Grow up. Be a Man

iblical manliness is about authentic character. It's not about bravado, and it's not about boyishness. Going out into the woods with a bunch of other men, putting on war paint, making animal noises, telling scary stories around a campfire, and then working up a good cry might be good, visceral fun and all, but that has nothing to do with the biblical idea of manliness.

Real manliness ("mature manhood"—Ephesians 4:13) is defined by Christlike character. Not just the Gentle-Jesus-meek-and-mild-style character, but the full-orbed fruit of the Spirit rounded out with strength, courage, conviction, and a stout-hearted willingness to oppose error and fight for the truth—even to the point of laying down your life for the truth if necessary.

When the apostle Paul writes about the characteristics of true Christian manhood in Ephesians 4, he focuses on one vital mark of spiritual maturity: "That we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes" (v. 14). You want to be a man as opposed to a little boy? Grow up in your grasp of the truth. Get a grip on sound doctrine and quit being influenced by every new trend and every undulating breeze that blows across the evangelical landscape. Quit chasing the evangelical fads. Get anchored in the truth, and learn to defend it.

That's the main mark of true manhood Paul singles out: doctrinal stability—and along with that are some clear implications: you need to be certain of what you believe. You need to understand it. You need to be able to defend it against everything—ranging from the changing winds of whatever happens to be in style at the moment all the way to human trickery and the cunning craftiness of Satan himself. Because the enemy will offer all kinds of counterfeit doctrines that look good and sound OK—false doctrines where the error is so carefully nuanced it's hard to put your finger on what's wrong with it. He will tempt you to set aside what is precise and carefully defined in place of dumbed-down doctrinal formulas that don't necessarily sound dangerous—but are.

Compare the apostle's vision of manly maturity with John Eldredge's famous sine qua non of manhood." Eldredge says, "Deep in his heart, every man longs for a battle to fight, an adventure to live, and a beauty to rescue."

That is a little boy's lie. That's the stuff of children's fantasies. You simply won't find a description of manliness like that in Scripture. Instead, Scripture says what motivates real men is a love for the truth; a contempt for error; and a passion for being used by God in the work of snatching people from the grip of the father of lies.

I keep hearing about churches who (in order to appeal to ostensibly "masculine" instincts) have moved their men's fellowship to the pub, where they discuss theology as a hobby and share their views on life as Christian men over beer and cigars.

Let me point out that there's nothing particularly manly about that. It's still a private hen party, but you've just substituted beer and cigars in place of tea and crumpets.

If you want a taste of what real manhood looks like, do some gospel ministry in a hostile environment. Stand up for the truth in some venue where it is under attack. Get a solid, manly grasp on the Bible and stand up and teach its hard truths in a way that helps make the truth clear to people who are struggling to get it. Contend earnestly for the faith when some nice-sounding heretic wants you to sit down and have a friendly dialogue about it. Be the kind of man Paul describes here: someone who is steadfast and sure, with a solid grasp of classic biblical truths that have gone out of vogue. Stand against popular opinion when you know you should, and do it every time the opportunity arises.

That's the real gauge of "mature manhood" as Paul describes it in Ephesians 4:13-14. A grown-up man is firm and steadfast in the truth. That means he is disciplined, knowledgeable; anchored; he understands the truth well and is devoted to it. He has his senses trained for discernment.

Oh, and by the way: that doesn't happen to lazy people. You have to be diligent to get to that point. Read Hebrews 5:12-14 for the classic prescription of how to move out of adolescence into that kind of mature manliness. Read the first verse in Psalm 1 if you want to see an example of it.

---

Inerrancy

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 a sermon titled "The Bible Tried and Proved," preached at the Met Tab on Sunday morning 5 May 1889.

     believe that there is no mistake whatever in the original Holy Scriptures from beginning to end.

There may be, and there are, mistakes of translation; for translators are not inspired; but even the historical facts are correct.

Doubt has been cast upon them here and there, and at times with great show of reason—doubt which it has been impossible to meet for a season; but only give space enough, and search enough, and the stones buried in the earth cry out to confirm each letter of Scripture.

Old manuscripts, coins, and inscriptions, are on the side of the Book, and against it there are nothing but theories, and the fact that many an event in history has no other record but that which the Book affords us.

The Book has been of late in the furnace of criticism; but much of that furnace has grown cold from the fact that the criticism is beneath contempt. "The words of the Lord are pure words": there is not an error of any sort in the whole compass of them. These words come from him who can make no mistake, and who can have no wish to deceive his creatures.

If I did not believe in the infallibility of the Book, I would rather be without it. If I am to judge the Book, it is no judge of me. If I am to sift it, like the heap on the threshing-floor, and lay this aside and only accept that, according to my own judgment, then I have no guidance whatever, unless I have conceit enough to trust to my own heart.

The new theory denies infallibility to the words of God, but practically imputes it to the judgments of men; at least, this is all the infallibility which they can get at. I protest that I will rather risk my soul with a guide inspired from heaven, than with the differing leaders who arise from the earth at the call of "modern thought."

---

Airborne Pyro

by Dan Phillips

The first of several segments I recorded for the "Bible Burgh" radio program is to be aired this Sunday at 9pm ET; you can listen to it streaming here; or download it Monday hence.

It was fun to do. Over the course of several segments (to be broadcast over the next few weeks), host Mike Howard gives me some generous opportunities to talk about how the Lord saved me, about my pards here and my blogs, about pastoring — and about Proverbs!

---

Christian citizenship out loud: another perspective?

by Dan Phillips


[Borrowing a page from my betters here, I'm reposting something from my blog, a bit updated. Actually, it was my second-ever post, from 2004. Do you see this perspective as the same? Different? The same, but different emphasis?]

The blessing of upright men exalts a town,
But by the mouth of wicked men it is torn down
(Proverbs 11:11, my translation)

The interpretive key to understanding many of the Proverbs from 10:1 on is in knowing the nature of Hebrew poetry, which does not tend to rhyme sounds as much as thoughts. That "rhyming" can be synonymous, or it can advance or complete the thought, or it can be contrastive. In this case, the "but" clues us that it is contrastive. Solomon is giving us two contrasting pictures.

That will help us understand each line. "The blessing of upright men," by itself, could mean the blessing they receive, the blessing that they themselves are, or the blessing that they speak. Any of these could be true, if the line stood alone.

But the second line is not so ambiguous: "by the mouth of wicked men [the town] is torn down." That clearly indicates what they speak, write, communicate. As it is a contrast to the first line, then, we understand that "the blessing of upright men" is what they say, write, communicate. Upright men exalt a town by the blessing communicated in what they say; wicked men tear it down by what they say.

Seen this way, the verse has many echoes in Proverbs and elsewhere. In Proverbs 10:11, we read that "The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life, but the mouth of the wicked conceals violence." Again, in Proverbs 13:14a, "The teaching of the wise is a fountain of life." By contrast, "With his mouth the godless man would destroy his neighbor" (Proverbs 11:9).

The Bible is very clear on the power that resides in the tongue, seen as the organ of communication. "Death and life are in the power of the tongue," we are told (Proverbs 18:21a). I don't think anyone has ever crystallized the matter as forcefully as James did, in the third chapter of his letter:

If we put bits into the mouths of horses so that they obey us, we guide their whole bodies as well. 4 Look at the ships also: though they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. 5 So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire! 6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on fire by hell. 7 For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, 8 but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. 10 From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. (Cf. James 3:1-11)

What does any of that have to do with Christians shutting up?

Since "evangelicals" (whatever that means, anymore) and generally the religious have shown some electoral presence, there has been an uptick in noise about the role of "the religious" in society. Some Christian leaders have advocated that Christians not be politically involved, but focus instead on evangelism. Others urge a Christian presence in the affairs of state.

Now, let me say first and clearly that the very best thing a Christian can do for the health of his nation is to grow in godliness, and to disciple others to Christ for all he's worth. I know that without a doubt, because that is a natural outgrowth of what Jesus singles out as the two greatest commandments: love God with everything we've got (which necessarily will mean growing in godliness), and love our neighbor as ourselves (which necessarily will mean pointing those who do not know Him to the Lord Jesus; Matthew 22:36-40).

But by this same token, this will also necessarily mean Christian involvement in civil life.

Why? Because God isn't segregated. He has something to say about every area of life. Abraham Kuyper was right: "There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: 'Mine!'" If we love Him, we will keep His commandments, which necessarily means learning to think His thoughts after Him — in every area.

What is politics about? Is it not about justice, personal wealth, freedoms, responsibilities, values? Is it not about the poor, the sick, the weak? Is it not about life and death issues?

Does God have something to say about possessions, and personal wealth? Does God have something to say about justice, the poor, life and death? I've read the Bible a few times, and I'd have to say... Duh! God has a great deal to say about all those issues.

So what is the Christian to do? Is he to clutch those truths to his breast, and let his country go to ruin as he coyly refuses to tell it anything except how to be saved? Is that love for his neighbor?

"But," one will say, "promoting values alone without Christ is mere civil religion, it is works-righteousness!"

And here's the problem: that facile bifurcation. Why is it an either/or? When we preserve a Christian framework, are we not building the sort of society that will afford us the greatest opportunities for preaching Christ? Besides, who is advocating anything like "Repeal Row v. Wade, and you will go to Heaven (— or bring Heaven to earth)!"?

Moreover, does any of us do this with our children? Do we teach them nothing until they make a credible profession of faith, get baptized, and join a church? No manners, not whether to hit their sister or not, not to keep their hands off others' possessions, not to obey us cheerfully and instantly, not to say "please" and "thank you," not to use the toilet instead of the sofa?

Here is the bottom-line. Our lost peers do not know what to think of life. None of it. They do not know what to make of values. They don't know where riches fit in, what justice is, or how to care for the poor. Worse still, they do not know that they do not know.

But God does know, and He has spoken. Some listen to Him, most don't. We claim to have listened to Him.

So: do those who by His sovereign grace alone have heard Him bear any responsibility to their still-lost neighbors? When their neighbors cry, "What do we do about the unborn?", or when they thunder off to do the wrong thing, do we respond, "Well, I know, but I won't tell you. Instead, let me share the Four Spiritual Laws. Meanwhile, vote however you want on that one"? Do we just let the little ones be shunted off to death, as we say, "Sorry, won't help you; but we are planning an evangelistic campaign!"?

If we see a gang of thugs beating up someone, and some of our neighbors say "Let's go save him," do refuse to participate until they give us their testimony and basic credo? Or do we join in, regardless of their motives, because we know it's the God-honoring thing to do?

Would that be loyal to God? Would that be loving our neighbor?

The wicked are set on destroying their city. They may mean it consciously, they may not. It does not matter. God knows, and He has spoken. Their path seems right to them, but it leads to death and destruction (Proverbs 14:12; 16:25) - theirs, their children's, our children's. It is ours to stand athwart that path and say, "Stop! Go this way instead!"

Hating and not understanding Christians, and seeing in us only that we stand between them and their (ultimately ruinous) desires, worldlings will tell us to shut up. They will tell us to go back to church, sing hymns and pray, and leave the steering of society to them. Hitler said this, and many German pastors acquiesced. Liberals said this at the start of the 20th century, and great sections of the American church acquiesced... and we are living in the backwash of that miscalculation today.

Told to shut up, we must respond, "Thanks for the suggestion, but no." We have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to speak up and be involved (First Amendment), and we have a responsibility from God to do so.

Much is expected from those to whom much has been given.

Rescue those who are being taken away to death;
hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter.
12 If you say, "Behold, we did not know this,"
does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?
Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it,
and will he not repay man according to his work?

(Proverbs 24:11-12)

---

Let's stay on message

ere's my final entry in a recent series of posts about the church and political activism. Before getting into the final point, it would seem good to reiterate something I've said since the first entry: I'm writing about the corporate duty of the church. I'm not concerned here with how or whether individual Christians vote or otherwise participate in the democratic process—except in one regard. If you are known for your political agenda more than for your commitment to Christ, your values are upside down. If you make the gospel subservient to a political strategy or a partisan agenda, you're probably doing more harm than good. If your political rhetoric obscures, tones down, alters, or clouds the gospel message—even ever-so-slightly—then you are hiding your true light under a bushel, and you ought to reconsider where the biblical priorities lie.

To review the case so far:

1. Preaching, not lobbying, is how we make truth known.
2. Gospel, not Law is what changes sinful hearts.
3. Service, not dominion, is the most effective way to win people in any culture

Now, finally—

4. Christ, not moralism, should be the primary substance of our message.

Society is not going to be redeemed, or even influenced for good, by moralistic special pleading. The vast majority of the moralism we get from the religious right is lacking any clear reference to Christ or the gospel. It is devoid of any biblical authority, because it has been distilled into a purely political message. It is frankly indistinguishable from the teaching of the Pharisees.

In 1 Corinthians 2:2, Paul tells the Corinthians "I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." Why would we preach the law—except as a prelude to the gospel? And yet the nature of political discourse in America currently demands that if you want to have a voice, you have to eliminate the gospel.

As I said in an earlier post, when your political agenda requires political alliances with Moonies, Mormons, Moslems, Jehovah's Witnesses, and humanistic moralists, you simply cannot afford to speak frankly about the exclusivity of Christ. You have to stifle the truth about justification by faith alone, because Roman Catholics reject that doctrine. You are better off not to mention the name of Christ at all, because Jewish people are sensitive about that.

And as a consequence, the more determined Christian groups and Christian leaders have been to succeed in the political arena, the more they have tended to trim away the offensive parts of the gospel. It is the natural and inevitable consequence of moving the fight to the political arena. Watch what happens when the average evangelical political pundit is asked in any secular forum whether he believes Jewish people or Hindus can go to heaven without conscious faith in Christ. If he's someone running for public office, he frankly can't afford to tell the truth about that issue.

And listen to evangelical activists in public, secular forums arguing against same-sex unions or gay-rights legislation. They'll bend over backward to make rational and philosophical arguments—while they assiduously avoid stating plainly that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says it's wrong. That systematically knocks the foundation of biblical authority out from under the point we need to make.

Think about it: we don't abstain from every appearance of evil just because it's pragmatically expedient or rationally sensible to do that. We do it because that's what God's Word says to do.

And when Christian politicians make moral arguments that are bereft of any appeal to Scripture—especially when they lean on rational, philosophical, and pragmatic arguments and deliberately downplay the authority of Scripture—what they are doing is actually counterproductive and detrimental to the Christian message.

This is not to minimize the importance of sound moral principles. But it puts them in their proper place—not as means by which our culture can be redeemed (morality is certainly not that); not as the ground or source of the righteousness that justifies us before God (that was the error of the Judaizers); but as something that adorns our doctrine and expresses the practical ramifications of what we believe about Christ. That's exactly what Paul said in Titus 2:1: "Teach what accords with sound doctrine"—teach what reflects the beauty and glory of our doctrine. But remember that the whole point and the proper focus of our doctrine is Christ, not merely moralism.

Remember that we are agents and ambassadors of Christ's kingdom. Christ crucified is the one proper subject and center of our message to a hostile world. Our first calling is to proclaim and glorify His name. And what He himself has commissioned us to do is inherently incompatible with the quest for earthly dominion through political force.

Preaching, not lobbying, is how we are supposed to make the truth known. Gospel, not law, is what changes sinful hearts. Service, not dominion, is the most effective way to win people in any culture. And Christ, not moralism, should be the primary substance of our message.

The weapons of our warfare are not carnal. Worldly wisdom and political strategies can never save either society or individuals.

Let me say this in closing: If you are a pastor, a church leader, or someone who disciples others and the question of who wins the American presidential election this year would alter your shepherding strategy, then you don't have a very sound game plan. Whether our next president is John McCain, Barack Obama, Ralph Nader, or even (by some quirk of history) Hillary Clinton, it's highly unlikely that we'll find ourselves under a more hostile or more volatile political regime than Nero's Rome, which is where Paul ministered. Under those circumstances, Paul did exactly what we need to do: he preached the gospel in every possible venue. And the church flourished.

Think about it, and you'll realize that the advancement of Christ's kingdom has never depended on democracy or even basic civil liberties. Even in very recent history, the church in Eastern Europe and the Iron Curtain countries flourished and grew both large and strong even under communist persecution. But the church in free, democratic, postmodern Western Europe is for all practical purposes dead.

If our energies are so focused on defending our civil liberties that we neglect to make the gospel clear, we'll lose our liberty anyway, along with the influence of the gospel. That is precisely what has been happening in America in the past half-century. It's time the church woke up to that fact.

---

Or better yet, live it

by Frank Turk

I am swamped, and I missed posting last week, so I'm half making it up to you-plural by posting this retread from my blog from 2006. I figure that's long enough ago that the handful of you who read it will have either forgotten it or would love to read it again.

Enjoy.

So with blogger having rickets today, I have been blog-reading rather than blog-writing, and I stumbled onto this piece from Malkin called "A Manifesto Against Islamism".

All things being equal, you have to give the nod to statements like

Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.

Very Federation of Planets, wouldn't you say? I also liked the next part, which tries hard to be very 21st Century Continental Congress:

We reject cultural relativism, which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.

There's some creepy pomoisms in there, but if that's all there was to this document, who'd not sign it?

The problem is that it is all prefaced by this lovely preamble:

We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.

The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.

Before we opine on the emphasized text, let's remember something here: Malkin doesn't claim to be a God-blogger. So whatever we think about her excitement about this Danish manifesto, let's not try to impose on her the same kind of concern we'd have if Hewitt or someone else (LaShawn Barber and Challies would not have these kinds of problems; they are, to my knowledge, sound thinkers when it comes to worldview issues) who claims to be an advocate for faith in the blogosphere was getting out the pom-poms for this call to arms.

That said, Malkin wants the NY Times to publish and endorse this manifesto. Frankly, I don't see any reason why NYT shouldn't as they don't really have a dog in the fight I am about to outline here, but should you and I – the Christians who are bloggers – sign up for this manifesto and not ask any questions?

My first gripe about this document is the underlined words, above. The values this document is extolling – equality and freedom, anyway – are not "secular" values. At least, not as they have been developed and turned into law in the West. And more concerning is the value of "secularism", by which I have no idea what is meant, and of which I have deep concerns as it relates to the matter of "freedom" and "equality".

But even if we don't get too worked up about those head-fakes against the Islamist radical agenda, we have the problem that these folks think that this is not a clash of civilizations. Listen: civilization is not marked off by geopolitical boundaries or race. "Civilization" is marked off by things like civil rights, protection under the law, right to property, and intellectual freedom. It's marked off by the ability to disagree without having to burn down each others' embassies. It's marked off by methods of social, economic and political commerce.

If these values we are talking about here are truly "secular" and "universal", why, exactly, do the Islamists fear and loath them? And why particularly are they absent in purely secular societies like Cuba, China, and the old Soviet Union? "Universal" means "as seen everywhere" – but certainly, these values are not seen everywhere. Where they were developed, implemented, worked out and still function best is in Christian societies where the Gospel is preached and practiced.

"But cent, you evangelical cretin," comes the heckler from the God-free zone, "You can't possibly mean to say that the United States is currently a 'Christian society', can you? Doesn't that militate exactly against the raison d'etre for your blog?"

If that's what I was saying, it would, in fact, militate against the raison d'etre for this blog – and I'll thank you for not using that kind of language around here. The reason why this kind of manifesto is so dangerous in the West today – and particularly in the U.S. today – is that the very weak social connection we have to the foundations of our culture puts us in jeopardy of trading away our culture and our civilization. Our freedoms today hang on by rote, not by logical necessity. If we did not have constitutional philosophy forged in large part by Christian notions of justice and liberty, we would not have even the few freedoms we have left.

Because our civilization in fact has become secularized, we are in danger of losing it because our civilization was not founded to be secular at all.

Let's not accidentally paint the history of Christian idealism in the West as an ivory tower, OK? Christian idealism has lead to some anti-Semitism; it has lead to some oppression of minority groups, ideologically and racially; it has lead to some political land-grabbing. But it has also lead to the idea that men are equal before God, and therefore equal before the law; it has lead to the idea that law should be an extension of God's will for man – and the "God" there is not Allah but the God who raised Jesus from the dead. And it has lead to the idea that man earns justice, but also has an obligation to show mercy because of the mercy demonstrated by Christ.

Let me speak for myself: in opposing Islam, I am not a crusader carrying a white banner with a red cross on it. I have no stake in politically subjugating the Muslim people of any race. I oppose Islam – the Islam which murders innocent people based on the alleged offenses of their countrymen, the Islam which uses "you hate me – shut up!" as an argument in political discourse, the Islam which bombs its own holy sites to foment hatred of its perceived enemies – because it stand opposed to the foundation of our society, and that foundation {even today, when it is on the decline} is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I stand in opposition to Islam with the Gospel – not with a bank account, or a girl on each arm, or a nice car, or even a college education. I stand opposed to Islam with a Gospel of peace with God.

If you want to sign a manifesto, sign that one. Or better yet, live it.

---

I almost forgot ...

To seminary, or not to seminary?

by Dan Phillips

A reader emailed me this query:

Hi Mr. Phillips,

I've been impressed with your writings, as well as Mr. Johnson's. [He knows we're two different people. Nice move. Starts him out on my good side! — DJP] I have a question. This is a young man seeking [counsel] from a man with more wisdom. [Yes, I'm very old, thanks for mentioning that. Buh-bye, "good side"! — DJP]

How much did you benefit from seminary? In regards to your understanding of the Bible and theology, how much was learned on your own and how much at school?

Would you do it over again at the rate of $200.00 per semester hour?

Thank you sir.
/Signed/

Oh, boy.

Well, first my convictions, and then my experience.

Convictions. Though I earned an MDiv and am glad of it, I don't think seminary is universally necessary, nor best.

The Biblical model is apprenticeship. Paul apprenticed Timothy, then urged him to do the same for other gifted men (Philippians 2:22; 1 Timothy 4:6; 2 Timothy 1:13; 2:1-2; 3:10-17; cf. Titus 1:5). And so, I think the best model is a pastor leading men under his care in guided studies and instruction in Greek, Hebrew, the Biblical sciences, pastoral ministry, and theology. Which I am assuming (in my ideal world) that the pastor has; as all pastors should.

The best model is preparation of pastors of churches by pastors of churches for producing men who will pastor churches. The best model is not academic instruction in a non-church environment by men who have not themselves been pastors.

Now, I said "not universally necessary." It depends on where you're heading. If you see yourself needing a level of academic expertise and recognition, then formal cred will be necessary.

And at least some churches "get" that. I am seeking pastoral ministry, and churches I've reviewed say they are looking for an MDiv "or the equivalent." I think that's a wise escape-valve. An MDiv at some solid, not-necessarily-Caesar-approved institution does demonstrate a degree of commitment and discipline and focus and perseverance. But it isn't the only way.

Experience. I was absolutely thrilled to be at Talbot, under the instruction of men whose reputation I respected. Knowing them was instructive and joyous at the time. Being selected and invited to teach classes even before I graduated remains a thrilling memory, one of the highlights of my life. Doing as adequately as I did, academically — where it's not just me alone with a book, but me up against some external and objective measuring-devices — was and remains encouraging to me.

But....

But I entered Talbot with a pretty solid grasp of Greek, and a degree of Hebrew, plus Biblical and theological knowledge. Most of this, I'd gained by my own studies. All of it stood up well in that setting, which gave me a sense I'd been on the right track. Also, it gave me (as I said) an objective measurement I could show other people. That's a good deal more helpful, in interviews, than saying, "I've read and studied a lot on my own."

I was intensely motivated, interested, hungry and needy. So I read. A lot. I started teaching myself Greek the year I was saved, 1973 — because I was sure I'd flunk if I didn't! By the time I started Talbot (1981), I had long-since been reading the Greek New Testament for my devotions. My four-year pastoral training school had only started me out in Hebrew, so I took a supplementary class (under the marvelous John Sailhamer; what a fantastic teacher!). Thus, I was able to "test out" both in Greek and Hebrew at Talbot, and begin with more advanced classes in each.

As I alluded, Talbot was good insofar as objectifying my academic progress and abilities. It's one thing to read and do some work and have good folks in a Bible study think you're adequate. It's another thing to have to test, write, perform, meet deadlines, observe standards, be evaluated. Also, it made me buy and read books I'd otherwise not have read, forced me to interact critically with perspectives I might have bypassed — and required me to air and defend some of my own notions in an analytical environment. All this is good. You don't need seminary for it, but it served.

My greatest regrets include:

1. Assuming I'd be able to find any of my classmates later, when I wanted to. Now I've tried, and can hardly find any of them. And so...
2. ...not working much harder to make lasting connections and friendships and partnerships with my good classmates.
3. Believing the lab-grown notion that, if you were faithful, God would bless you (—with a thriving, growing ministry).
   
4. Not taking the opportunity to find out much more about a much broader array of denominations.
   

Now, to respond specifically to this: "In regards to your understanding of the Bible and theology, how much was learned on your own and how much at school?" Honestly and in retrospect, the most important and central convictions were formed before and after seminary. What seminary contributed is a firmer and deeper grasp of tools useful for evaluating and developing my Biblical convictions, as well as a good environment for testing them.

So, concluding brevities:

1. In an ideal world, pastors would apprentice gifted men within their congregations.
2. At most, area pastors could pool resources in apprenticing gifted men within their congregations.
3. On the basis of the Word, such apprenticeship is sufficient for a God-honoring ministry.
4. In an ideal world, churches would focus on evaluating candidates individually, against vitally necessary Biblically-based criteria, and not solely on the basis of institutional boxes checked.
5. HSAT, it probably does better position at least an American candidate if he can demonstrate some academic performance via some kind of valued, earned degree. Pulpit committees can't test every applicant in Hebrew, Greek, and the branches of theology; it is useful to know that some institution already has.
   

Hope that helps, young man. God bless and guide you and your thinking.

---

Slaves, not rulers

ere's number three in our list of four biblical principles politically-obsessed evangelical churches and parachurch organizations need to remember. To review:

1. Preaching, not lobbying, is how we make truth known.
2. Gospel, not Law is what changes sinful hearts.

And now—

3. Service, not dominion, is the most effective way to win people in any culture

In Matthew 20:25-28, Jesus addresses the very question that lies at the heart of this series of blogposts: If we want to maximize our influence for the kingdom of Christ in our culture and our community, what's the best way to do it? If we want to be a great leaders and influencers of men and women, what approach should we take?

Here's Jesus' answer: "Jesus called [the disciples] together and said, 'You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise dominion over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.'"

The command includes both negative and positive elements. Jesus is emphatic about the negative aspect: we're not to seek greatness, or influence, or power in the kingdom of Christ by the raw exercise of authority over other people. He's talking specifically about governmental and legislative authority.

And the "positive" part certainly won't sound very appealing to the average person jockeying for political clout or partisan power. Instead, Jesus says, serve. Not in the sense of serving a term in office—but in the sense of making yourself a slave to others.

Now, let's be clear here: Jesus is not spurning the idea of legal authority or human government. We've already seen that Scripture recognizes and affirms the proper role of rulers. Romans 13 defines that role, and verse 4 expressly says that when a ruler properly wields the sword against evildoers, "he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer."

But here in this context Jesus was speaking to His apostles as representatives and leaders of His church and ambassadors for His kingdom. And He makes this clear differentiation between the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of Caesar: The two kingdoms are run with completely different principles—because they operate in totally separate arenas; they function with exactly opposite strategies; they are pursuing entirely different goals; and the way they leverage their power and influence is therefore likewise thoroughly and radically different.

To illustrate, it's clear from Romans 13 that the government is authorized by God to use force—up to and including deadly force and even capital punishment. Paul says it is both good and legitimate for earthly governments to wield their power—and even use the sword—to enforce submission to their rightful authority and to punish evildoers who deserve punishment. Romans 13:4 again: "He is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer."

But nowhere in all the New Testament is the church ever authorized to use the sword for any purpose—including the punishment of damnable heresy in her own midst. The most extreme remedy available to the church for punishing evildoers is excommunication. It would be a terrible sin for the church to overstep her bounds and employ any kind of force against heretics or evildoers, because she has no authority from God to do that.

Again: Christ and Caesar rule different kingdoms, by different principles.

Moreover, the church has no commission from God to harness the power of Caesar—even under a democratic regime—in order to attempt to advance the kingdom of Christ by legislative force, doctrinal dominionism, or any other kind of constraint. What Jesus was saying in this text (Matthew 20:25-28) forbids exactly that, in the most emphatic terms: "The rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise [dominion] over them. It shall not be so among you."

When Christian Reconstructionism was having its heyday back in the mid-1990s, I often encountered post-millennial theonomists who were convinced that the key to ushering in the kingdom of Christ on earth was for the church to gain dominion over our culture and our government's public policy—chiefly through legal maneuvering and political means. They weren't merely saying, as I already have, that government service (or even a career in politics) is a legitimate and honorable vocation for individual Christians whom God places in those positions. They were teaching that political activism is the duty of the church as a corporate entity. They were in effect teaching that gaining and exercising political power is one of the most vital ingredients to the advancement of Christ's kingdom.

That flatly contradicts what Jesus Himself said in Matthew 20:25-26 ("the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion . . . But it shall not be so among you.") It also conflicts with the pattern of ministry in the New Testament church. Even Paul, who appealed his own case to Caesar, did so not with the hope he might influence Caesar's public policy (which, to be candid, was a thousand times more evil than anything the American Democratic Party has yet proposed)—but Paul asked for a hearing in Rome because he longed for an opportunity to preach the gospel there. He was happy to go there in chains—not to protest the treatment he had received at the hands of Roman officials, but to preach to Caesar and his household the gospel of redemption.

That should be our spirit as well. I'd be thrilled if America ever elected a president who really believed Scripture and followed its principles without compromise. But to be totally honest, I doubt that's possible in any democratic system. Furthermore, on those rare occasions when truly devoted, Bible-believing Christians have found themselves in possession of the reins of significant political power, they have almost always managed to make a mess of it.

Remember what Will Durant wrote about Cromwell: "His private morals were impeccable, [but] his public morals were no better than those of other rulers; he used deception or force when he thought them necessary to his major purposes. No one has yet reconciled Christianity with government."

The problem, I believe, is the very thing Jesus highlighted in Matthew 20:25-28 the kingdom of God is ultimately not advanced by the flexing of political clout.

---

Keep the faith!

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 "A Voice from Heaven," a sermon preached at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, and first published in 1875.

octrines!" says one, "we are tired of doctrines."

"For forms and creeds let graceless bigots fight,
He can't be wrong whose life is in the right."

The opinion is current that to be fluent and original is the main thing in preaching, and provided a man is a clever orator it is a proper thing to hear him.

The Lord will wither with the breath of his nostrils that cleverness in any man which departs from the simplicity of the truth. There is a gospel, and "there is also another gospel which is not another, but there be some that trouble you." There is a yea yea, and there is a nay nay; and woe unto those whose preaching is yea and nay, for it shall not stand in the great day when the Lord shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

Search ye, my brethren, and know what the gospel is, and when you do know it, hold it: hold it as with a hand of iron, and never relax your grasp. Grievous wolves have come in among us, wolves of another sort to what were wont to be in the churches, yet, verily, after the same fashion they come disguised in sheep's clothing. They use our very terms and phrases, meaning all the while something else; they take away the essentials and vitalities of the faith, and replace them with their own inventions, which they brag of as being more consistent with modern thought and with the culture of this very advanced and enlightened age, which seems by degrees to be advancing, half of it to Paganism with the Ritualists, and the other half of it to Atheism with the Rationalists.

From such advances may God save us! May we be enabled to keep the faith, and uphold the truth which we know, by which also we are saved. I, for one, cannot desert the grand doctrine of the atoning blood, the substitutionary work of Christ, and the truths which cluster around it.

And why can I not desert these things? Because my life, my peace, my hope, hang upon them. I am a lost man if there be no substitutionary sacrifice, and I know it. If the Son of God did not die, "the just for the unjust, to bring us to God," I must be damned; and, therefore all the instincts of my nature cling to the faith of Jesus. How can I give up that which has redeemed my soul, and given me joy and peace and a hope hereafter?

I beseech you, do not waver in your belief, but keep the faith, lest ye be like some in old time, who "made shipwreck of faith and a good conscience," and were utterly cast away. Woe unto those who keep not the doctrines of the gospel, for in due time they forget its precepts also and become utterly reprobate. In departing from Christ men forsake their own mercies both for life and death. The blessed who die in the Lord are those who "keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus."

---

If righteousness could be gained through the law . . .

e're contemplating the biblical perspective on how Christians might best impact worldly cultures, and we're especially reminding ourselves of four principles the evangelical movement has had a hard time holding onto.

The first principle (which we talked about on Monday) was:

1. Preaching, not lobbying, is how we make truth known.



Today, let's observe a closely-related principle:

2. Gospel, not Law is what changes sinful hearts.

Notice the principle at the end of Galatians 2: "I do not set aside the grace of God," Paul says. "For if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" (v. 21).

Of course, he's talking in that context about the Old Testament law. He was battling the error of the Judaizers, who were teaching that legal obedience is the instrument of justification. If you're not circumcised, they said, you're not truly saved. If you're a Gentile who wants to become a Christian, you first need to become Jewish and obey all the ceremonial laws, because those things are necessary to make you truly righteous. They insisted that the righteousness sinners need for salvation must be gained through their own obedience to the law. That's what the law was for, they taught—the law makes sinners righteous.

That was a direct assault on the doctrine of justification by faith alone, the principle of sola fide. It was an implicit denial that faith is the instrument of justification, and it made the law instrumental instead.

Paul answered the error head on by saying that if righteousness could be brought about by legislation, the whole gospel would be superfluous. He repeats the same principle exactly a chapter later, in Galatians 3:21: "If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law."

Again, the point Paul is making in Galatians has to do with the law of Moses and its role in our salvation. The law was given to awaken us to our sin, to reveal the exceeding sinfulness of sin, and to eliminate every possible option for salvation other than the transforming grace of God. The law didn't lay out a way of salvation, because law is totally impotent when it comes to transforming human hearts.

And if that's true of Moses' law, which came directly from God, it is certainly true of earthly statutes that are the result of political wrangling and compromise. Law has its rightful place, and no righteous person would ever want to see a lawless society. But when it comes to the question of how Christians might transform an already evil-society, the answer lies in proclaiming the gospel, not in campaigning for legislation.

American evangelicals, of all people, ought to understand that. Our history is full of failed forays into the political realm—various attempts to establish Christ's kingdom on earth by legislation, and efforts to impact society spiritually through political means—starting with the Puritan experiment in the 1600s. The founders of Massachusetts wanted to establish a society of believers governed by righteous laws which were enforced by magistrates who were mature church members, because they believed that would create an earthly paradise and (in the words of Matthew 5:14) a city set on a hill. But the sons and daughters of the original Puritans became so comfortable with the notion that they were keeping society righteous through righteous laws that they neglected to evangelize their own children. (Just like Old Testament Israel.) And within two generations, Puritan society was beset with the very same problems the original Puritans had left England to get away from—not to mention witch trials and religious persecution. Before much more than a century had passed, Unitarianism and Deism became more powerful religious forces in New England than Puritanism was.

Even the few limited or short-lived political successes evangelicals have achieved in American history all turned out to be monstrous failures. At the beginning of the twentieth century, for example, practically the entire evangelical community in America used their clout to pass a constitutional amendment (the eighteenth) making it illegal to manufacture, sell, or transport alcoholic beverages in America. Far from elevating the spiritual climate of America, prohibition unleashed a wave of organized crime like the country had never seen. Thirteen years later, the twenty-first amendment formally repealed the eighteenth, American society went on a binge from which it has yet to recover, and today drunkenness remains a massive social problem. I hope we realize by now that only the gospel offers a true solution to that problem.

Laws have their rightful place in restraining evil and punishing evildoers. Romans 13 recognizes that. Even in the hands of such an utterly wicked ruler as Nero, the mechanism of government still functions in that common-grace sense, to bring a measure of peace and order to the most fallen, sin-cursed society. But if your true goal is really the transformation and redemption of the culture—or more precisely, the salvation of individual sinners—law is not the proper tool for that; gospel is. And woe to churches and pastors who divert their energies and resources away from gospel ministry under the delusion that the best and most important way to fix society is through campaigning for a certain kind of legislation. It's not.

Some readers may be thinking, But no evangelical really believes political activism is a proper replacement for the gospel. Would anyone actually advocate the suppression of the gospel in favor of political lobbying? Actually, people do it all the time. There are Christian radio broadcasters who rarely talk about anything other than political controversy. Often their topics as well as the arguments they use are hardly any different from what you'd hear Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity say. Some of the best-known broadcasters in Christian radio <cough>James Dobson, Chuck Colson</cough> fit that profile. You'll never hear them stress justification by faith, because Roman Catholic support is essential to the political coalition they hope to build, and they can't afford to alienate that segment of their audience. You're not likely to hear them stress the exclusivity of Christ or the absolute necessity of faith in Christ, either, because that would offend their Jewish allies. In practice, what they are saying when they do that is that they believe it's more vital to achieve a political and legislative solution to America's moral crisis than it is to proclaim the gospel clearly.

That, brethren, is an absolute abdication of our calling as ambassadors of Christ. The message we're commanded to proclaim, and the theme of all our public ministry is summed up in four words in 2 Corinthians 5:20: "Be reconciled to God." We're first of all ambassadors; not political lobbyists or cultural jihadists. We are commissioned to proclaim the gospel, not to act as if mere law (or more law) were the answer to what ails sinners.

---

Whole counsel, or full-of-holes counsel

by Dan Phillips

Paul told the Ephesian elders, "I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). But not all can truthfully make that claim.

Early on in my Christian life, I was exposed to the deadly danger of taking a concept, phrase, saying, metaphor, or even truth, extracting it from the rest of the Bible, free-associating, and then erecting a structure on it.

My first regular pastor post-conversion was a deeply-Biblically-educated man. He had been reading the Greek NT for some thirty years at the time, and stressed the need for the pastor to be "immersed" in it. He was very patient with me, encouraged me, got me started in my Christian life and in pastoral training.

But he had this theory, this paradigm, of preaching. He believed in the guidance of the Holy Spirit. "Me too!" you all say, and, well, me too. It's a true concept. But here's how he applied that true concept: he refused to prepare or outline sermons. He disdained the very idea of following any structure whatever in constructing his sermon. (A friend of his, not very kindly, once observed to this pastor that he made his way through a sermon like a drunk through a church.)

This pastor read the passage in Greek, did some kind of study, prayed, trusted that the Holy Spirit would guide him, got up, did a free translation of the text, straight from Greek — and then talked about whatever came into his mind. Whatever came into his mind. And, sadly, what came into his mind seldom had the slightest relationship to the text: Nixon going to China, nuclear physics, life in general, anything, everything. Except the text.

How serious was he about this? Very. Once a Christian friend and I grew so concerned, and were so starving, that we shared our concerns with him. We noticed that nobody brought Bibles (go figure). Even more, we knew that he had so much to give — we just wanted him to give it! "Feed us!", we were pleading.

He did not receive it well.

"Gentlemen," he replied very intensely, leaning towards us and fixing us with his eyes, "when I get up to preach, I ask the Holy Spirit to guide me. If I believed that He could mislead me, I would leave the ministry!"

We were devastated. We didn't want him to leave the ministry! We walked away, abashed, shamed, crushed.

Was it bad of us to ask him to "preach the Word"? No. What was the real problem? The real problem was that he had abstracted one Biblicaloid notion from all the rest of the Bible. If he'd taken the whole Bible into account, and all the data it provides, his distaste for planning and order and structure would have met a lot of counter-evidence and correctives. He would have noted (say) the intricate, ingenius, and very deliberate design in many of the psalms and prophecies. Here were men writing under the direct inspiration of the Spirit, yet they framed and structed what they said like master sculptors. Taking in all the data, this pastor would have pondered the structured art-form that of the Proverbs, from verses like 2 Timothy 3:15-17, and 4:1-4.

But he did not. Bereft of Biblical controls, the concept he had isolated and developed his own way had taken on a life of its own, like a deadly virus.

This dangerous practice of extrapolating erroneously from a truth is extremely common, and often subtler still.

Here's a warning-sign: beware when someone says something catchy, cute, and memorable, and then goes on to develop that idea, build on that metaphor or paradigm, perhaps with a couple of fleeting Biblical allusions, rather than building on a carefully-laid (and demonstrated) Biblical foundation.

Craig Schwarze put it really excellently in the meta of a post from 2006:

...we can't abstract the attributes of God from the scriptural revelation of them. The Bible not only tells us that "God is love" - but it also tells us what that looks like.

What Craig wisely says we "can't" do is precisely what too many do do.

For instance, take Steve Brown. He takes the very rich and Biblical concept of grace, and erects a superstructure on it that makes me pretty uncomfortable, to be charitable. His way is winsome, engaging, interesting; he clearly delights in his self-image as an iconoclast. But Brown has taken a golden concept (grace), and abstracted it from such texts as Titus 2:11 — 3:1, to say nothing of John 14:15; 15:16, 1 John 5:3, and so forth. So instead of a well-balanced, full portrait, he's sketched out a giant nose, with a few vestigial appendages tacked on as afterthoughts.

You could suggest many others, no doubt. Many who stress a "relationship" with God define and develop that relationship by modern standards ("Now, in a relationship, you do X, you don't do Y"), rather than by the whole Biblical picture. Or they stress the living nature of the church, and its disconnection with any business model — but downplay (or deny) extensive Biblical teachings of the organized nature of the church and the gifted men God gave to lead it. Or they are all about "transparency," but to the exclusion of balancing concerns for the love for God or man.

There is a reason why we hold a Bible as the word of God, and not a sack-full of isolated inspired fortune-cookies. God means us to grasp, and be grasped by, "the whole counsel."

Otherwise, our counsel will be full of holes.

---