Self-help, self-esteem, self-destruction, and large, irresponsible mouths

by Dan Phillips

Rebekah Lawrence was a married woman whose husband did not share her desire for children. Troubled by that friction, and by another relatively minor issue or two, she attended a $600 four-day self-help course called Turning Point in Australia.

After the fourth and final session, with no history of serious mental health issues, Rebekah's thinking and behavior took a dramatic turn for the worse. Then suddenly, at work, she behaved in a deranged manner, murmured an affirmation and, with a song on her lips, jumped to her death.

Now officials are investigating as to whether the self-help course led to her death. The reporting notes that the program was run by people with no formal psychological training. The speculation is that it may have triggered a psychotic episode.

Now, let's duly note that the same people who'd criticize such courses would equally fault any pastor who tried to counsel anyone about anything. They would note that many pastors also lack "formal psychological training." As Jay Adams pointed out long ago, psychologists have become the new priesthood, unchallenged experts on the human soul. As Adams also rightly noted, this is far from a Biblical model.

Before coming to my point, let me add this: having said all that, I've said far from all that could or should be said about helping troubled people.


Now to my actual point. Here's where this story turns my mind: preaching and writing by folks like Joel Osteen, Robert Schuller, and teeming hordes of wannabes.

These men (and women) take on the mantel of authority, stand in the pulpit, and tell every last one of their hearers unconditionally and without qualification that God loves them, accepts them just as they are, approves of their hopes and dreams and aspirations, and wants nothing more than He wants for them to be happy and fulfill their desires. God will initial all their aspirations, and back them up all the way.

But who is in those audiences? How do the speakers know? They never even meet 0.001% of the people who hear them. Who are they cheering on, to whom are they promising God's unconditional approval? Unstable folks like Rebekah Lawrence? Pro-abort extremists like the late Dr. George Tiller? Who is listening? What nascent murderers, rapists, heretics, apostates, false teachers, false prophets, or other lost souls are being promised God's smile?

Nor does the preaching include any limits, provisos, warnings, nor conditions. God loves you just as you are, and He wants to fulfill your dearest dream — whoever you are, whatever you are, no matter what you're dreaming!

So let me just say right now, to every one of our readers: God may well not want you to fulfill your dreams and desires. He may well not approve of your plans and aspirations.

In fact — I have to say it; truth and love for God and you constrains me — He may well not accept you, just as you are, right now.

But you can't see His face just now. We can't hear His voice speaking individually to us, as if from mid-air. So how can you know? How can we tell?

First: you may not be accepted by God, but may instead be under His judgment and wrath. In terms of global population, it is likelier that this is true of you than that it is not. All of us rebel against the Godhood of God, as expressed in His revealed word, the Bible. We are rebels by nature and by choice. It isn't even in us to submit to God's law; we naturally hate both it and Him.

However, the great good news is that God has provided a wonderful way to reconcile us to Himself, forgiving all our sins and crediting the righteousness of His Son to us, as we do a 180 and believe in Christ.  (Read more about how He does this, and how we must respond, HERE.)

This truth confronts you decisively. You cannot go on the way you naturally live, and be heading for God's kingdom. You must be born again to see the kingdom of God. You must do a radical, root-to-branch turnabout, trusting in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Only thus can you be reconciled to God. Not to say "Yes" to Christ in faith, is to say "No" to God — and you must never expect His smile nor His blessing if you choose to say "No" to God's call and command.

Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). If you would know God, you must know Him in Jesus Christ. There is no hope elsewhere nor otherwise.

Second: God may not approve of your plans. Hollywood is dead wrong. Our hearts are not always right. In fact, they are deceitful and incurably sick (Jeremiah 17:9). Not only must we be born again, and bow the knee to Jesus as Lord; but we must continually take His yoke on us and learn from Him, in a committed teacher-student relationship (Matthew 11:29). We must continue in His teaching (John 8:31-32), must have His word as the critic of the thoughts and feelings of our hearts (Hebrews 4:12).

Only by that Word can we know what delights and pleases God on the one hand, and what repels Him, on the other (Psalm 19:7-11; 119:9, 11; 2 Timothy 3:15-17). Only by that Word can we know God's will, and know what is pleasing to Him.

Do not slight your spouse and think that is the path to blessing (Ephesians 5:22-23). Do not shame your parents and expect a happy future (Ephesians 6:1-3); nor lie (Ephesians 4:25), nor re-shape His word like silly-putty (2 Corinthians 4:1-2), nor compromise the gospel to please men (Galatians 1:10). Neither the all-out pursuit of money (1 Timothy 6:9-10) nor of popularity (Proverbs 18:24) are the way of God.

You and I must not assume God wants us to do anything simply because we want to do it.

But if you are in God's will, though you may suffer terribly, you can be assured of His loving smile now, and His verdict of joy in eternity (Matthew 5:3-12; 2 Corinthians 4:7-18; 1 Peter 4:12-14).

The only way you know whether you are a child of God at all, and whether you are in the will of God, is the same way: by the Word of God.

Stay in it, and stay close to it. And stay in a church where the Word is taught and practiced, pedal to the metal; and where a pastor takes to heart the care of your soul (Hebrews 13:17).

It is the only way.

---

Best of centuri0n: Coleco vs. NFL

by Frank Turk

[Originally posted in 2007, this seems to fit in with the open discussion about "Deep Church". Enjoy.]

We have this funny word in our Christian vocabulary that appears in our Bibles – namely "church". Webster's dictionary says this about where we get that word:

Middle English chirche, from Old English cirice, ultimately from Late Greek kyriakon, from Greek, neuter of kyriakos of the lord, from kyrios lord, master

Which, you know, is interesting because we use "church" in the translations of the Bible in English to represent the word "ecclesia", not the word "kyriakon" – that is, it is possible that we mean the same thing by saying "church" when the NT says "ecclesia", but the word "church" doesn't come from the word "ecclesia".

Now, here's what I'm not equipped to do here: I'm not equipped to criticize guys (and women) who have spent their lives studying Greek who all agree that "church" is a fine word in English for the Greek word "ecclesia". I accept that this is the word we are going to use and, frankly, ought to use.

What I'm thinking about today is what we mean by using this word.

I realize, btw, that I am on something of a year-long rant about the church, off and on. But listen: Dan's experience last week (which he posted yesterdayhere) is not just sort of disappointing: it's down-right appalling. It's like getting a coleco hand-held football game when you thought you bought tickets to see [insert your football team here to protect the meta from frivolous sports talk] – not only did you get cheated out of what would have been worth coming to, you also have to do all the work yourself now after investing all that time and cash.

The over-arching theme of this series, btw, is that the believer needs the church. You need it. Part of that, of course, is that it needs you, and I have beaten that almost to death. But I was reminded of this theme this weekend as I listened to Dr. MacArthur preach broadly and enthusiastically at DGM's national conference on the theme "Stand", meaning a call to the perseverance of the saints.

Part of "Standing" in the faith is, as the Spurgeon piece sketched out for us this week, not acting like the church is a Baskin Robbins of possibilities – that is, it's not about flavors or "style", and if you get hung up on "style" or flavor (even if it's to go back to some allegedly-ancient style which came into being and went out of being years before your grandparents where born), you're really not about what the church is for.

Let me context this for you – with Scripture, so those of you who don't recognize it will be able to follow me when I resort to God's word. At the end of his life, from a prison cell, probably through some kind of amanuensis, Paul wrote to his disciple Timothy a letter which we receive in Scripture as 2 Timothy. So this letter, whatever else we want to make of it, is Paul's last word to a young man he loved dearly and had discipled in the faith apparently from the start of the young man's faith.

Paul knew Timothy's family – his mother and grandmother, who were themselves Jewish women who had accepted Christ. And if we read Timothy at all, Paul has the highest confidence and love for Timothy – like Titus, Timothy is called Paul's "true son" in the faith.

And in that, Paul's last words to Timothy are important to us as we have to believe that he wrote these things as a farewell.

But as Paul writes, we find some very troubling things in his words. All of Asia, he says, has forsaken him for false teachers; Demas has decided that the world looks pretty good and the Gospel not so much. So in that environment, you'd think Paul would give Timothy the advice any wise man would give: run away from the bad guys and go find someplace else to start a new church – because we have to run away from false teachers, and a church with false teachers is a church where it is necessary to leave.

You'd think.

Instead, Paul says this – if the ESV can be considered Scripture:

do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, for which I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher, which is why I suffer as I do. But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me. Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you.

And again he says this:

Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some. But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity."

Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work.

So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

And again this:

You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and [they] will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

Even as he is ready to be "poured out as a drink offering", as he says himself, Paul calls Timothy to stand firm in the truth and preach and teach what is right in spite of fads and the tastes of men.

See: Paul didn't tell Timothy, "dude, my method landed me in jail, so you have to try something different. Check with Demas as he has found a nice job in the world -- obviously he knows something I don't." He told Timothy to not change and not adapt and not go his own way, but instead to "endure suffering" and "continue in what you have learned" and "depart from iniquity" and so on -- but not to leave the church.

This goes back to my Coleco vs. NFL analogy -- Paul isn't telling Timothy, "Son, just work on your passing game on that little hand-held, because that's what real football looks like. Nobody has to get hurt, right?" Paul is telling Timothy, "Son, I have taken real hits on the field of play, and you are going to take real hits on the field of play. But you are called out not to be a fan or even a mascot: you are called out to play in the majors. And when you play in the majors, you play until the game is over."

Here's why I bring it up: it's because we are not called out of the church to preach the Gospel – we are called out of the world and into the "ecclesia" to preach the Gospel. Standing firm for the truth is standing where? Whatever "ecclesia" means, and whatever "church" is supposed to mean in its place in English, it is something we are called into in order that we may demonstrate who God is and what He has done.

And this is where the football analogy really gets some legs. We're certainly not called out to play a little metaphorical LED version of the game where there's not even a real ball or real players, yes? If we're "ecclesia", I guess we can also admit that we're not just called to sit on the couch and watch the players on our really cool HDTV home theater unit -- we're not called out to be viewers from a distance, subject to blackouts when the stadium doesn't sell out -- because sitting on the couch doesn't qualify as "out". But let me suggest that we're also not just called out to be season-ticket holders who show up at every home-game, or true fanatics that have a ticket and a seat at every pre-season, regular-season and post-season -- because these people just come to the game no matter how personally they take it when their team loses.

We are called out to play on the team and be down on the field.

You think about that, and we'll come back to it.

---

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?

---

Why Slaves to Mammon Cannot Find Peace

by Phil Johnson

The following post is from an article that was published earlier this year in GraceTrax, a publication of Riverbend Church, Ormond Beach, FL—Roy Hargrave, Pastor.

ife is harsh. Ponder our existence from a purely rationalistic, human perspective, and it's hard to see how anyone could ever be optimistic. Our lives on this cursed planet are headed toward no good end. Everyone has an appointment with death, and the journey to that engagement is impeded by unavoidable potholes of tragedy, misery, heartache, and pain.

Scripture acknowledges the futility and brevity of earthly life. Job 14:1: "Man, who is born of woman, is short-lived and full of turmoil." "Vanity of vanities! All is vanity" (Ecclesiastes 1:2). "You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away" (James 4:14). "All flesh is like grass, and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls off" (1 Peter 1:24).

Think that sounds bleak? From a strictly human perspective, that is not even the worst of it: "It is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment" (Hebrews 9:27).

Those verses all sound a note that is prominent in Scripture. In stark contrast to the message that dominates some of the religious channels on television, the Bible never promises anyone health, material prosperity, freedom from strife, comfort, ease, or luxury in this life. On the contrary, those who are faithful are promised persecution (2 Timothy 3:12).

Sounds like a recipe for utter, hopeless pessimism, doesn't it? In reality, that is the necessary foundation of true peace and authentic hope. The innate despair of this present evil world ought to drive us to Christ, the only One who can deliver us from the bondage of sin's curse (Galatians 1:4). And those who do lay hold of Christ gain (through Him) a peace that "surpasses all comprehension" (Philippians 4:7). He grants freedom from the worries and cares of this dreary life—a real and palpable peace that is both incomprehensible and unattainable for those who are seeking fulfillment in earthly things.

It's a simple principle, really: if you set your heart on material goods and earthly pleasures, you are coveting things that are already set aside for destruction. You will therefore gain nothing but disappointment and everlasting misery. But "set your mind on the things above" (Colossians 3:2)—fix your heart on Christ; embrace the spiritual, eternal values of heaven—and you will have peace even in this life.

Therefore, right alongside Scripture's dismal assessment of the sheer hopelessness of this earthly life, we find Christ's simple command to His faithful followers: "Do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on" (Matthew 6:25). After all, "Which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life?" (v. 27).

That, of course, is part of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. In the immediate context (starting with verse 19) Christ is attacking the twin sins of greed and worry. Those are no misdemeanors, Jesus says; they are serious, soul-destroying sins that annihilate our peace and undermine righteousness at the most fundamental level. They are hostile to hope and antithetical to genuine faith, and they breed every other imaginable kind of wickedness.

In other words, "The love of money is a root of all sorts of evil" (1 Timothy 6:10). Greed is a form of covetousness; and worry is an expression of unbelief. The two sins are always found in tandem, and they are the very essence of an earth-bound perspective—the polar opposite of a biblical world-view. In Jesus' own words, "You cannot serve God and [mammon]" (Matthew 6:24).

Therefore, Jesus says, we must let go of every vestige of mammon-worship. Stop hoarding earthly and material treasures, and invest our resources in heavenly things: "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also" (vv. 19-21).

The key to Jesus' whole point is that last phrase. What you invest in is what you truly love. Where you put your treasure not only reflects where your heart is, but to a very large degree it determines what you think about, what you care about, and whom you serve. Invest your resources in earthly mammon, and you indenture yourself as a slave to a world-system that is hostile to God and exists under His condemnation. There is no more sure way to cut yourself off from God's blessing and incur His wrath (James 4:4; 1 John 2:15).

The love of material things further undermines peace because it foments another sin: worry. That's why immediately after saying we cannot serve both God and mammon, Jesus says, "For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on" (Matthew 6:25).

Worry is the natural and inevitable by-product of setting one's affections on earthly things. It ought to be obvious that the end of all earthly things is destruction, whether by the slow decay of moth and rust, or rapidly by sudden loss. In either case, the end will surely be the same.

How can anyone not worry who knows with absolute certainty that decay and ruin will be the inevitable finale of everything he holds most dear? Obviously, then, true peace is possible only for those whose driving affections are not worldly and materialistic, but spiritual, heavenly, and eternal.



Be sure you understand what is forbidden in Matthew 6:25-33. It's worry, not planning for the future per se. Some people misuse this passage to argue that it is sinful for Christians to buy insurance, or to have savings accounts, or take any measures whatsoever to build a hedge against future calamity. They would rule out all kinds of disaster preparation, earthquake readiness kits, or any kind of preparation for the future.

Can I be blunt? That's a foolish interpretation of this passage. Christ isn't forbidding normal, prudent, sensible, means of being prepared for possible future disaster. True biblical wisdom, not to mention common sense, teaches us that it is wrong and sinfully foolish not to make reasonable preparations for such contingencies. In some cases that is even the law of the land.

Remember that Joseph in the Old Testament rose to a position of prominence in Egypt because he led the nation to store enough grain to see them through seven years of famine. He was blessed by God with the foresight to prepare for hard times. God Himself revealed to Joseph that those years of famine were coming, and God through His providence gave him the wisdom to know how to prepare for it.

We're supposed to make reasonable preparations like that. In Proverbs 27:23-24, Solomon tells his son, "Pay attention to your herds; for riches are not forever, nor does a crown endure to all generations." He counsels him to plan and work diligently, to be prudent in his business dealings, to care for the welfare of his flocks and fields—so that he has food and sustenance for future contingencies. Proverbs 6:6-8 likewise tell us to take a lesson from the ant, who stores food in the summer to prepare for the harsh winter.

Those are common-sense, strategic preparations that insure us against disaster, and it is right for us to take such measures. It would be foolish to ignore the future so much that we neglect to prepare for it. Jesus said so Himself: "For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish'" (Luke 14:28-30). He went on to say that it would be foolishly imprudent for a king to go to war without having counted the cost.

So when Jesus says "do not be worried about your life" in the Sermon on the Mount, He is not instructing us to live with no hedge whatsoever against possible disaster. He's not forbidding us to take out insurance in case something goes wrong. He's not saying it is wrong to prepare for hard times. He's not ruling out wise provisions for possible disasters.

What Jesus forbids is the sort of worry that is rooted in a love of things. Don't get so caught up with hedging against future disaster that you pour all your energy and resources into an earthly storehouse. Don't fret about the future. Don't become preoccupied with what may go wrong tomorrow. And above all, do not cultivate a love of material things. Don't sell yourself into the service of mammon.

In other words, get your priorities straight, and you will have true peace. Heaven is also the storehouse where your best resources should be invested. You can have true peace if that is where you are keeping your treasure. And if it is not—if you are more concerned about preparing for your retirement or for next year's vacation than you are with preparing for heaven—then your heart is in the wrong place. "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (v. 21).

If your heart is in the right place, you will certainly have peace, because "The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Romans 14:17).

---

Why It's Dangerous to Love the Praise of Men

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 from "Why Men Cannot Believe in Christ," a sermon published in 1875

should not wonder but what the Pope really believes that he is infallible, and that he ought to be saluted as "his holiness." It must have taken him a good time to arrive at that eminence of self-deception, but he has got to that, I dare say, by now, and every one who kisses his toe confirms him in his insane idea.

When everybody else believes a haltering falsehood concerning you, you come at last to believe it yourself, or at least to think that it may be so. These Pharisees, being continually called "the learned rabbi," "the holy scribe," "the devout and pious doctor," "the sanctified teacher," almost believed the flattering compliments. They used very grand phrases in those days, and doctors of divinity were very common, almost as common as they are now; and the crowd of doctors and rabbis helped to keep each other in countenance by repeating one another's fine names till they believed they meant something.

Dear friends, it is very difficult to receive honor and to expect it, and yet to keep your eyesight; for men's eyes gradually grow dull through the smoke of the incense which is burned before them; and when their eyes become dim with self-conceit, it will not be at all marvellous if they say, "We cannot believe in Jesus Christ." Their own great selves conceal the cross, and make them unable to believe the truth.

Once more, the praise of men generally turns the receivers of it into great cowards. How could they believe in Jesus? Why, the people would leave off terming them "the learned rabbi," and "the celestial doctor," and their brethren would put them out of the synagogue. How could they believe, and lose their status? Why, the would say, "Has rabbi So-and-so become a disciple of the carpenter's son? Has he put aside his wisdom and become a child, that he may be instructed by the Nazarene?" Why, the whole Sanhedrin would hiss out indignation against the learned man, the pious man, the devout man, with his phylactery, and the broad border of his garment, if he were to follow with publicans and harlots at the heels of the rejected Messiah. They were afraid! They were afraid!

That same spirit which makes us love the praise of men makes us dread the threats of men. You cannot be pleased with the adulation of mankind without becoming fearful of tour censure. It is a perilous thing to taste of human honor: if it makes you sick, it is the best thing it can do for you. If you despise it utterly, it is the only way of bearing it without being injured by it; for I say again, delight in the praises of others saps the foundations of a man's manhood: delight in the praise of men takes a man off from following after the glory of God, and makes him afraid of following the truth if it cost him ridicule.

---

Better Late than Never

by Phil Johnson

eah, yeah—I know. I'm supposed to have Friday's blogpost on line by Friday morning. But I just got back from vacation last night, and this is the best I could do, with minimal effort.

What follows is John MacArthur's foreword to a brand-new biography of David Brainerd, titled David Brainerd: A Flame for God, by Vance Christie. I had the privilege of reading Christie's manuscript almost three years ago, when he sent it to John MacArthur to consider a Foreword. I loved the book and was sad when I had to turn the manuscript over to John MacArthur so that he could write the foreword. I have been eagerly awaiting its publication so that I could get a copy of my own. After three years, I was beginning to wonder if I would ever see it again. But it's now in print from Christian Focus, and well worth your time to read.

Here's what John MacArthur says about it:

Foreword avid Brainerd was a living illustration of how, in order to confound the mighty and the wise, our God delights to use those whom this world might deem weak and foolish (1 Corinthians 1:26-29). Brainerd was a feeble, sickly man, prone to difficult bouts with severe depression. He was orphaned at age fourteen and dismissed from Yale before graduating (because he remarked that one of his tutors had no more grace than a piece of furniture). Brainerd nevertheless continued privately studying for the ministry and in time obtained a license to preach.      His whole ministry was spent laboring in obscurity as a missionary to Native Americans. He died of tuberculosis before his thirtieth birthday. He had completed only about four years of ministry among the people he loved and wanted to reach.      For a man with such a short career in a pioneer work, Brainerd's influence as a missionary was remarkable. During the Great Awakening, many American Indians under Brainerd's ministry were powerfully and dramatically converted to Christianity. In 1745, he wrote in his diary: Although persons are doubtless much easier affected now than they were in the beginning of this religious concern, when tears and cries for their souls were things unheard of among them; yet I must say, their affection in general appear[s] genuine and unfeigned . . . I have now baptized in all forty-seven persons of the Indians, twenty-three adults, and twenty-four children; thirty-five of them belonging to these parts, and the rest to the Forks of Delaware: and, through rich grace, none of them as yet have been left to disgrace their profession of Christianity by any scandalous or unbecoming behaviour.      Yet Brainerd's greatness, and the main reason we remember him today, lay in the character of his private life. The publication of his diary after his death is what revealed the heart of this great man to the world. And for generations, Christians have rightly honored him for the strength and quiet passion of his devotion to the pursuit of God's glory.      Jonathan Edwards was David Brainerd's first biographer. Brainerd had succumbed to complications from tuberculosis and, after being bedridden and steadily growing weaker for some time, died in Edwards's home. An Account of the Life of the Late Rev. David Brainerd, Edwards's famous work, is one of the classic biographies of both American and evangelical history.      A wave of remarkable influence began with the original publication of that book. Since that time, Brainerd's life has made a profound impact on generation after generation of Christians, especially many young people who have seen Brainerd's resolute single-mindedness and been moved to emulate his holy zeal. The ranks of the evangelical missionary force are continually being replenished with young people, and large numbers of them have been profoundly and directly influenced by the testimony of David Brainerd. Thus Brainerd's life and labor have continued to reap fruit in great abundance for two and a half centuries since his death.      In this marvelous new biography, Vance Christie has given us a thorough, engaging, meticulously documented but wonderfully readable new chronicle of the life of David Brainerd. Christie makes Brainerd live and breathe for the twenty-first century reader in a vivid, colorful account of the young man's heart, mind, and work. This is a splendid volume, full of insight into what drove David Brainerd to give his life in the Lord's service—despite several obstacles that would seem insurmountable to the typical person today.      This retelling of Brainerd's story is a much-needed and strategic answer to many of the current generation's spiritual needs. Brainerd's devotion to serving others for God's glory makes a sharp contrast with the shallowness and self-centeredness of our postmodern culture, and points to a better, more Christlike way. Brainerd's own words, quoted frequently but always strategically by Christie, reveal Brainerd as a real and honest man, with struggles, discouragements, and bouts of depression that, if anything, make our postmodern woes seem paltry by comparison. The Appendix deals in detail with Brainerd's battle against frequent and crippling waves of depression, and is one of the most valuable chapters of the book.      I know you will enjoy this book, as I did. My prayer is that you will also be moved by it to a more earnest walk with Christ and a deeper devotion to Him, and above all that you will catch something of David Brainerd's passion to see Christ glorified.                     John MacArthur

---

Why Do We Do That? — special greetings to visitors

by Dan Phillips

Isn't it kind of funny that, in the announcements, we give a special greeting to visitors? We say, "And especially if you're here for the first time, we want to give you a special greeting"?

Why do we do that?

Shouldn't we at least occasionally say

“If you're here for the first time, we want to give you a warm and friendly greeting, and we hope you'll stay, let us serve you with love in Christ's name; and we hope you'll come to serve with us.

“If you come here regularly, week after week, have committed yourself to this ministry in membership and service, have put your hand to the plow with us, and support this local work of God with your prayers, your time, your labor, and your gifts, we want to give you a special greeting. We'll never take you for granted!”

Wouldn't that make sense?

---

Deep Church

by Frank Turk

UPDATED: Paul Edwards has run out of guests, and has asked me to talk about this book and this review/recommendation today at 5:05 ET. You can listen in here. (well, not anymore)

The archived audio, saved at archive.org, can be streamed here:


The direct link to the audio for download and iPod-ery is here (right-click to download).

Two weeks ago I threatened to review Jim Belcher's new book Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional, and challenged you readers to read it before I reviewed it so we could have an intelligent discussion about it.

Now, I have an obligation to Jim, who sent me the PDF of his book (FCC: take that) to give the book its fair treatment, but since my initial recommendation, Kevin DeYoung, the most vivacious baby-baptizer in the world reviewed the book and got this comment from Jim for his trouble:

This is by far the most thorough review of my book, both in the overview it provides and the evaluation. It is well written, engaging and helpful, pointing out well the areas you agree and disagree on. It provides a good road map for further dialogue on the third way I am attempting to propose. I am grateful that you have opened up the terrain for even more people to read the book and engage in my thesis. So for that I am deeply grateful. I hope your readers will buy and engage its ideas.

So Thanks a lot, Kevin. What am I supposed to do now?

Well, there are 8 or 9 words in the book Kevin didn't address, and of course this is the pyro-centric part of the blogosphere so we have that flavor to add to Jim's book about why he's not Emergent. And after I'm done here, you folks will have your normal chance to say your piece.

The place to start is, of course, the most superficial things about the book. The regular readers of this blog will probably look at the blurbs for the book, roll their eyes, and go find something else to read. That, people, would be a massive GBA error on your part. You see: not every book worth reading has been endorsed by RC Sproul, JI Packer and DA Carson, and not every book endorsed by Tony Jones needs to be disregarded (sure: most, but ...).

In that, one of the most important attributes of this book (moving away from the superficial to the subtle) is something about it which I admit I didn't appreciate much until the end: the massive benefit of the doubt Jim gives to the "emerg*" perspective on the issues he covers. Frankly, I felt like his treatment of them was far too deferential and sort of demure -- until I got to the end and realized that he had fairly dismantled the worse elements of the movement without handing them a merciless beating, and left himself plenty of room to adopt their reasonable criticisms to seek out orthodox solutions to those problems.

I didn't realize how well he had positioned himself until the final chapter when he, anecdotally, described the real-world results of his church's vision for "Deep Church". And unlike most reviews, I'm not going to ruin it for you by giving you all the good stuff here: you really must read this book yourself.

Was it all good? No, of course not. Jim writing in the first-person was not an approach I'd recommend as it had several places where I thought it sounded a little condescending only because it was all about what "I" did. I thought his treatment of Brian McLaren was downright congenial in spite of his ultimate concern for McLaren's trajectory. And, of course, his points regarding the upside of presbyterian polity seemed to me to be unbalanced -- especially given his really broad hand of fairness for people who, as he himself admitted in the book, have plainly rejected the historical faith. There's no recourse for the independent church when it has members bringing petitions to the pastor? Really?

So my summary here is not that you must read it to believe it: Jim's book about what he is describing as a "third way" between "emerging" and "traditional" is, in spite of itself, a book which will antagonize your complacency about the church in general and your church in particular. Because Jim obviously loves Christ, and therefore obviously loves his church, he wants others to do the same -- and it's refreshing to read a new book on this subject which isn't calling people to give up on leadership, gathering together, and serious views of worship but is also calling people to love, and serve, and commit because this is actually what Christ has called us to.

Big thumbs-up from me on this book. If you haven't read it, it's your turn to read it. Go buy one and pass it around if you have to so you can find someone with whom to talk about it.

If you have read it, tell me: what was your favorite chapter, you least-favorite chapter, and why?

---

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.

---

Clowns and Hypocrites; Serpents and Vipers

by Phil Johnson

In view of numerous Tweets and comments from several people who were outraged and angry about Friday's post, we take up the subject only obliquely today. Most of my critics since Friday have regarded it as a given that Jesus would never, ever—ever—be anything but friendly, deferential, polite, and sweet-tempered to men of stature who teach in religious settings. Here's a reminder that such a saccharine view of Christ by no means reflects who He really is. In fact, the opinions of today's evangelicals about what constitutes "civility" and authentic Christlikeness are sometimes about as far from reality as it is possible to get.


ear the conclusion of The Jesus You Can't Ignore, John MacArthur makes this observation about Matthew 23:

The other word that dominates this sermon besides "woe" is "hypocrites"—which likewise appears eight times. In the course of pronouncing those eight woes, Jesus was addressing many of the doctrinal and practical errors that illustrated what deplorable hypocrites [the Pharisees] were. These included their pretentious praying (v. 14); their misguided motives for "ministry" to others (v. 15); their tendency to swear casually by things that are holy, plus the corresponding habit of playing fast and loose with their vows (vv. 18-22); their upside-down approach to priorities, by which they had elevated obscure ceremonial precepts over the moral law (vv. 23-24); and above all, their blithe toleration of many gross, often ludicrous, manifestations of hypocrisy (vv. 27-31).

One other characteristic that makes this sermon stand out is Jesus' liberal use of derogatory epithets. Those who think name-calling is inherently unchristlike and always inappropriate will have a very hard time with this sermon. In addition to the eight times Jesus emphatically calls them "hypocrites!" He calls them "blind guides" (vv. 16, 24); "Fools and blind!" (v. 17, 19); "Blind Pharisee[s]" (v. 26); and "Serpents, brood of vipers!" (v. 33).

This was not an attempt to win esteem in their eyes. It was not an attempt to persuade them with smooth words a friendly overture. It was not the kind of soft word that turns away wrath.

But it was the truth, and it was what the Pharisees, as well as those potentially influenced by them, desperately needed to hear.

Just before closing that final chapter of the book, MacArthur writes,

In fact, the very last thing we can afford to do in these postmodern times, while the enemies of truth are devoted to making everything fuzzy, would be to pledge a moratorium on candor or agree to a cease-fire with people who delight in testing the limits of orthodoxy. Being friendly and affable is sometimes simply the wrong thing to do (see Nehemiah 6:2-4). We must remember that.

Punctuating the chapters in this book are call-out quotes from famous authors of the past who likewise pointed out that the popular conception of Jesus often fails to appreciate just how militant He was in defense of the truth. In one of them, for example, J. B. Phillips writes, "Why mild? Of all the epithets that could be applied to Christ this seems one of the least appropriate."

Here's another:

We have all heard people say a hundred times over, for they seem never to tire of saying it, that the Jesus of the New Testament is indeed a most merciful and humane lover of humanity, but that the Church has hidden this human character in repellent dogmas and stiffened it with ecclesiastical terrors till it has taken on an inhuman character. This is, I venture to repeat, very nearly the reverse of the truth. The truth is that it is the image of Christ in the churches that is almost entirely mild and merciful.
        G. K. Chesterton (The Everlasting Man)

You really ought to read The Jesus You Can't Ignore—especially if you are the type who thinks theological disagreements should never be brought out into the open until they have been delicately spun into pretty clouds of cotton-candy—and then handled only by people who have carefully painted phony clown-smiles on their own faces.

---

Do Idols Deserve Respect?

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 from Spurgeon's exposition of Psalm 106, delivered on Sunday evening, August 22nd, 1889.

The earth opened and swallowed up Dathan, and covered the company of Abiram. And a fire was kindled in their company; the flame burnt up the wicked, They made a calf in Horeb, and worshipped the molten image. Thus they changed their glory into the similitude of an ox that eateth grass. (Psalm 106:17-20)

ee! they had been in Egypt. They had seen the Egyptians worship the god Apis in the form of a bull, so that they must needs have a bull too.

I daresay that they said, "The bull is an emblem of strength. We do not worship the image; the image is only used to help us to think of the power of God."

But God forbids us to worship him under any image of any sort. "Thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven image, nor the likeness of anything that is in the heaven above, nor in the earth beneath. Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them." All images, pictures, crucifixes—the whole lot of them are abhorrent and abominable to God.

We must have nothing to do with them as helps to worship, for they are not helps. They are destroyers of the worship of God.

But, you say to me, "You tell us that it was a bull."

Yes, and, in contempt, the man of God here calls it a calf. You cannot be too disrespectful to objects of idolatrous worship. They may be esteemed by others, but do not show any kind of respect to them yourself; but if there be a name that you can give them that is full of sarcasm, let them have it.

---

"Performance Artist"

by Phil Johnson



ee, this kind of stuff is why I keep saying the historic meaning of the word evangelical will probably never be recovered. (You might want to read The Boston Globe's religion section and then come back here. The rest of this post will be more relevant if you have the full context.)



I do agree with Rob Bell about one thing. (Quick. Somebody wash my mouth out with soap. Please.) He's <cough>right</cough> when he points out that the way the secular media usually employ the term evangelical—as a synonym for religious right-wing politicos—is a misnomer. Bell says, "For many, the word has nothing to do with a spiritual context."

Well, yeah, OK. I suppose that's part of the problem. More precisely, the term evangelical has been systematically evacuated of any reference to its historic doctrinal roots. People today therefore feel free to assign it any meaning they fancy—religious or non-religious. Practically everyone in the world of popular religion now claims to be "evangelical" in one sense or another. That includes not only old-line Moral Majority types who think the Republican Party agenda is gospel truth; hip middle-class Willow Creekers who couldn't care less about either doctrine or politics but just want to be entertained; crypto-Socinians like Bell and McLaren; crass socialists like Jim Wallis and Sojourners; heavily politicized left-wing wingnuts who think Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, and Al Franken are all good medicine—or whatever.

In fact, listen to Bell's own cockamamie claim about what the term properly describes: "I embrace the term evangelical, if by that we mean a belief that we together can actually work for change in the world, caring for the environment, extending to the poor generosity and kindness, a hopeful outlook. That's a beautiful sort of thing."

So is that what Bell considers "a spiritual context," or did he already forget what he had just been saying about how the term became politicized and corrupted in the first place? Hmmm.

An interviewer at The Boston Globe evidently wondered the same thing. He tells Bell, "I'm struck by the fact that I don't hear a lot of explicitly religious language, or mentions of Jesus, from you."


Bell's answers to that question and others in a similar vein are instructive. Among other things, he admits, "I have as much in common with the performance artist, the standup comedian, the screenwriter, as I do with the theologian. I'm in an odd world where I make things and share them with people."

One thing is clear: Bell himself is no true evangelical in any historic sense of the term. The Boston Globe's headline ("Bell aims to restore true meaning of 'evangelical'") is exactly backward. Bell has no agenda to "restore the true meaning" of the term evangelical, much less encourage a revival of true evangelical belief. In fact, Bell has made a career of attacking historic evangelical convictions—laying siege to the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the wrath of God against sin, the authority and perspicuity of Scripture, the necessity of the virgin birth, the coherence of the biblical testimony about the Resurrection, the exclusivity of Christ, and whatever other historic Christian doctrines Bell finds politically incorrect.

In fact, if you have the stomach to read the complete version of The Boston Globe interview, don't miss Bell's arrogant skepticism about the sovereignty and omniscience of God: "For a lot of people, dominant questions center around, 'Why is this happening? Why me? Why now?' Unfortunately, the religious voice often enters into the discussion at an inappropriate time—'God just planned this.' Really? Your God planned this, not mine."

If any popular figure "in the evangelical movement" (or on its copious fringe) deserves the label "heretic," it is Rob Bell. The guardians of evangelical politeness don't like that kind of candor, but when a secular newspaper like The Boston Globe is publishing pieces implying that the best, most promising alternative to right-wing civil religion is a mish-mash of Open Theism and performance art—and that whatever "evangelicalism" is, it must be one or the other of those two abominations, it's time for people with historic evangelical convictions to speak up clearly and make the biblical message heard again.

---

Lost in Translation

by Frank Turk

This got said yesterday in the comments, and it deserves some treatment on the front page, since this is a one-man show this week:

Wordplay in the Hebrew and Greek is almost always lost in translation. The current translations we have of any philosophy, always copy too much from older English Bibles in deference to their alleged expertise. Worse, any political agendas in the older translations are also slavishly copied.

All this makes the case for JUST TEACHING THE ORIGINAL, so you can get all the delicious wit in the Bible as God intended. My pastor taught us that way, so now I can read Bible in those languages easily, within BibleWorks. Why not make a new practice of teaching Bible the way it was actually written? Frankly the original words are far more easy and fun to remember, once you know them.

Alternative: take a translation and correct it as you go along. If the congregation gets used to it, there will be no angst. Again, that's the approach my pastor took, so one doesn't have to fault past scholar errors, but rather one comes to appreciate the difficulty of translation. :)

Which, for all its good intentions, is pure bunk. For a litmus test, as someone with a very sincere love of the KJV how “slavishly copied” any of the translations produced in the 20th century are.

You know: my wife and I were discussing the Bible last night, and Titus 2:13-15 came up. I know this isn’t the Hebrew, but stick with me here. Here’s what the KJV says:

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Right? “A peculiar people”, borrowing the language from Deuteronomy. Now, we know in English that this is borrowed from Deuteronomy because the translation recognizes something Paul is doing through allusion, and makes sure to use the word used in Deuteronomy in English again here in Titus.


But we have a problem with the ol’ KJV: this word doesn’t mean what you think it means. We see (and most of us remember) the phrase “a peculiar people”, and we think, “huh: ‘peculiar’. It means ‘unusual’, or ‘unique’,” and we then get sort of knee-capped when we open the trusty ESV and find this:

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

What happened to “peculiar”?

The problem, as usual, is you. You don’t speak the same language they spoke in 1611 – and in 1611, the word “peculiar” did not mean “unusual”: it meant “one’s own possession”, coming from its Latin roots relating to the ownership of cattle. So the KJV actually says, “a people for his own possession” just like the ESV does – it just uses an obsolete word meaning to do so.

And I point that out to say this: this is why it is critical to continue to have a vital, ecumenical (meaning: having a consensus among English-speaking churches, as we are talking about translations in English) effort to maintain the translations of the Bible from the original languages into the contemporary tongue. Foundational to the reformational way of thinking about the Bible is that it ought to be accessible to all men, and that translations are not inadequate vehicles.

I said I yesterday that I had three points to make, and that’s my first one: it’s a bogus point of view that a translation of Scripture is inherently faulty or inadequate; translations are sufficient vehicles through which to receive God’s revelation. There are probably a dozen reasons why this is so, but here are the two which I think should matter most to us:

[1] We have to have confidence in God’s word when it is handled by men. If we don’t, we have to reconsider what we mean when we think about preaching.

[2] This is not a perspective evident in Jesus or the Apostles. That the earliest church used the LXX without controversy as the word of God should give us some confidence that even a bad translation possess what God intends for His Word to possess.

That said, here’s my second point: while it is both interesting and in some ways useful to “JUST TEACH THE ORIGINAL”, this work in practice degrades the common man’s confidence in the text, which is an unjustified consequence inherent in the “preach from the Greek/Hebrew” perspective.


I have a very hard time with the phrase “lost in translation”, especially in this context, because frankly it is far more smug than it intends to be, and far less useful than it needs to be. Think about this: let’s imagine that there is some kind of high-octane literature genre which is somehow only able to be communicated in the Hebrew. Maybe it’s only a pun or a rhyme or maybe it’s a tone which is generated by a form of expression. And let’s say that there is actually no way to convey this in the English – that when we translate Ps 103 or something from the Hebrew all we get is wooden prose.

Is the point of our Bibles to titillate us with word-play, or is it to reveal to us the plan of God in Christ?

I don’t want to be a minimalist here because I do think that the Bible is actually great literature, not just words but words used (in a very real sense) in an inspired way. But the idea that we have to “get” all the Hebrew puns and word play in order to get how Moses and all the Prophets spoke of Christ is simply incongruous. I don’t want to call this pursuit idolatry, but there’s a massive difference between studying the Scripture to know that it is true and studying it as if its greatest purpose is as an aesthetic artifact. There is overlap between these two pursuits, but when we say that we have to mistrust translations and “JUST TEACH THE ORIGINAL TEXT”, especially for the sake of noodling out all the lit geek (and I speak as a lit geek) fairy dust, we have gone off the path which is really intended when we sloganeer the phrase “sola scriptura”.

Third and finally today: You are, for better and worse, stuck with English as your mother tongue. Ultimately, you personally have to speak to others in English. That means that at some point, you have to agree with someone about what, for example, the book of Romans says in English in order to tell others about it. You are far better served from a body of Christ (read: local church) perspective to have a common translation which serves as a basis for discipleship and catechesis, rather than demanding, absurdly and in a very suspiciously-Galatian manner, that someone first learn the Greek and/or the Hebrew before he can be a proper disciple and student of the word.

There is nothing wrong with learning Greek and Hebrew if you are so gifted and inclined. But it turns out that nowhere in Scripture is the ability to read Hebrew a requirement for the elder in spite of the requirement that he be able to rightly-handle the word of God. And for us to either feel like we are second-class for not being Hebrew readers, or to imply that English translations as a class are inferior to the point of being useless from the pulpit, makes us people who really don’t understand the Gospel very well.

The Gospel is proclaimed so that people from every tribe, tongue and nation will worship and give glory to God, and enjoy Him forever. In the Kingdom – in the New Earth – there is no indication that we will all be speaking Greek. If that’s the case when Christ finally has all his enemies as his footstool, maybe we should see some value in the tongues which then praise him today when we are declaring to them that they should.

That’s the context for Leland Ryken’s book, and we should be grateful to God that he cares enough about this subject to be passionate about it. And whether we agree with his philosophy of translation or not, we should be that passionate that all people have the word of God in their own language – because even in translation, it is the word of God.

---