You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'Discernment' tag.
Gospel, gospel, gospel. Gospel this, gospel that. The word is thrown around quite frequently. Everyone seems to be into “gospel-centered” ministries and being a “gospel-centered” church. At first glance, this seems like something that we all should be filled with drunken glee about but Galatians 1:6-7 sobers us up. A somewhat stunned Paul writes regarding the state of the “gospel-centered churches” of Galatia,
“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.”
Apparently, Paul’s Galatian converts are quickly being seduced from the true gospel all the while confessing that they are gospel believers. I think we could argue that they are gospel-centered but just centered the wrong gospel. It is a different gospel than the one delivered by the mouth of the apostle. Thus, the most important question is then what we mean by the word gospel? What is the gospel? How do we identify the rich gospel soil into which we should anchor our thirsty roots? Without a doubt, some soil that is labeled gospel is nothing but dry sand from a barren desert. We need to proceed carefully then as we consider what is the biblical meaning of gospel. This a question we can and should explore without end. However, here are a few helpful places to start:
What is the gospel? by D.A. Carson (video)
What is the gospel? by John Piper (video)
Gospel-Centrality by Tim Keller (pdf)
God is the Gospel by John Piper (book)
It’s no secret that I purposely use my Facebook, blog, and twitter to stir up “controversial” issues that Evangelical Christians would rather just ignore. This, especially of late, has resulted in more than usual amount of hate e-mail and Facebook friends de-friending me. It should be noted that all of these individuals were professed Christians. The non-Christians do not seem to mind. Then again, they are not my target. Some of my believing ex-Facebook friends complained to another Facebook friend that my status updates were “toxic, annoying, fault finding, bullying, crude and rude.” I am guilty of some of those charges. I repent. Seriously, that was not my initial intention but I know my still dark heart can easily make something holy into something wicked. I do not to labor on the point of my repentance because it is not the real point of this post. I only included it because I knew cowardly men would use my short-comings as a way to reject a Scriptural practice. Moving on…
One my other ex-Facebook Friends asked, “Why does he always bring that stuff up? It is sooo annoying!” I wish she would of just asked me so I could of explained. Nonetheless, I will answer that question and make my intentions clear today through the words of a better man, J. Greshem Machen. The great Princeton professor wrote:
“Presenting an issue sharply is, indeed, by no means a popular business at the present time… The type of religion which rejoices in the pious sound of traditional phrases regardless of their meanings, or shrinks from ‘controversial’ matters, will never stand amid the shocks of life. In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight.” – Christianity and Liberalism
The answer to why I constantly bring up controversial matters, the things which men fight about, is because they almost always are the most important matters. It is not just because I like a good argument. No, it is a matter of principle. It is a strategy demonstrated in the Scriptures and by the godly throughout church history. Admittedly, I am more temperamentally well-suited than some but all Christians are still called to it since it is a biblical imperative. Recently, Pastor Stephen Baker delivered an excellent sermon on this very subject. You can listen to it here. He provides a much more comprehensive argument than I do in this short post. I hope you will consider Machen and Pastor Baker’s admonition and not use my short-comings as a way to reject a Biblical practice.
The title of this post finds its source in a personal letter John Calvin wrote to his good friend Guillaume Farel. Calvin had just a received letter from Geneva asking him return to the pastorate after having been expelled just a few years earlier. This letter included the following sentences:
O marvelous spectacle, the stone which the builders rejected is become the headstone of the corner. Come, then, my venerable father in Christ. The Lord has given you to us. All sigh for thee.
Consequently, when Calvin wrote Farel, he described the letter as being “full of nauseating flattery.”
It is difficult for me to believe that the majority of Christians would find such a letter nauseating. Some might raise an eyebrow up in concern but next to none would truly be nauseated by flattery. The 1828 version of Webster’s Dictionary defines nauseate, “as to become squeamish; to feel nausea; to turn away with disgust.” Flattery should sicken us. We should puke a little in our mouths every time it slithers across our path. However, we have been taught all our lives to cherish and employ the use of flattery in all of our communications. We have embraced the mantra of Mary Poppins instead of the clear teaching of Scripture. Consider just a few Bible verses on the wickedness of flattery:
- “For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.” Romans 16:1
- “You know we never used flattery, nor did we put on a mask to cover up greed—God is our witness.” 1 Thessalonians 2:5
- “Whoever flatters his neighbor is spreading a net for his feet.” Proverbs 29:5
- “These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.” Jude 1:16
- “He who rebukes a man will in the end gain more favor than he who has a flattering tongue.” Proverbs 28:23
Flattery is always used by ungodly men to mask true intentions. These men might be appear to be nice people but they are simply setting a snare by feeding your pride. Antisthenes wisely said, “It is better to fall among crows than flatterers; for those devour only the dead–these the living.” Steer as far away from them as possible. Ask God for two things. First, that the he would trained your hears to be nauseated by the sugary-venom that is flattery. Second, that he would remove flattery from you lips. The straight-forward loving rebuke of a friend, though they may seem harsh at the time, will accomplish more than sweet words of a flatterer.
I have found these following words of A.W. Pink to very true the more I walk with God. I think his last paragraph is particularly true. Read on…
Some of God’s dear people may suppose that it would be presumptuous to set themselves up as judges of what they hear or read—but that is a serious mistake, being both a false humility, and a shirking of duty. The Apostle rebuked the Hebrews because their senses (spiritual faculties) were not developed so as to discern between good and evil (Hebrews 5:13).
It is often a long time before God’s children are able to account for this. They blame themselves; they are exceedingly loath to say, “This message is not of God.” They are afraid to act in the spiritual, as they do in the natural, and condemn and discard that which is worthless.
“Take heed what you hear” and read! More than forty years ago the saintly Adolph Saphir wrote, “I think the fewer books we read—the better. It is like times of cholera, when we should only drink filtered water.” What would he say if he were on earth today and glanced over the deadly poison sent forth by the heterodox, and the lifeless rubbish put out by the orthodox? Christian reader, if you value the health of your soul, cease hearing and quit reading all that is lifeless, unctionless, powerless, no matter what prominent or popular name be attached thereto. Life is too short to waste valuable time on that which does not profit. Ninety-nine out of every hundred of the religious books, booklets, and magazines now being published, are not worth the paper on which they are printed!
To turn away from the lifeless preachers and publishers of the day—may involve a real cross. Your motives will be misconstrued, your words perverted, and your actions misinterpreted. The sharp arrows of false report will be directed against you. You will be called proud and self-righteous, because you refuse to fellowship empty professors. You will be termed censorious and bitter—if you condemn in plain speech—the subtle delusions of Satan. You will be dubbed narrow-minded and uncharitable, because you refuse to join in singing the praises of the “great” and “popular” men of the day. More and more, you will be made to painfully realize—that the path which leads unto eternal life is “narrow” and that FEW there are who find it. May the Lord be pleased to grant unto each of us—the hearing ear and obedient heart! “Take heed what you hear” and read!
Now, I do want to give one disclaimer and I hope it won’t invalidate the insight of Pink’s words. Pink eventually got to the point where he gave up on finding a church that he could be a member. It can be quite easy to use “discernment” as an excuse to divide yourself from Christian fellowship. We can become like Elijah who thought he was the only prophet not compromised by worship of false gods.We all know God’s answer to the inward-focussed prophet. So, take heed to the Pinks’s words given here but remember there is no such thing as a completely pure church. Be both discerning and gracious. For more on Pink, including a frank critque ofhis eventual inability to be part of a church fellowship, readers should get a hold of Iain Murray’s Biography of Pink.
Presently, there is an incredible drive towards simplicity in the church. It is all about K.I.S.S. (Keep it simple stupid). There are certain elements about this movement that I agree with. I definitely think our churches have made things more complicated and clunky than the have to be. However, there is a point when a quest for simplicity dives off the deep end into ecclesiological reductionism. A recent web-surfing session provided me with some more evidence of the truth of this assertion. I stumbled upon this website that exist as, “a new Social Networking site for those exploring simple expressions of church.” The discussion forum on the site contained a thread that I think is representative of this movement’s ultimate destination.
The thread begins with what I interpret as a man that is sincerely in search of a healthy gospel community (aka the local church). He desperately writes, “I’m dying here, well my family and I are dying here for lack of true spiritual connection.” The churches which he has been part of have heavily focused on their Sunday service as the primary community and discipleship event. He rhetorically ask, “How do you build relationships with others like Christ commands us to by sitting for ninety minutes singing a few songs and hearing a twenty minute sermon and that is it?” He yearns to experience Christian community. He wants to know and be known. It is in this vein he poses he main question, “Can anyone give me pointers on how to start a house church?”
I can identify with this man. His experience isn’t all that unique. Sadly, his do-it-yourself reaction isn’t that unique either. Nonetheless, my particular concern finds its source in the replies his posting received. For example, one woman said:
“We’re in much the same situation and have discovered that a family makes a fine church. When God is ready, He’ll add others to us, but in the mean time, we bear one another’s burdens within our small family. We’ve gotten much closer–I believe this is the best “church” I’ve ever attended.”
Family makes a fine church? Actually, no it doesn’t. A church isn’t merely Christians-in-relationships. That is a reduction of scripture’s teaching on the local church. For example, a local church is supposed to have a local leadership that is comprised of a plurality of elders. A single family by definition can’t possess a plurality of elders and, thereby, can’t be a church in a biblical sense.
Another person replies:
“You see, simple church happens all the time. Did you ever run into someone in Walmart and have them share a concern? Did you share a word of encouragement or even a quick prayer? That is simple church….Remember, though, where two or three are gathered in His Name, He is there.”
Again, this is a reduction of biblical ecclesiology. A chance meeting of Christians at a local retailer that results in spiritual activity isn’t a church. A local church is a family of people that have made a deep commitment to “one-another” each other. This example in no way stresses that need for the regular and intentional involvement that the biblical authors emphasize as part of the dynamic of the local church. Moreover, the use of Matthew 18:20 to define church as where two or three are gathered is incorrect. The truth is quite the opposite. Matthew 18:20 is set in a larger context of “church discipline” that emphasizes the church is more than just two or three (see vs. 17).
In conclusion, the sin of our age is reductionism. I’m all for minimalism and simplicity when it comes to the church but not when it is at the expense of biblical doctrine.
