly manifesto has been issued by some "top evangelical, Catholic, and mainline" officials, outlining new rules of engagement for missionary and evangelistic work. The document is full of ecumenical argot and liberal gobbledegook. It employs the most passionate special pleading for pluralistic, postmodern, and politically correct values—urging Christians to "cooperate with other religious communities engaging in interreligious advocacy towards justice and the common good and, wherever possible, standing together in solidarity with people who are in situations of conflict."

But the document never once shows the slightest concern for getting the content of the gospel message correct. It is, in fact, a denunciation of evangelical principles; it is by no means a valid statement of evangelical mission.

hy are front-row evangelical leaders so enthralled with drafting formal statements and grandiose-sounding declarations? Virtually every year since the release of the first "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" statement in 1994, some group or another (usually consisting of self-appointed "evangelical" strategists and Christianity Today contributing editors) gets together to repudiate evangelical principles and discuss post-evangelical strategies—while pretentiously laying claim to leadership in the amorphous evangelical movement.

In the end, with great fanfare, they invariably issue "a historic manifesto." The profound historic significance of their work is typically declared by the drafters themselves in the lead sentence of all their press releases. And for some reason or another, Chuck Colson's name is prominent in most of the groups drafting these documents.

There was, of course, ECT II, "The Gift of Salvation" in 1997; ECT III, "Your Word Is Truth" in 2002; ECT IV, "The Communion of Saints" in 2003—and so on, all the way through ECT VII in 2009.

(There may actually be more ECT documents than that. I don't know. I've lost count, and I've lost interest.)

There have also been several non-ECT manifestos—most recently the highly publicized but quickly fizzling "Manhattan Declaration" (2009). That document aimed to garner one million signatures within a month. But almost two years after the PR campaign began, that charter still has not been able to acquire even half that many signatures.

November 2009

July 2011

One can't help noticing the common thread in this growing quiltwork of documents: virtually all of them strongly promote an ecumenical agenda. And the urgency of the ecumenical appeal is inversely proportional to the level of enthusiasm for whatever few shreds of evangelical conviction (if any) are expressed therein. If I read the trend correctly, the ecumenical agenda being pushed in these documents is growing more brazen and more demanding with each new document.

For example, ECT II included this statement, carefully crafted to sound as if it were full of evangelical conviction: "In justification, God, on the basis of Christ's righteousness alone, declares us to be no longer his rebellious enemies but his forgiven friends, and by virtue of his declaration it is so." But, of course, the statement simultaneously solicited signatures from Catholic priests and others who formally disavow the principle of sola fide. So notice: that sentence (the best in the whole statement) purposely omitted any mention of imputed righteousness and gave just enough wiggle-room to permit, say, a Jesuit theologian to put his own spin on the words and sign. It was a subtle approach to undermining the central evangelical distinctive.

Twelve years later, ECT VII (titled "Do Whatever He Tells You: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Christian Faith and Life") took a much less subtle approach. That document repeatedly scolds Protestants for their "neglect of Mary" and the supposed lack of evangelical reflection on Marian themes in their soteriology. The document goes on to make this promise: "We [evangelicals and Catholics] will seek together the mind of Christ about Mary." Then it states: "Evangelicals need to consider whether more reflection on Mary would strengthen their relationship with Jesus Christ."



Now, does anyone truly believe these ecumenical diatribes are strengthening evangelical conviction? Isn't the real point rather to undermine the very truths that make evangelical doctrine distinctive, so that (quietly setting all such things aside) we can join hands with the Vatican in the name of brotherhood and unity?

No one who understands what historic evangelicalism is could possibly think that type of "unity" represents anything other than the wholesale rejection of everything that truly differentiates evangelicals from Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Christians, and the cults.

As a matter of fact, that is exactly what these statements are aiming for. Sadly, the evangelical movement is being commandeered by people who do indeed reject evangelical doctrinal distinctives and would like to see a brand of evangelicalism that can easily syncretize almost anything from Roman Catholic mysticism to postmodernized versions of Socinianism.

You know: Christianity Today-style religion.

The epitome of this, once again, is Charles Colson, a politically shrewd, worldly-wise, fully-educated, well-spoken man who nevertheless manages to sound stunningly clueless at times. For example, he claims to believe the Manhattan Declaration failed because people who are apathetic about doctrine were afraid of it. Anyone who paid attention knows the precise opposite is true. Those most outspoken voices against the Manhattan Declaration were conservative evangelicals who insist on being far more precise in their doctrine than the drafters of that manifesto want evangelicals to be.

But Colson said this in Christianity today:

An aversion to doctrine caused some thoroughly orthodox young evangelicals to decline to sign the Manhattan Declaration (which defends human life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty), even though the document is rooted in Scripture.

So the latest document being peddled to evangelical leaders is "Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World." It's nothing more than old-style ecumenism re-stated in the patois of postmodernism.

Describing what's wrong with the document, one of my favorite fundamentalist bloggers, Dave Doran (president of Detroit baptist Theological Seminary and Senior Pastor of Inter-City Baptist Church) writes:

To me, the wrongness of this project is magnified by its uselessness. "What's valuable about the document is that Christians are letting the world know that they are intending to be respectful, loving, and transparent in their approach to missions and that they do not intend to be seen as violent or coercive," claims Craig Ott from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Seriously? Publishing this document will do that? Is "the world" really reading documents put out by groups like this? Why do evangelicals keep chasing after the elusive dream of getting the world to think differently about them? Why do they keep chasing that elusive dream with ecclesiastical tokens like documents and statements? The view from the separatist ghetto looks like this: professing evangelicals keep getting hoodwinked into publishing documents that never accomplish their purpose, but do in fact erode the boundaries of the faith. The world will not even notice this document, but the World Evangelical Fellowship and the World Council of Churches will feel better for playing nicely with each other, and Rome is happy that they are doing [it] on their way back home.

Hard to think of any argument against Dave Doran's analysis. In fact, it would be hard to sum up any more succinctly than that all the problems with the past decade's torrent of ecumenical manifestos.

---

The Robert Schuller saga, and questions it provokes

by Dan Phillips

I'm sure you've all heard this: Robert Schuller's Crystal Cathedral declared bankruptcy last week. The church is seeking protection regarding $7.5 MILLION that it owes creditors who, according to Senior Pastor Sheila Schuller Coleman (!), have filed lawsuits. In all, the Cathedral is apparently $55 MILLION in debt. The Wall Street Journal speaks of "a trail of hundreds of [i.e. 550] unpaid creditors from California to Washington, D.C." (Here is a partial list of top creditors.)

The CC had apologized to creditors, but you can't live on apologies.

In a notable paragraph from the WSJ article, we read:

The church's style may seem extravagant, but it brought worship to life, said Brett Judson, a member who is listed as a creditor for pipe-organ performances. Pageantry, he said, "is something the congregation wants. All the musical and dramatic outlets are a way to open people up to a positive Christian message." (Emphases added.)

Right; because it takes expensive music and entertainment to bring worship to life (pace Colossians 3:16; 1 Timothy 4:13; 2 Timothy 4:1-4), and that's what non-Christians really need (pace Romans 10:17).

There will now be abundant material for tracing the CC's financial downfall — but that isn't my main focus. My interest turns to Schuller himself, in two particulars, from the second of which I'll launch a bit more broadly.

First — huh? Schuller's daughter is pastor of the church? How did that happen? Her only degree that I know of is a doctorate in business administration... and there's that whole she's a woman thing.

Happily, we need not speculate, because the senior Schuller explains to us exactly how this happened: God told him to have his daughter replace him. Oh, don't take my word for it. Here we go:

The Rev. Schuller shared in yesterday's ministry announcement that, after he told God he was too old to lead, God told him, "Give me two more years - 24 more months. . . . Don't worry. I have called your daughter Sheila, too. She is equipped and she will be your legs."

So there you go. It's all Charismaticky. Schuller had a word from "God," which he quotes verbatim, in which "God" says a doctorate in BA is jake with Him, and that whole ban on female pastors thingie can be waived. ("God" didn't explain when He'd changed His mind on 1 Timothy 2:8-15 [I speak as a leaky-Canoneer].)

If Scripture isn't enough, something else will take its place. No large surprise that the "something" came from within Schuller's mind.

Second, Schuller has himself now spoken publicly about the bankruptcy.

And what did Schuller say? Dare we hope? Did he express broken repentance for years of preaching false doctrine, lifting up man, twisting or altogether ignoring Scripture, effectively denying the Gospel? Did he lament such opulent waste, such fleecing of sheep, such wasted years? Did he beg his listeners to forgive him, warn them of the wrath to come, and plead with them to flee to Christ alone for salvation by His blood?

Well, Schuller did plead, all right — but what he pled for was more money and more support. Because, by yiminy, he's earned it! Again, don't take my word for it, hear Schuller himself:

"I need more help from you," Schuller said, according to the Orange County Register. "If you are a tither, become a double-tither. If you are not a tither, become a tither. This ministry has earned your trust. This ministry has earned your help."

Yes, well... my, my — "broken" and "repentant" aren't the words that leap to one's mind, are they?

Which brings me to my launching-off point. Surely someone has asked, but I can't find any article (except Al Mohler's post, to a degree) posing what is to me the biggest and most obvious, pressing question that should come from this.

The question is: how could this happen?

I don't mean, "What bad business-decisions and financial practices led to this?" I mean, if what Schuller has preached for decades is true, how could this happen?

For decades and decades Schuller has urged vast audiences of complete strangers, about whom he knew absolutely nothing and for whom he takes absolutely no responsibility, to become "possibility thinkers." He has unconditionally and unqualifiedly exhorted each and every last one of them to adore themselves, believe in themselves, embrace themselves, dream really really big, and launch — assuring them that God will foot the bill.

Now, I don't recall Schuller ever saying, "Dream big, launch — and if you don't get there just go beg for money from working people." Maybe he did. I don't think so.

Here's what I wonder, though. How many poor folks took Schuller at his word, adored themselves, embraced their drives, "trusted" God (to rubber-stamp their plans), launched — and ruined themselves, their families, their reputations, their health, their lives?

I imagine that I'm pretty safe so far, with this readership. And if I throw in Joel Osteen's name, again I'll get nothing but nods.

But what if I then toss in Rick Warren? What if I specifically refer to his talk at the 2010 Desiring God conference, at John Piper's invitation, followed by Piper's admiration for what a wonderful communicator Warren was?

What are the total strangers who heard Warren's plea for "imagineers" — an ironic borrowing of the term from Disney — going to do with his exhortation, delivered as it was under the auspices of Piper and all? What reporter is going to trace out downloads of that message, and see what the fruits are in the hearers? No doubt, some will filter the charge through a Biblical grid, and accomplish great things. But who will find the family, for instance, where the frantic wife wonders how she'll feed and clothe the children while her husband is off "imagineering" himself (and themselves) into financial and social ruin?

I know one isn't supposed to ask these questions, but my mind just runs that way. I asked questions like these when Francis Chan released his (to my mind) bizarre and troubling letter about walking away from his ministry. Some cheered, some movingly bore confirming witness, others roared in outrage, others ignored. But I can't help wondering, and marvel when others don't. It isn't rocket science.

Every time I hear a story of someone who faced the odds, held on in the face of ruin and pulled it off, I wonder how many will be emboldened by that story to follow that example — and will themselves fall into shameful, miserable ruin, instead of the bright happy ending they (ahem) imagined?

You're bright folks, you don't need me to go on and on about this.

Contrast all this with being a minister of the Gospel. I remember some really terrific counsel I received from one of my first pastors, back in the seventies. He said something like this: if you can't preach the same Gospel in the mansions of Beverly Hills or the trenches of Vietnam, you aren't preaching the real Gospel. The Gospel is trans-cultural, trans-temporal, and trans-situational.

So what should we do? Oh, golly (he said innocently), I don't know. Just off the top of my head?

1. Believe, study and live God's Word, the Bible.
2. Preach the Gospel; in fact
3. Preach the whole Word as absolutely vital, essential, sufficient.
4. Use the brains God gave us (as His word orders us to do) to fill in the gaps, taking responsiblity for the decisions you make.

Do that in trusting, prayerful, Christ-centered faith, and you're far likelier to reach the end of your life with God glorified, rather than needing to apologize and beg.

---

Churchianity versus Christianity

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is an article that was published in the April 1868 issue of The Sword and the Trowel.

In the second paragraph below, Spurgeon refers to "spirits in red, white, and blue." That was a reference to the colorful ecclesiastical vestments that had become fashionable among Anglicans in the wake of the Oxford movement, an Anglo-Catholic party of high-church Anglicans—also known as the Tractarian Movement. In another place below, Spurgeon refers to the same movement as "Puseyism," after Edward Pusey, an Oxford professor and Anglican ultra-high churchman who became the movement's de facto leader after John Henry Newman joined the Roman Catholic Church). This is a classic diatribe—one of many Spurgeon issued against Romanizing tendencies in the English Established Church.

HEN a genuine Christian happens to find himself settled down as a clergyman of the church of England in addition to the troublesome memories of the inconvenient declarations by which he reached his position, he must frequently be the victim of mental nausea at the sight of the motley squadron in which he is enrolled.

There is good Mr. Ryle, an indefatigable Tractarian, who hates Romish Tractarianism, and preaches the gospel thoroughly and there are many, like him the excellent of the earth, distinguished for piety, who would be an honor to any denomination of Christians: a believer in Jesus feels much comfort in such company; but who are those spirits in red, white, and blue? Aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, in their dress at any rate. Their voice is Babylonian even as their apparel; they hail from Rome, and are affectionately attached to the Mother of Harlots. Can the lover of truth go with these? Can the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ's pure gospel sit in the same congress with these priests? Bow at the same altar? Unite in church fellowship with them?

Surely the more gracious a man is the more irksome must such fellowship become. That searching question, "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" if it ever intrudes itself into rectories, must torture any evangelical clergyman who keeps a tender conscience.

Moreover, on the other side of the quadrangle of the Establishment one sees a Philistine regiment of skeptics, with a bishop to head them, and all sorts of dignitaries to make up the battalion. Can the spiritual mind find peace in an affinity with these? Can it be to the evangelical clergyman, who is truly converted, a fact to sleep quietly upon, that he is in full communion with these unbelievers? The apostolical inquiry, "What part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" must surely at times ring through the manse, and startle the quiet of the vicarage library.

How our brethren manage to read the burial service over ungodly men, how they can subscribe to the catechism, and many other enormities of the Book of Common Prayer, remains to us an enigma towards the solution of which we have not advanced a hair's breadth since the day when we provoked so much indignation by our sermon on "Baptismal Regeneration;" but the first bitter draught of subscription, and the subsequent doses of catchism and rubric, are not all the annoyances of conforming Puritans, for many of them are so sorely vexed with daily ecclesiastical troubles, that they might almost say with David, "All the day long have I been plagued, and chastened every morning."

We would pity them for being placed in so unenviable a position were they not free to get out of it whenever they please: lacking room for commiseration, we adopt another form of good wishing, and pray that their yoke may become heavier day by day, and their surroundings more and more intolerable, until they are driven forth from their self-chosen bonds.

We are the best friend of the Evangelicals, because we do not delude them into the notion that their ecclesiastical union with Puseysim and Rationalism is justifiable, but honestly urge them to quit their indefensible and dishonorable position, and come out decidedly from all communion with the monster evils of the Establishment. None will welcome them more heartily or help them more industriously than he whom they adjudged to be unkind because of his outspoken rebukes.

Disapproving of Episcopacy as a form of church government, many Dissenters would nevertheless rejoice to assist a free evangelical episcopal community formed by a great secession from the state church, and freed from its glaring errors; and such a church would be vexed by no special bickerings and jealousies between itself and the other members of the great evangelical family, it would most probably enjoy a place of more than ordinary prestige, and might possibly become the largest religious community in England. A little Scotch backbone and wonders would be wrought. Alas! we fear that the Record school teaches no lessons which can educate heroes, and we are afraid the evangelicals will continue to be what the Puseyites call them, "the jellies," to the end of the chapter.

In their work for the Lord, our Christian brethren in the Establishment of the bolder stamp frequently find Churchianity a sad incumbrance to them. In favored regions, where the gospel has long been preached, a circle of believers has been formed, who form a church within the church, and contribute greatly to the success and comfort of the clergyman; but in other cases the Churchmen of the parish are a terrible nuisance to the Christian incumbent.

Laying aside for a moment our opinion of the inconsistency of his official position, we cannot help sympathizing deeply with the minister who, hampered and bound by his ecclesiastical connections, is nevertheless struggling, as manfully as his condition allows, to preserve a gospel testimony in the land. We wish God-speed to all such, as ministers of our Lord Jesus, although we anxiously desire that their membership with the corrupt church of England may, at any cost, speedily come to an end. We know that hundreds of the excellent of the earth are preaching the pure word of truth every Sabbath within the bounds of Episcopalianism, with hearts breaking for heaviness because their parishioners loathe the gospel, and hate them for the gospel's sake.

"Ah," said a clergyman to us a few months ago, "your people love you, and if you are ill they are all praying to have you restored, but as for me, they would set the bells ringing in my parish if I were dead, for gospel truth is abominable in the esteem of most of them, and they hate me for keeping ritualism out of my church." This was, probably, an extreme case, but there are many of a similar kind, though not so intense in degree. May such brethren be upheld by their great Master to war a good warfare, and to remain faithful to the faith once committed to the saints. Inconsistent as they are, we cannot deliberate for a single moment as to which side to take in the contest between them and Ritualists and worldlings; they are our brethren notwithstanding their shortcoming, their cause is the cause of truth and righteousness, so far as they preach the gospel of Jesus, and may it triumph beyond their own expectation, even to the destruction of the union between church and state.

They deserve to be driven out of the Establishment, in which they are intruders, towards which they are Dissenters, for which they have defiled their reputations among their Nonconforming brethren, but, as men fighting in a wicked world against deadly errors, they deserve the prayers of all believers, and the best assistance that can be rendered by all Christians.

In the Bucks Herald a serious complaint is laid against the zealous Vicar of Winslow, by a Churchman, which we shall use as an illustration of the quarrel between Christianity and Churchianity. The allegations appear to us to be very justly brought by the writer from his Churchianity point of view; the vicar is a Christian, and has no right in the Anglican church, and when his vestry condemns him, it is simply the voice of the church with which he has unhappily allied himself protesting against the religion of Jesus, which shines in his course of action. If an honest Englishman enlists in the French army in time of war, he must not wonder if his British manners are offensive to his Gallic connections; he should not put himself in so false a position, but range himself on the side to which, by lineage and loyalty, he belongs.

It is curious to note that the great sins which the Vicar of Winslow has committed against Churchianity, are precisely the very acts which, under Christianity, are accounted as virtues. His good before the Lord of hosts is evil in the judgment of perverse men. "In Winslow," says the Churchman, "there is a most decided church feeling. Many of us, with the greatest regret, leave our parish church, who have never done so before; others, who from circumstances are unable to do so, feel the want of good services, but submit to what they get. Our vicar, I believe, thinks himself sincere and right; but he forgets that other persons may (as in this instance they do) hold contrary views to his, to which views he will not yield in the slightest degree, although it would be for the benefit of the church of which he is a priest, and of which we are the true and loving people."

Of course he is a priest, and his own prayer book calls him so, and yet we venture to guess that he disowns the title. His parishioners are right enough in murmuring at his want of churchmanship, but he is more right still, though very inconsistent, in putting Christ before the church.

Now for the gross transgressions of the vicar, which are chiefly threefold.

Item the first. He has been guilty of Christian love. He has committed against Churchianity the high crime and misdemeanor of loving his brethren in the faith, whereas he ought to have denounced them all as schismatics and heretics. The charge needs no comment from us, all sound judges will see that the case is parallel to that against Paul and Silas, at Philippi, "these men, being Christians, do exceedingly trouble our city, and teach customs which it is not lawful for us to receive, being Churchmen." Here are the very words of the accusation—"the holding of prayer meetings, at which all denominations of Christians were invited to attend, and to offer up prayer in alphabetical order, regardless of sect, and under the presidency of the vicar."

Horrible! is it not, O bitter bigot? Lovely! is it not, disciple of Jesus?

Item second. He has vindicated, as well as he could, a weak point in his teaching, and has been anxious to win over those who differ. He is accused of preaching "special sermons upon such subjects as Holy Baptism, and inviting the Baptists to attend, when that denomination of Christians had just established a new place of worship." Churchianity does not think those vile Baptists to be worth powder and shot. To preach to them is as bad as Paul preaching among the uncircumcised Gentiles. It is useless to try to convert them, and it is dangerous to ventilate the subject of Baptism, because the church is so very fond of Infant Baptism, and the matter is so exceedingly doubtful, that it is better not to stir in it.

The Baptists, mark you, reader, do not complain; they are glad that every Paedobaptist should declare his own views, and they feel so safe in their own entrenchments that they look for converts whenever the subject is brought before the public mind; but the churchman complains grievously because Baptists are even bidden to come and be rectified by the vicar; let them alone, they are heretics and arch enemies of Churchianity; let them go to their own place, both here and hereafter.

Item third. The vicar has had the impertinence to be faithful as a pastor. This is a very serious business, and, we should imagine, is at the bottom of the whole complaint. He has trodden on some people's gouty toes, and touched their besetting sins with too rough a hand. "Thus," saith the church-scribe, "the preaching of sermons upon such subjects as balls and concerts, when such private and public entertainments were about to be given; I say that, in my belief, these things have been calculated to send church-goers elsewhere, such sermons as I have mentioned coming under the head of personal ones, which should always be avoided."

Christianity approves of holy boldness in reproof, and integrity in declaring the whole counsel of God, but Churchianity loves gaiety and frivolity, and would have a dumb dog in the pulpit, who will not rebuke it. Whenever Churchianity has ruled, revelry and wantonness have been winked at, so long as saints' days, sacraments, and priests have been regarded. God's law is nothing to the high church, so long as church forms are scrupulously and ostentatiously observed. We should see maypoles erected and danced around on a Sunday afternoon within a year, if Churchianity had its way; the Book of Sports would be revived, and the evening of the Lord's day would be dedicated to the devil. Leave the church open, observe saints' days, decorate the altar, sing "Hymns Ancient and Modern," put on tagrags, and all goes smoothly with Churchianity: preach the gospel, and denounce sin, and straightway there is no small stir.

Well, good Mr. Vicar, may you be yet more vile in these men's sight, until they cast you out of the national church as your Master was driven forth before you. May you please God more and more, and make the devil and all his allies heartily sick of you. Saving your vicarage, and professed churchmanship, about which we can see nothing desirable, we esteem you highly, and hope that you and the like of you may evermore be sustained by the abounding mercy of the great Head of the one only true church, which is the remnant according to the election of grace: May Christianity rule and Churchianity be cast to the moles and to the bats.

---

Black (and other) women (and others), dating, the world, compromise - and so much more!

by Dan Phillips

Over at my digs, yesterday I ran a post titled Black women in church: non-religious writers opine.  It reflected on an article from an odd source for me (CNN), which looks at the issue of the preponderence of women in black churches, and of how hard it is for them to find black men who share their convictions.

This hits on a number of issues that should, to my mind, be fond to Pyro readers:

• Marriage and dating
• Standards in mate-selection
• Philosophy of church ministry
• The world telling Christians what we should do
• Mainstream media views of church ministry
• Race and the church
• The very concept of {insert skin-color here} churches

I've been puzzled by choices of focus churches make. As we search for a local church, one close-by assembly about which we'd heard some good things had an ethnic name: imagine your own, but it was something like Russian Baptist Church, Chinese Baptist Church, Black Baptist Church. I was stunned by the concept leaders who presumably have Colossians 3:11 in their Bibles deliberately choosing such a name. In fact, I almost wrote the leadership - then decided there was no point.

So, as I'm tending to some necessary family-business, I'd like to invite you to

1. Read that post
2. Broaden the pool with my dearly-loved regulars in adding your thoughts on it, there or here

Could be fun and profitable. Make it so!

---

Is this the central issue in Christian thought, life and ministry? — 2

by Dan Phillips

2 Timothy 3:14-16

In this post, I will use Paul's words to Timothy as my springboard:

But you — you remain in the things you learned and became convinced of, because you know from whom you learned, and because from infancy you knew the sacred letters, which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and beneficial for teaching, for reproof, for restoration, for training in righteousness, in order that the man of God might be equipped, for every good work fully-equipped. (2 Timothy 3:14-16)

It is as if Paul deliberately words himself in a way calculated to drive restless and discontented folks nuts. They'll want to get as far away from these words as fast as they can. But let's linger.

The backdrop of this is Paul's word to Timothy in light of the difficult days that he will face (3:1-9). It seems certain to the apostle that Timothy will not have Paul personally present, to lead and guide him (4:6-9). He'll be on his own, and the church will be under the care of such as he.

So what would Timothy have to guide him?

1. Timothy would have the teaching Paul gave him, and the life which underscored that teaching (3:10-13).
2. Timothy would have the grounding in Scripture that his believing grandmother and mother had given him from infancy (3:14-17)

And that, Paul insists, would be sufficient.

Now, break it down with me.

Timothy had learned the Old Testament since he was an infant. Paul speaks of the hiera grammata, which are literally as I render them: sacred letters. This may well allude to the fact that Timothy's Jewish mother taught him to read, not from "The Further Adventures of Dick and Jane," but from the Old Testament. Lenski envisions it:

Little Timothy learned his ABC’s from the Bible, learned to read from the Bible, and thus from earliest childhood spelled out “sacred letters.” As he spelled out this and that word, mother and grandmother told the story. Soon he could read a little, ask questions, hear more. A lovely picture indeed! I like it better than our method of today which supplies secular matter for the primers and holds back the sacred letters until later years (R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon, 839 [Columbus, O.: Lutheran Book Concern, 1937]).

The Old Testament continues to have the power (ta dunamena) to produce the wisdom of saving faith in Jesus Christ. From it, Timothy would learn the vital categories of the Creator/creature distinction, the attributes and works of God, man's creation and fall, and blood redemption. He would learn of the coming Messiah, so that when Jesus came he could see in Jesus the fulfillment of all the longings, aspirations, and predictions of the Torah. OT Scripture would prepare him for the knowledge and service of Christ.

The Paul shifts gears and speaks, not of the sacred writings of Timothy's childhood, but of all Scripture. Here the apostle uses the term he'd employed earlier in 1 Timothy 5:18 to denote both Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7. Later, Peter will apply the same word to Paul's writing as on a par with the Old Testament (2 Peter 3:16-17). What Paul is about to say applies to Scripture as Scripture, thus proleptically taking in the whole of the NT.

He says that all Scripture is God-breathed, it is theopneustos. John Frame rightly says that

... Scripture is “breathed out by God,” which is the correct translation of a word sometimes translated “inspired.” The word means not that God breathed something into the Bible but that God breathed it out, or, in other words, that he spoke it. The written Word is God’s personal speech. It is nothing less than the divine voice. (John M. Frame, Salvation Belongs to the Lord: An Introduction to Systematic Theology, 63 [Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2006])

Because Scripture is God-breathed, it is the very word of God. More than that, it is the words of God. You can quote Scripture appropriately and say that you are quoting God. In fact, none has yet even come close to demonstrating Biblical authority for attaching "God said" or "The Lord said" or "The Lord told me" to anything other than Scripture, unless he is claiming direct and inerrant prophetic revelation.

Because Scripture is God-breathed, it is also profitable. It is inherently profitable by its very nature, of course. But the apostle details four ways in which Scripture is profitable:

1. Teaching (didaskalian). This is the impartation of information meant to inform and control both what we think, and how we think. Scripture lays both the premise and the template for thought. It lays out the lines for us to color in.
2. Reproof (elegmon). Flowing naturally from the first is specific information showing where we are in the wrong in how we think and behave. It shows where we have crossed the line, exposes our sin as sin — heinous, indefensible, and always with God as the primary injured party.
3. Restoration (epanorthōsin). This noun means to make something straight and right again. God breaks us with the reproof of His Word; then with His Word, He restores us, sets us straight, heals us and puts our feet on His path. It means... reformation! (Da da daaaaa!)
4. Training in righteousness (paideian tēn en dikaiosunē[i]). The Word provides divine pedagogy, giving sole authoritative and comprehensive instruction in God-centered living. It is, itself, an entire course of study in that life which serves, pleases, honors and glorifies God.

Given the all-embracing nature of these four benefits combined, a thoughtful reader is forced to ask: what does that that leave out?

The net effect (and design) of all this is as the apostle himself says: "that the man of God might be equipped, for every good work fully-equipped." There is a play on words that, rather to my bafflement, most English versions (including CSB, ESV, NAS, NIV, TNIV, NKJ) do not even try to bring out. Equipped renders the adjective artios, and fully-equipped translates the participle exērtismenos, which is etymologically related to artios.

Paul is saying that the Word of God, including the Old Testament retrospectively and the New Testament prospectively, represents the very words of God, and thus tells us everything we need to understand in order to know and serve God.

Red light

Impatient and discontented Scripture-denigrators, infected with Eve's bug of never finding God's provision quite adequate, will be eager to change the subject, or to look for (or invent) a loophole. I predict that this meta, like the last, will be subjected to attempts to shoot it off in a dozen different directions.

But we mustn't hurry on too hastily. Stop. Wait. Slow down. Think! Learn something!

The apostle is about to die, and he knows it. This possibility looms over all the Pastorals, most especially in 2 Timothy. Paul has loved the church, served the church, suffered for the church, and bled for the church. "No, for the Gospel," one will say. Right; but specifically the Gospel which united Jews and Gentiles in Christ — that is what got him arrested (cf. Acts 22:21-22; Ephesians 3:1; 2 Timothy 2:10).

So, thus loving the church, and thus seeing clearly the gut-wrenchingly dangerous times ahead — to what does Paul turn his apprentices' attention? What will guide them, steady them, equip them for the future? To what should the church cling, to keep it on God's path?

Does Paul speak of listening for the Spirit's voice within? Does Paul urge Timothy or Titus to seek, expect, or even be open to a word from God for themselves? Does he assure them that the Spirit will communicate to them directly what they must say and do? Does he set them to expect experiences, feelings, urgings, movings, burdens, whisperings, still small voices, big loud voices, or any such thing?

No. Not once. Not remotely. Quite the opposite.

Paul gives them his authoritative apostolic instruction, and points them to Scripture. They must stay with that, stick to that, think in terms of that, believe that, guard that, proclaim that (cf. also (2 Timothy 1:13; 2:2. 7, 15; 4:1-2). It will fully equip them.

That, I shall try to argue still more fully in the next posts, is the Biblical position.

Any other view, even if held by Christians, is a view that is defective, deficient, dangerous, and damaging.

The real question to us is: does that matter? To vast hordes of professed evangelicals, whatever their formal answer, the de facto answer very clearly is "No."

Which is the point and focus of this series.

UPDATE:

Part One

Part Three

---

Tom Wright, T4G, and "Unity": "Can We All Get Along?"

by Phil Johnson



hristianity Today has posted an opinion piece by Brett McCracken comparing this year's Together for the Gospel (T4G) sessions unfavorably with Wheaton College's recent Theology Conference: "Jesus, Paul and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N. T. Wright."

The speakers at T4G, of course, firmly believe that "The Gospel" is what binds us "Together." All of them agree that the heart of gospel truth is summed up in the doctrine of justification by faith, and getting that doctrine correct is vital to sound, biblical Christianity. All of them also believe the atonement Christ rendered on the cross was a penal substitution—a propitiatory sacrifice offered to God by His Son on behalf of sinners. There is much more to the atoning work of Christ than that, of course, but the T4G speakers all are convinced that part is essential to a right and full-orbed understanding (and proclamation) of the gospel. In short, all of the T4G speakers hold the historic position on these matters that is spelled out in all the Protestant confessions of faith.

And the theme of the T4G conference this year was "The (Unadjusted) Gospel."



N. T. Wright, on the other hand, is controversial chiefly because he wants to make significant adjustments to the doctrine of justification by faith and our understanding of the atonement. He doesn't like the language of imputation. He's uncomfortable with the idea of penal substitution and the language of propitiation.

For Wright, justification is more about ecclesiology than about soteriology. Indeed, he says, "The doctrine of justification . . . is not merely a doctrine in which Catholic and Protestant might just be able to agree on, as a result of hard ecumenical endeavour. It is itself the ecumenical doctrine, the doctrine that rebukes all our petty and often culture-bound church groupings, and which declares that all who believe in Jesus belong together in the one family. . . . The doctrine of justification is in fact the great ecumenical doctrine" (What St. Paul Really Said [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 158).

Between 2002 and '05 I did seminars at a couple of conferences on both sides of the Atlantic critiquing Wright's doctrine of justification (transcripts HERE and HERE). One of the things I keep trying to point out is that despite Wright's professed contempt for reading Reformed and Augustinian concerns back into the Pauline text, high on his own agenda is a determination to bring Paul's doctrine of justification into line with 21st-century standards of political correctness. Wright's whole hermeneutic seems driven by the credo of Rodney King. Wright seems to be looking for a new perspective on the gospel that would allow Catholics, Protestants, and all kinds of wayward Anglicans to set their "differences" aside and have a great group hug in the name of ecumenical unity.

It comes as no surprise, then, that in Wright's mind, "Nothing justifies schism."

Now: let's bear in mind that statement comes from an Anglican bishop who is currently in communion with this bishop, this bishop, this bishop, and a menagerie of other bishops including several agnostics, heretics, and theological miscreants of virtually every stripe.

That fact surely sheds light on what Bishop Wright might be aiming at in his radically ecumenical re-reading of the doctrine of justification. And the mess that we know as "The Anglican communion" also must be carefully borne in mind when we read this solemn assurance in the CT op-ed piece: "Wright, perhaps the world's leading Christian theologian/writer/intellectual, was calling for the church to prioritize unity and emphasize common ground, not at the expense of doctrine and not in a universalist way."

Really?

The shopworn not-at-the-expense-of-doctrine warrantee is of course standard language these days in everyone's ecumenical efforts—ranging from "Catholics and Evangelicals Together" to the early rhetoric of the Emergent fiasco (where, in fact, everything came at the expense of doctrine). Such assurances especially ring hollow when the people making such promises in the very same breath relegate a principle like sola fide to "the details of theological minutia."

"After all," Brett McCracken says, "[Paul] speaks of justification only in a few places (Romans, Galatians, etc.), while unity is a topic that shows up constantly in nearly everything he writes."

Yikes. Seriously?

That's about the worst summary of the Pauline perspective I have ever heard.

McCracken should have listened more closely to the T4G messages. His cynical description of T4G ("like a club patting each other on the back for their mutual buttressing of the 'unadjusted gospel' against threats from various corners") puts his yearning for "unity" in clear focus. If we're not willing to relegate all our differences with everyone who claims to "love Jesus" to the category of "theological minutia," we are the "schismatic" ones—not the Anglicans (and their ilk) who have winked at (and even given their benediction to) virtually every kind of sin and apostasy, as long as their own bishops are involved.

The cost of that kind of cosmetic unity is simply too high. Far from being "a sign to the world" and "a message to the would-be rulers of the world," it dishonors Christ. The artificial peace of compromise and mandatory-cease-fire solidarity isn't authentic unity anyway. It is nothing like the kind of unity Paul called for. It certainly is not the kind of unity Christ prayed for.

Of course some points of doctrine are theological minutiae, and we don't need to argue endlessly about them. Most of us don't. But justification by faith is not one of those peripheral points. Luther and the other Reformers were driven by the unshakable conviction that the doctrine of justification by faith is the primary soteriological essential, the article by which the church stands or falls. Unless we're willing to declare the Reformation a mistake (something Bishop Wright needs to do—and may yet do—in order to be consistent with his own rhetoric), we should resist these incessant pleas from so many quarters to see "church unity" through postmodern eyes. Instead, we need to keep striving for the kind of unity Scripture describes—a unity that is possible only when we are walking in the light (1 John 1:6-7).

---

Faith v. faux humility: a parting philippic plea

by Dan Phillips

After his conversion, Paul says that he was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea. Then he adds:

[Christians] only were hearing it said, "He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy."  And they glorified God because of me.  (Galatians 1:23-24)

Were this passage written of the big noises in the 1800s and 1900s, and their "bold" and "daring" and "questioning" mirror images today, we would have to make some changes:

[Despisers] only were hearing it said, "He who used to persecute us is now trying to destroy the faith he once preached."  And they glorified me at the expense of God.  (2 Nuances  0:0-0)

 Leaving me only to attempt a few parting pithicisms:

1. There is a reason the faith is called the faith (cf. Acts 6:7; 13:8; 14:22; 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:13; 2 Corinthians 13:5; Galatians 1:23; Jude 1:3, etc.).
2. There is a reason Christians — saints, the people of God — are called believers (cf. Acts 5:14; 10:45; 19:18; 1 Thessalonians 1:7; 2:10; 2:13; 1 Timothy 4:12, etc.).
3. There is a reason why God the Holy Spirit often moved men to write positively of growing in the faith, progress in the faith, continuing in the faith, building up in the faith, and the like (cf. Ephesians 4:13; Philippians 1:25; Colossians 1:23; 2 Thessalonians 1:3; 1 Timothy 3:13).
4. There is a reason why God the Holy Spirit often moved men to write terrible warnings against denying the faith, wandering from the faith, abandoning the faith, swerving from the faith, upsetting the faith of some, being disqualified concerning the faith, and the like (1 Timothy 4:1; 5:8; 6:10, 21; 2 Timothy 2:18; 3:8; Revelation 2:13)

All that (and much more) being the case, it seems wiser to devote one's energies to promulgating truths which lead to faith that brings life (John 20:31) — truths of God's Word, which "is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified" (Acts 20:32) — rather than pushing away the full authority of God's Word (1 Timothy 6:3), and ending up "conceited, understanding nothing, but having a sick interest in disputes and arguments over words" (1 Timothy 6:4 CSB).

---

Real humility, real arrogance

by Dan Phillips

I'm going to tag-team off of Phil's fine post from yesterday.

It chafes to be on the wrong end of an unfair comparison. Your parents think your sibling is the best little child because (s)he's a skilled kiss-up, and they don't hear the seditious chatter that starts up the moment they leave the room. Or you try to be a godly wife and mother who uses her abilities to the full in service of God and your family — but you know that society sees you as pathetic and servile, favoring instead aggressive, un-feminine, ungodly women.

Or you're a Christian who takes his stand on the Word of God, knowing you're seen as arrogant, blind and proud, while doctrinaire ditherers and world-loving compromisers enjoy a reputation for humble, open-minded intelligence.

The stance of the Word on the matter is plain and univocal, more than one post can do justice. But we'll give it a whack.

Let's start by way of Hebrews 11. We all know that the men and women in that chapter were flawed, yet they are held up as examples. In what way are they examples? In their weakness and vacillation? Not at all, but "by [faith] the people of old received their commendation" (v. 2).

Again and again, the writer focuses on the faith that motivated the believers of old, and describes them as those "who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,  quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight" (vv. 33-34). It was as they were nerved, strengthened, and moved to action by resolute faith that they served as models.

So cast your mind back to Psalm 1. You know the characteristic of the blessed man: rather than join in the walk and worldview of the wicked, he delights in and dwells on God's Word. To what does God liken him? To a tree, transplanted by streams of water (v. 3).

Think of trees. They're boring! They just stand there. And stand there, and stand there, and stand there. Imperceptibly, yet steadily, they grow and bear fruit — but their characteristics are (1) life, (2) fruitfulness, and (3) a certain immobility.

Much more exciting is the chaff. Watch the chaff driven by the wind: now here, now there, ever in motion, ever moving, ever dynamic — ever dead. See, that's why it's so mobile. It has no roots, no life, and no future (vv. 4-5).

If David wrote Psalm 119, he weighs in again on this subject from another angle:

You rebuke the insolent, accursed ones,
who wander from your commandments (Psalm 119:21)
The insolent utterly deride me,
but I do not turn away from your law (Psalm 119:51)
The insolent have dug pitfalls for me;
they do not live according to your law (Psalm 119:85)

Three times we see the insolent, who are arrogant and presumptuous. What characterizes them? God's word is not enough for them. They wander from God's commandments, they turn away from His law, they do not live according to His revelation.

And there is the soul of pride: God has spoken, but it is not convicting, not compelling, not enough.

Thus it ever was. Satan started right there: the conversation-starting open inquiry "Did God really say?" soon led to "God was wrong."

Very little has changed. When you hear A, start looking for B.

The believing perspective is the opposite. The believer is the one who finds God's word utterly sufficient, and utterly compelling. "The lion has roared; who will not fear? The Lord GOD has spoken; who can but prophesy?" (Amos 3:8).

Comes the New Covenant and Jesus, and nothing has changed. Jesus has no praise for the restless wanderer, but does pronounce blessing on the one who hears, heeds, and builds his (boring, immobile, stable) house on His words (Matthew 7:24-27).

So His apostle will want to see believers who are — not constantly flitting hither and yon from fad to fad, but — resistant to winds of doctrine in their steady growth (Ephesians 4:13-14), and stable in their walks (Colossians 2:2-10). What he wants is for them to "be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain" (1 Corinthians 15:58).

Nor is it a matter of indifference to the apostle of Christ. The Gospel is specific and not-other. If let slip, it will not save (1 Corinthians 15:1-2). If perverted, it brings damnation (Galatians 1:8-9).

It is interesting that this stance will infuriate compromised ditherers not content to take the minority position. The psalmist notes, "The insolent smear me with lies, but with my whole heart I keep your precepts" (Psalm 119:69). Desperate to shush their throbbing conscience or quiet the fears of God's judgment, they must slander those whose example stings them.

So they lie about us. It can't be that we really just plain old believe God, it must be a holier-than-thou pose. It can't be that we are so aware of what benighted idiots we are that no other place is a safe place for us, no other stance is possible for us than to stand on the word. It must be that we're actually arrogant and proud and stubborn.

In other words, it has to be about something other than what it really is about.

God's stance is very plain. He in no way calls dithery, compromising instability "humility." In fact, listen to what He does so categorize: "But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word" (Isaiah 66 2b).

So, in sum:

The soul of humility is to seek a clear word from God, and respond with "Amen" — that is, to find it, and stand on it without compromise or apology. It is about God and His glory.

The soul of arrogance is to take a clear word of God, and respond with "Has God really said?" — that is, to put energies into defending compromise, dithering, uncertainty, unbelief. It is about man and his straying.

God grant us true humility as He defines humility.

---