Skip to main content

Who Is Controlling Whom?

Written by Rick Shrader

Who Is Controlling Whom?

by Rick Shrader

On our church web site I received an interesting note from a young man named Steve.  Steve is an active member of a church that is going through a typical change (which of course is not a “change” at all but rather a conforming) from traditional to contemporary type of worship.  Steve is emotionally caught between the older members of his church who are resisting the “change” and the new and younger leadership who is insisting on the change.  Steve has been reading a lot from a web site that encourages believers to flee from “control freaks” who hold power over another person for their own gain.  The web site article begins, “Many controlling groups, whether economic, religious or political, use the ‘family’ model as their blueprint—with dominating, protective parents’ and ‘children’ acting out the many types of offspring and sibling behavior.”  The author goes on to equate pastors and other leaders who resist the typical change as “restrictive and controlling” who suffer from being “vengeful, outspoken, preoccupied by sex or a ‘righteous’ abstainer from sex, prone to fits of anger, jealous, distrustful of others, changes his mind without notice, sees everything black or white.” The article tells readers not to listen to those who would control you with their position of power, especially church leaders.  Steve has applied this to the older leaders of his church who have been in control of the church for years.  He feels stifled by their resistance to a change in church policies.  The serious challenge for Steve, however, is to perceive who the real controller is.

There is no doubt that churches have been controlled by the Diotropheses of the world for two thousand years.  But that is not the only kind of control, nor is it the most subtle.  Eve was caught in the same dilemma as Steve.  Someone told her not to follow a heavy-handed Controller who was withholding better things from her.  She agreed with this counselor and, rather than submitting to the first Controller, submitted herself to the new controller.  But, of course, she found the proposed freedom had placed her under the most insidious control of all—the lust of her flesh, the lust of her eyes and the pride of life.  Satan has always used these allurements to control believers through his own spiritual children.

Paul feared this type of control for the Corinthian church.  Control by the flesh then was as subtle as what the serpent told Eve (2 Cor 11:3).  The Corinthian believers were willing to let these “false apostles” (11:13) strike them “on the face” (11:20) in order to gain control of them (not unlike this web site’s tirade on church leaders).  They had been told that Paul was the problem!  But Paul warned them, You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted by your own affections . . . For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? . . . . Come out from among them and be separate (6:11-17).

Peter (and later Jude) wrote of  those who seek control through the promise of liberty, For when they they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.  While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage (2 Peter 2:18-19).

All of Paul’s theology is brought under scrutiny by this situation.  Yes, he taught justification by grace alone without the works of the law.  But he also taught good works after salvation as an obligation of the believer in Christ.  L. Berkhof has noted this ongoing problem:  “In the historical unfolding of the doctrine of sanctification, the Church concerned itself primarily with three problems:  (a) the relation of the grace of God in sanctification to faith; (b) the relation of sanctification to justification; and (c) the degree of sanctification in this present life.”1 The balance of these doctrines was crucial because the imbalance causes theological problems that remain with us today.

Legalism:  placing our justification in our sanctification

Paul spent much of his time fighting the Judaizers who taught that one must be justified by keeping the law.  After his first missionary journey in Galatia where he was stoned by them, he was called to attend the Jerusalem council because, certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved (Acts 15:1).  Immediately after that Paul wrote the book of Galatians in which he said, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ (2:16) and encouraged the believers to Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage (5:1).

God cannot accept our help in salvation.  If a rich man were tried for murder and the judge sentenced him to 100 years in prison, what would it do to the legal system if the rich man made a deal with the judge to reduce his sentence by ten years for $100,000?  What if the judge accepted and the rich man then asked if he would reduce the sentence 50 years for another $1,000,000?  Soon, rather than justice being meted out, punishment is rendered according to man’s station in life.  Paul wrote, Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed (Rom 4:16).

If I preached that a man can do something to help gain his salvation, I would be a legalist.  If I preached that a man must do something to help keep himself saved, I would also be a legalist.  If in any way I preached that a man is justified according to how well he practiced sanctification, I would and should come under the same condemnation as the Galatian Judaizers, let him be accursed (Gal 1:8).

License:  placing our sanctification in our justification

Though there is a positional sanctification of being accepted in the Beloved (Eph 1:6) and there is a final sanctification where we will be eternally confirmed in holiness, and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified (Rom 8:30), most of the doctrine of sanctification concerns the growth of the believer from a babe in Christ to full maturity, That we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro . . . . But . . . . may grow up into him in all things (Eph 4:14-15).

Paul always had to warn immature Christians who see license to sin in the grace of God as if all of their human effort in sanctification were already taken care of in the divine act of justification.  Brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh (Gal 5:13); But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak (1 Cor 8:9); and Peter also warned, not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness (1 Pet 2:16).  It seems a characteristic of human nature, when freed from punishment, to either fall into selfish indulgence (they profess that they know God but in works they deny him, Titus 1:16) or grow into grateful obedience (That they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works, Titus 3:8).  Good works for salvation would be legalism, but a lack of good works after salvation would be a license to sin that grace may abound (Rom 6:1).

Love:  Seeking a sanctification that matches our justification

When Paul finished admonishing the Galatians to not use their liberty as an occasion to the flesh, he added, but by love serve one another (Gal 5:13).  Love is seen in the servant who, when set free, became a bond-slave to the one who set him free!  Paul’s most poignant statement is to the Philippians, That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead (Phil 3:10-11).  Paul’s goal in life (this one thing I do, vs 13) was to so be changed into the image of Christ before he died that his conversation would be in heaven from whence also we look for the Saviour (vs 20).

Paul also speaks of the doctrine of mortification.  If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live (Rom 8:13); Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth (Col 3:5).  Older writers used to emphasize this more, in a day when it did not sound so repulsive to the average Christian.  Charnock (1628-1680) wrote, “We may gather from hence, the difficulty of conversion, and mortification to follow thereupon. . . . The love of sin hath been predominant in our nature, has quashed a love to God, if not extinguished it.  Hence also is the difficulty of mortification.  This is a work tending to the honor of God, the abasing of that inordinately aspiring humor in ourselves.”2

And So . . . .

The believer must not be controlled by the legalism of those who claim we can gain or lose our salvation by good or bad works.  Neither must the believer be controlled by the license of those who claim that a denial of the flesh is legalism.  If we love the Savior we will want to be conformed into His image as much as possible in this life.  Francis Schaeffer wrote,

This is the basic consideration of the Christian life.  First, Christ died in history.  Second, Christ rose in history.  Third, we died with Christ in history, when we accepted him as our Savior.  Fourth, we will be raised in history, when he comes again.  Fifth, we are to live by faith now as though we were now dead, already have died.  And sixth, we are to live now by faith as though we have now already been raised from the dead.3

If one would call such living “control,” I say amen!  Everyone is controlled by something.  It is far better to be controlled by the Holy Spirit; controlled by the Word of God; controlled by a clear conscience; controlled by the history and testimony of saints throughout the ages!

Notes
1. L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids:  Eerdman’s, 1977) 529.
2. Stephen Charnock, The Existence and Attributes of God, Vol I (Grand Rapids:  Baker Book, 1980) 164.
3. Francis Schaeffer, True Spirituality (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1971) 41.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Compromise Is Always A Synthesis

Written by Rick Shrader
Compromise Is Always A Synthesis

Compromise Is Always A Synthesis

by Rick Shrader

R.C. Sproul wrote concerning the modern evangelical penchant to build bridges with defective theologies that, “The mythical element is the naïve assumption that one can build bridges that move in one direction only.”1 Meaning, that such bridges will bring the error closer to truth but not the truth closer to error.  But it is the nature of compromise to move from what is right to what is wrong.  In the Christian context, that would be from what is biblical to what is not biblical.  Sproul continued, “In an effort to win people to Christ and be ‘winsome,’ we may easily slip into the trap of emptying the gospel of its content, accommodating our hearers, and removing the offense inherent in the gospel.”2

The compromise, of course, is subtle.  If unvarnished truth were set directly beside blatant error, the difference would be so obvious that no conscientious person would want or be fooled by the error.  It was because of Paul’s absence that he wrote to the Corinthians, But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.  For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him (2 Cor 11:3-4).

Sometimes the buffer that enables compromise between truth and error may be sufficient time, or increased distance, or growing dissatisfaction—anything that allows the truth to be forgotten for the moment.  No Christian commits sin with the holiness or the judgment of God fresh on his mind.  We sin when we become temporary atheists and seem, at least briefly, to forget that God is immanent.  Whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him (1 John 3:6).

Synthesis Figure 1

Some men, both ancient and modern, believe this gradual compromise is a good and necessary thing.  One prominent proponent was the German rationalist G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) who is famous for his “dialectic” approach to truth (see Fig. 1). As one editor describes it, “In his effort to reveal the implications of reality and reason, he employs the method of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, with analysis as the starting point, the examination of contradictions as the second step, and finally the arrival at unity by means of reason in a summation of ultimate truths.”3 Hegel thus believed that history moves in this dialectic pattern from generation to generation, always settling on a compromise view between two extremes.  Truth as historical fact is always “incomplete” until it becomes the “unifying” synthesis.

My reason for using Hegel is the same as Paul used Aratus in Acts 17:28.  Not that his opinion is the way God intends it to be, but his opinion is the way man prefers it and the way it often is in a fallen world.  (Because Paul quoted Aratus, as well as Menander in 1 Cor 15:33 and Epimenides in Tit 1:12, does not mean he agreed or approved of everything they wrote; nor that Paul was placing the same approval on them as He would on one of his pastors.)

Synthesis Figure 2

For Hegel, the Thesis was the traditional approach, what society has accepted as fact.  He called it the Idea, the Warp or the Design of the house (see Fig. 2).  But every generation challenges the Idea with its opposite, or Anti-thesis.  This he also called Passion, the Woof or the Material to build the house.  But no society is ready for such radicalism right away, so a Syn-thesis naturally develops between the Idea and the Passion, which he calls Liberty (or Freedom), the Hue or the House in which we finally live.  Interestingly, Hegel sees this as the necessary evolution of society in that the Synthesis then becomes the Thesis for the next epoch.  In this way, he observed, Truth is constantly being brought up to date and changed for each new age.

 

Synthesis Figure 3

In our society, this process happens much more quickly than in Hegel’s day (see Fig 3).  A process that took centuries may now take decades or even less.  Easily within a life-time, we can see the whole process take place.  We have seen the values of the Great Generation challenged by the Radicals of the Sixties and Seventies, that have now become the mediating values of young “Millennials.”  In a matter of three generations, what was once the Antithesis is now the Thesis.  The very thing the grandparents once warned of has become a reality in their own grandchildren!  We often hear, “The seeds of our own destruction are already sown within us.”  This may be more apt today than at any other time.  The expanding of communication and the shrinking of the world accelerates this process ten-fold.  The process of this gradual compromise can be stopped by any generation rediscovering the Scriptures and returning to its fundamental thesis of godliness and separation from the world.  Until then, each generation will continue to slip further and further away from the faith of their fathers.

Thesis: The Traditional Church

When a generation of believers begins to love God enough to stop loving the world, they will return to the simple and historic Christianity of their fathers.  They will find their message and method plainly taught in the Scripture.  Hegel even said of this step, “To him who looks upon the world rationally, the world in its turn, presents a rational aspect.”4 Faith is no longer a matter of pragmatism nor traditionalism, but of simple obedience.  Separation becomes a principle that pleases God, not a detriment to reaching the world.  J.N. Darby said, “Separation from evil is the necessary first principle of communion with Him.  Separation from evil is His principle of unity.”5 Even John MacArthur has written, “There’s nothing sacred about human tradition.  I’m not in favor of staid formalism or hackneyed custom.  I agree with those who warn that stagnation can be fatal to the church.  I just don’t believe the church needs to abandon the centrality of the Word of God, the primacy of preaching, and the fundamentals of biblical truth in order to be fresh and creative.”6

Antithesis: The Contemporary Church

This church loves the world more than it loves God.  It believes that the church exists primarily as a confirmation of men’s passions and only secondarily for repentance.  Hegel characterized this position as having “the convenient license of wandering as far as we list, in the direction of our own fancies.”7 This is why he often calls it Passion from which such people “respect none of the limitations which justice and morality would impose on them.”8

This is not unlike the contemporary churches today who set the Word of God aside because they have decided they need to believe and practice something else.  Consider Peter Wagner’s statement:  “I [used to] focus mostly on Bible study . . . . Now I know more about worship, reverence, and praise . . . . I am beginning to distinguish the voice of God from my own thoughts and to allow him to speak to me directly.  I still study my Bible, of course, but I find this other dimension of personal intimacy equally important.”9 Or consider John Wimber, founder of the Vineyard churches: “But there are problems related to the grammatical-historical method [of interpretation] . . . . The student easily falls into reliance on study rather than reliance on the Holy Spirit.”10

The so-called Evangelical churches that deny the supremacy of Scripture, that deny the literalness of hell, that deny the catastrophe of creation, et al., have catapulted the church into the world and have made it what the world wants it to be—non-threatening!  Or, as Hegel would have observed, “as far as they list, in the direction of their own fancies.”

 

Synthesis: The Blended Church

The “necessary” synthesis is arrived at when “at last we draw back from the intolerable disgust . . . . Into the more agreeable environment of our individual life—the Present, formed by our private aims and interests.  In short we retreat into the selfishness that stands on the quiet shore.”11 This “synthetic” compromise wants to have its Christian cake and eat its worldly cake too!  The old thesis of separation from error has become distasteful, and yet the contemporary antithesis is obviously too far afield.  Alas!  There is safer ground.

Some decry the thesis outright: “Should we become separatists?  No, the answer to the challenge of entertainment is not to become secluded in ‘holy huddles’ of legalism and cultural isolation.”12 Others simply admit, “We began ‘Saturday Night’ to reach unchurched people without identifying a biblical basis for our methods.”13

But as Os Guinness recounts,  “A well-known proponent states, ‘I don’t deal with theology.  I’m simply a methodologist’—as if his theology were thereby guaranteed to remain critical and his methodology neutral.”14 Or as Tozer wrote, “We of the evangelical faith are in the rather awkward position of criticizing Roman Catholicism for its weight of unscriptural impedimenta and at the same time tolerating in our own churches a world of religious fribble as bad as holy water or the elevated host.  Heresy of method may be as deadly as heresy of message.”15 And all this because of the “necessary synthesis.”

It is the nature of a synthetic position to become expert at pragmatic methodology.  As long as we can “build” a church, attract a crowd, gain notoriety among our peers, we think we are the same as our forefathers.  As Vance Havner put it, “We say that we depend on the Spirit, but actually we are so wired with our own devices that if the fire does not fall from heaven, we can turn on a switch and produce fire of our own; and if there is no sound of a mighty rushing wind, the furnace is set to blow hot air instead.  God save us from a synthetic Pentecost!”16

Notes:
1. R.C. Sproul, Willing To Believe (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997) 19.
2. Ibid.
3. G.W.F. Hegel, “Philosophical History,” The World’s Great Thinkers, Man and the State: The Political Philosophers, Commins & Linscott, eds. (New York: Random House, 1947) 404.
4. Hegel, 408.
5. Quoted by Ernest Pickering, Biblical Separation (Schaumburg: RBP, 1979) 116.
6. John MacArthur, Ashamed of the Gospel (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1993) 188.
7. Hegel, 411.
8. Ibid.
9. C. Peter Wagner, The Third Wave of the Holy Spirit (Ann Arbor:  Vine Books, 1988) 129.
10. John Wimber & Kevin Springer, Power Evangelism (San Francisco:  Harper, 1992) 191.
11. Hegel, 419.
12. Jerry Solomon, Arts, Entertainment & Christian Values (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2000) 141.
13. Ed Dobson, Starting A Seeker Sensitive Service (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993) 54.
14. Os Guinness, Dining With The Devil (Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1993) 26.
15. A.W. Tozer, Worship and Entertainment (Camp Hill: Christian Publishers, 1997) 185.
16. Vance Havner, Why Not Just Be Christians? (Westwood, NJ: F. H. Revell, 1964) 15.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

The Corruption Of Good Manners

Written by Rick Shrader

The Corruption Of Good Manners

by Rick Shrader

I have written often on the subject of manners.  I was first introduced to the subject by my mother who impressed upon me the need to continue the course, even after she has gone.  Sometimes the lessons were taught at the end of a hickory switch, but more frequently with the ease of comfortable wit and wisdom.  The only regret I have is that I haven’t achieved the level of my teacher.  And I suppose that my pupils will graduate my class with the same fate, as will theirs and so on to each generation.

What we see around us in our land are bad manners.  This is the result of that same downward progression as each generation abrogates the responsibility it has to its children.  Eventually, the freedom to be good is overcome by the freedom to be bad.  And what was once considered bad manners is now the accepted norm whether at the dinner table or in the church pew.

Years ago I read of the English judge John Fletcher Moulton and his treatise on “Law and Manners.”  Lord Moulton proposed that a nation is governed by three domains: Law, which can become totalitarian if kept without restraint; Free Choice, which can become antinomian if kept without restraint; and Manners, which, by self-restraint, keeps the other two from taking over.  A nation’s goodness can be measured by how large the middle area of Manners remains.  When Manners disappears, either totalitarianism or antinomianism will rule the day.

Peter Drucker wrote in the Harvard Business Review,

Manners are the lubricating oil of an organization.  It is a law of nature that two moving bodies in contact with each other create friction.  This is as true for human beings as it is for inanimate objects.  Manners enable two people to work together whether they like each other or not.  Bright people, especially bright young people, often do not understand this.  If analysis shows that someone’s brilliant work fails again and again as soon as cooperation from others is required, it probably indicates a lack of courtesy—that is, a lack of manners.1

Have you noticed these days how quickly people swing from wanting and advocating freedom for every base desire, to demanding accountability and blame for every offense?  Society defends its “right” to distribute and sell child pornography and yet will send an unsuspecting adult to jail for life for giving a child a hug.  States fight for the right to make billions from casinos and lotteries, and yet will send a politician to jail for accepting a $100 gift during a political campaign.  Citizens demand the convenience of drive-through windows at restaurants, and yet will sue for millions if they spill the coffee in their own lap.

T.S. Eliot wrote, “The danger of freedom is deliquescence; the danger of strict order is petrifaction.”2 Without the self-restraint of good manners between them, lawlessness and moral license are battling for the right to rule.  I am afraid that this is true in America’s churches as well.  The middle ground of manners, of self-restraint, of deportment and accountability, is missing even among those who claim Christianity.  Have you noticed that we have more Bible studies and online Christian information than ever, and yet increasingly advocate the removal of specific doctrines or beliefs that might divide or offend?  Have you noticed that law suits and accusations of immorality abound within churches, yet many of those same people are constantly arguing for looser requirements, freedom of self-expression and removal of church rules or regulations?  The friction created by the two opposing forces of legalism and license, with no remaining buffer between is caused by at least four biblical facts.

The heart is deceitful above all things

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9).

Even true believers do not have a healthy respect for their own fallen nature.  We ought to know by now that two things are true within us:  We are made in the image of God with power and ability above all of God’s other creatures; and yet we have lapsed into sin and carry the nature of Adam with us to our death.  Salvation offers blessed forgiveness in this life, but not freedom from sin.  Our sin nature still has to be fought, resisted and overcome by the Word and Spirit of God.  Spurgeon wrote, “Our faith at times has to fight for its very existence.  The old Adam within us rages mightily; and the new spirit within us, like a young lion, disdains to be vanquished.  These two strong ones contend until our spirit is full of agony.”3

Rather than taking responsibility for our own actions, believing that every man is. . . drawn away of his own lust and enticed (James 1:14), we redefine our urges as spiritual.  Norman Geisler recently wrote, “Morally speaking, ‘irresistible urges’ are urges that have not been resisted.  People have died for lack of water and food, but no one has ever been known to die for lack of sex, alcohol, or other drugs to fulfill his cravings!  We have a free choice in all these areas.”4 Madame Roland, in the French revolution cried, “Liberty, what crimes are committed in your name.”5

The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows (1 Timothy 6:10).

Paul told Timothy that love of money can replace love of godliness, which, with contentment, is great gain.  The error of such people is supposing that gain is godliness (1 Timothy 6:5). The NKJV is more precise: who suppose that godliness is a means of gain! There is nothing more distasteful than observing someone feign spirituality having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage (Jude 16).

If necessity is the mother of invention, the love of money is the mother of all kinds of evil.  Even Christians will twist Scripture without mercy to justify their avarice.  In such matters, where there’s a will there’s a way.  With no self-restraining manners, the lust of the eyes will win every time.  “History shows that, without recognition of a universal moral Good, man readily assumes that what satisfies his lusts and indulges his pride may logically be called good.”6 Because of our generation’s abundance, we are seeing, even within Christian churches, greed and simony redefined as leadership and skillfulness.

Even now, there are many antichrists

Little Children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time (1 John 2:18).

We also underestimate the power of our enemy, the Devil, and his ultimate goal of incarnating himself into the person of antichrist.  If we did not, we would not fall so easily for false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.  And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:13-14).  It is because they have a form of godliness (2 Timothy 3:5) that we accept them with open arms.

Our churches are silent about the preaching of the coming of the man of sin, of his one-world church and his false prophet working miracles and wonders while deceiving the whole world.  The imminent return of Christ is no longer a deterrent to sin. And yet, Every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure (1 John 3:3).

The wheat and the tares grow together

The servants said unto him, wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?  But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.  Let them both grow together until the harvest. (Matthew 13:28-30).

Someone said that law without punishment is merely good advice.  In this age of grace, in which God’s judgment is not immediate but longsuffering, people learn that sin does not necessarily bring immediate consequences and therefore God’s laws are mere kind suggestions.  And just as an indulgent parent teaches his child that wrong actions have little consequence, we come to believe (because of God’s grace!) that there are no moral absolutes, but wrongly think of the verse, where sin abounded, grace did much more abound (Romans 5:20).

Today’s grace indulgence sounds more like the famous atheists than the apostle Paul.  It was Nietzsche who said, “Let us beware of saying that there are laws in nature.  There are only necessities: there is nobody who commands.  Nobody who obeys, nobody who transgresses.”7 And it was Bernard Shaw who quipped, “The golden rule is that there is no golden rule.”8 Paul said, rather, that punishment and everlasting destruction will happen when he shall come to be glorified in his saints (2 Thessalonians 1:9-10).

And so . . .

We are like pupils in a class without a teacher.  It seems all have thrown caution to the wind.  But our Teacher is resident within us and we should not need the same kind of teacher that the rest need in order to keep good manners.  Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.  Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God (1 Corinthians 15:33-34).

Notes:
1. Peter F. Drucker, “Managing Oneself,” Harvard Business Review, March/April 1999.
2. T.S. Eliot, Christianity and Culture (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1949) 156.
3. Charles Spurgeon, My Conversion (Kinsington, PA: Whitaker House, 1996) 63.
4. Norman Geisler, Chosen But Free (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1999) 27.
5. Madame Roland was executed (1793) by guillotine as a French revolutionary after giving an address near a new statue of Liberty.  The quotation is found in a number of common sources.
6. Bruce Lockerbie, The Cosmic Center (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1986) 52.
7. Quoted by Best & Kellner, The Postmodern Turn (New York: Guilford Press, 1997) 69.
8. Quoted by G.K. Chesterton, Heretics (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000) 2.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Our Wonderful Counselor

Written by Rick Shrader

Our Wonderful Counselor

by Rick Shrader

Jesus would have been a failure at counseling had He lived in our time.  Today we do not just want someone to counsel us who knows and feels our infirmities, we want someone who has experienced our failures; someone who has fallen into the same problem we are in and who will not judge us because he has done the same thing himself.  The problem with that is, of course, that such a person cannot really help us.

That Jesus our Lord never sinned is an abundant and necessary truth of the Scripture.  Peter quotes Isaiah when he writes of Him, Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth (1 Pet 2:22).  It is not an unrelated truth that this same, sinless Son of God is also called by Isaiah The Wonderful Counselor.  That is, the best counseling one can have is from another who has not done the same thing he has done!  It is not that such a counselor would be non-human, but that he would not have given in to the weakness of that humanity.

C.S. Lewis explored this truth some years ago in his Mere Christianity.  He wrote,

Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is. . . You find out the strength of a wind by trying to walk against it, not by lying down.  A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later.  That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness.  They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in.  We never find out the strength of the evil impulse inside us until we try to fight it: and Christ, because He was the only man who never yielded to temptation, is also the only man who knows to the full what temptation means—the only complete realist.1

Our desire to be counseled by someone who has fallen into the same sin is a secret desire, not for forgiveness but for acceptance.  The sinful counselor, speaking from his limited experience in fighting the temptation, might excuse where the sinless counselor could understand the depth of temptation, forgive and direct in a new path of victory.

The same reasoning seems to take place regarding leadership, organization, character building and other challenges in the Christian life and ministry.  It is amazing what some people can find in the life of Christ to support their own point of view.  To some Jesus is the ultimate CEO.  To others He is a great sportsman.  I even read a whole book by someone trying to show that Jesus went to the Greek and Roman theaters to borrow most of His preaching analogies and stories!

What Jesus actually taught—servant-hood, humility, self-abasement—simply does not fit into most modern vocabulary.  G.K Chesterton once wrote, “Humility is so practical a virtue that men think it must be a vice.  Humility is so successful that it is mistaken for pride.”2 And yet as Spurgeon wrote, “There is no worse pride than that which claims humility when it does not posses it.”3 Today, even humility becomes a tool for success!  However, if we will let Jesus counsel us, we may not be comfortable in this life, but we will be comforted.  And that in a realistic way!

We don’t get three chapters into the New Testament, or two events into the ministry of Christ, before we are faced with new and profound challenges from the Savior.  In His temptation in the wilderness, Jesus was tempted by Satan to follow all the conventional, tried and true wisdom that would help Him accomplish His goal.  He declined all three offers.

He did not gain experience through fleshly indulgence

3And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matt 4:3-4)

What’s wrong with bread?  The forty days of fasting were over and Jesus would eat bread anyway.  Why not now?  Does it matter if Satan has placed his own agenda on this otherwise neutral thing?  The Corinthians insisted, Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats! and Paul replied, but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body (1 Cor 6:13).  Thomas à Kempis wrote, “For all that is high is not holy: nor all that is sweet, good; nor every desire pure; nor is everything that is dear unto us pleasing to God.”4

The fruit of the forbidden tree in the garden of Eden was good for food, and pleasant to the eyes (Gen 3:6), but to partake of it was to use it in a way that was self-indulgent and disobedient to God.  For Jesus to use His divine power for such purposes would have been sin as well—not the eating of bread as such, but the satisfying of the flesh to the disregard of God.  Such satisfaction of the desires of our heart must not take precedence over all else.

The keeping of the Word of God ought to satisfy us enough when the flesh is telling us to make our own provision.  Today’s admonition is to look out for oneself above all else; to provide for one’s needs as if that is always God’s will.  Jesus’ counsel would be to deny that need and find our satisfaction in His Word.

He did not take popular risks for ministry purposes

5Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, 6And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. 7Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. (Matt 4:5-7)

The pinnacle of the temple may have been as high as 450 feet above the Kidron valley.  According to secular sources, Simon the magician promised to fly from this pinnacle but fell to his death.  James, the pastor at Jerusalem likely was martyred by being thrown from this place.5 Jesus did not want the kind of following that would demand miraculous displays from God.  In fact, such a thing is to tempt God by putting His attributes to the test.  That is not faith, it is sensationalism.

Barclay wrote, “This year’s sensation is next year’s commonplace.  A gospel founded on sensation-mongering is foredoomed to failure.”6 Yet our day and age is filled with such sensationalists trying to outdo each other for the largest following.  One pastor of a mega-church in Phoenix sometimes enters the pulpit by being lowered from the ceiling as if descending into the auditorium.  Some Christian singers make their platform as full of lights and smoke as any secular rock star.

There is a fine line between what some call stepping out by faith, and what others call taking risks.  Satan argued that this was no risk at all, for there was chapter and verse for doing it—Psalm 91:11-12!  Wouldn’t this be claiming a promise from God?  Jesus knew better, and threw the wet towel on the first admonition to risk-taking.

He did not accept the obvious path to success

8Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. 10Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve (Matt 4:8-10).

Since Jesus had come to offer the kingdom to the Jews, Why not take the most direct and effective route to it?  After all, it was His by legal and ethical right.  He could dispel the usurper at any time He wished.  It was only, after all, the cross that stood in the way.

One has to wonder how many fast-track success leaders today would have taken Satan’s offer in a heart-beat.  As Tozer put it, “The new cross does not slay the sinner, it redirects him.  It gears him into a cleaner and jollier way of living and saves his self-respect.”7 Or as Chambers asked, “Will the Church that bows down and compromises succeed?  Of course it will.  It is the very thing that the natural man wants, but it is the lure of a wrong road to the Kingdom.  Beware of putting anything sweet and winsome in front of the One who suffered in Gethsemane.”8

Jesus often requested that the recipients of His miracles not tell anyone what had happened because of the danger of gaining a kingdom without saving faith as a requirement.  He had to refuse such an offer after feeding 5000 people because they ate the loaves and were filled.  There are many gatherings in the name of Christ today that are not gatherings of the people of Christ.  Someone has agreed to the kingdom by paying the wrong price.

What is the danger?  We might go to the wrong counselor!  “If the Divine call does not make us better, it will make us very much worse.  Of all bad men religious bad men are the worst.  Of all created beings the wickedest is one who originally stood in the immediate presence of God.”9

Notes
1.  C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1984) 124-5.
2.  G.K. Chesterton, Heretics (Nashville:  Thomas Nelson, 2000) 34.
3.  Charles Spurgeon, Treasury of David, vol 7 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978) 87.
4.  Thomas à Kempis, The Imitation of Christ (Chicago: Moody, 1980) 112.
5.  William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, vol 1 (Philadelphia:  Westminster, 1975) 69.
6.  Ibid.
7.  A.W. Tozer, Worship and Entertainment (Camp Hill: Christian Publications, 1997) 148.
8.  Oswald Chambers, If You Will Ask (Grand Rapids: Discovery House, 1958) 24.
9.  C.S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms (New York: Harvest Books, 1958.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

What In The World Are We Doing?

Written by Rick Shrader

What In The World Are We Doing?

by Rick Shrader

The Belgic Confession (1561) pictures God’s creation as, “a most beautiful book in which all created things, whether great or small, are as letters showing the invisible things of God to us.”1 When the angels in heaven sing before God they say, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created (Rev 4:11).  The Psalmist wrote, The earth is the LORD’S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein (Psa 24:1).

But the Bible does not always speak of the earth or the world in such glowing terms.  The world did not know Christ (John 1:10) and Satan has become the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4).  We are to set [our] affection on things above, not on things on the earth (Col 3:2).  At one point we are exhorted to Praise the LORD from the earth (Psa 148:7) and at another we are not to mind earthly things (Phil 3:19).  What are we to make of this?  Surely the Bible is not to be taken as the Koran with its doctrine of abrogation, where contradictions are settled by the later statement taking precedent over (abrogating) the earlier.2

The solution is well-known but not always remembered by Christians.  We may say that God made the world if we mean by that, the globe upon which we live.  It is better to say that God created the earth because that word almost always describes the globe.  Of the 287 times the word world appears in the Bible, only 46 are in the Old Testament.  Most of the subject of the world is dealt with through the Christian warfare of the New Testament.  By contrast, of the 987 times the word earth appears in the Bible, 795 are in the Old Testament and only 192 in the New Testament.  Most of the subject of God’s creation and care of the earth is dealt with through the picturesque language of the Old Testament.  We are to appreciate and admire the earth upon which we live, but we are, as Christians, to handle the world differently.

In the New Testament, our word earth is translated from the word “g?” (gh).  We use the prefix geo to form over 50 English words including geography, geology and geode.  However, our word world is translated from the word “cosmos” (kosmos) and forms words such as cosmetic, cosmopolitan and cosmology.  Satan is the god of the “cosmos” but not of the “geo.”  The “cosmos” may hate the Christian (John 15:18) but the “geo” surely could not.

Though the Bible can say that God created the world (see Acts 17:24), the great majority of times “cosmos” refers to a “complex orderly self-inclusive system” (Webster); “the thought of order or system . . . Under the sway of Satan . . . As something hostile to God” (Baker’s Dictionary of Theology).  This, then, presents the challenge of living in the “geo” but not being of the “cosmos.”

I would give the following conclusions regarding the world and the Christian in this age of grace.

Satan largely controls the world

This is not to impugn God’s sovereignty.  Even the evil of this world does not catch God by surprise.  But God has obviously allowed Satan to have temporary control of the world to such a degree that he is the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4); the prince of this world (John 14:30); the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience (Eph 2:2).  Since the whole world lieth in wickedness (1 John 5:20), Satan is free to walk about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour (1 Pet 5:8).  Satan was even so bold as to offer the kingdoms of this world to the Creator of the earth (Matt 4:8-9).  Such is his delegated authority.

If there are two things that we underestimate in this world, they are the depths of our own depravity, and the power and craftiness of Satan.  We are told in the twelfth chapter of Revelation, that the dragon (Satan) continues to pursue the woman (Israel) to this very hour!  We know that shortly he will rule the entire globe through a man of sin (Rev 13) and a false prophet.  “Enemy occupied territory—that is what this world is.  Christianity is the story of how the rightful King has landed, you might say landed in disguise, and is calling us all to take part in a great campaign of sabotage.”3

The lost live in the world as practical atheists

Satan, the god of this world, wants to be like the most High (Isa 14:14) yet he would rather men live as if there were no God.  When men live contrary to God’s moral law they are atheists, if even for a moment.  Their conscience is unable, by the insistent reminder of a Lawgiver, to overcome the selfish pull to what is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (1 John 2:16).  For that moment, the lost forget God and block His Word from their minds and hearts.

Man, under the power and control of Satan, has his conversation in the world (2 Cor 1:12).  He is unhappy because the sorrow of the world worketh death (2 Cor 7:10).  He is in bondage under the elements of the world (Gal 4:3).  He has no defense against the rulers of the darkness of this world (Eph 6:12).  He cannot escape the corruption that is in the world through lust (2 Pet 1:4) nor the pollutions of the world (2:20)  while under Satan’s dominion.  Martyn Lloyd-Jones said of this man, “He does not want to believe in his mind what something within him keeps asserting.”4

Culture has become the world’s religion

True to its name, culture has become this generation’s cult.  We must agree with T.S. Eliot when he defined culture as “being essentially, the incarnation (so to speak) of the religion of a people.”5 Belief really can’t be separated from works.  And every man’s culture is the outworking of his inward belief system.  When I was in Russia (the old Soviet Union) in 1992, there were no church buildings, but there were “cultural centers” in every town and city.  In an atheistic, anti-God society, culture is praised as the natural self-expression of man without God.

L.S. Chafer, in his book on Satan wrote, “The Satanic ideal of this age is, then, an improved social order, a moral and cultured people who are devout worshippers of himself, though for the present they may imagine that they are worshipping Jehovah through their empty religious forms and ceremonies, while they are really in a state of God-dishonoring unbelief, and all their thoughts are energized by Satan alone.”6

Christians are commanded not to love the world

The apostle John, who used the word cosmos more than any other Bible writer, said, love not the world, neither the things in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him (1 John 2:15).  In like manner, James, the brother of Jesus, wrote, Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?  Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God (Jas 4:4).  The more a man looks into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer (Jas 1:25), the more he sees the depth of his own depravity in the light of God’s holiness.  When he sees that, he will not love the world he sees within.

Even the things that seem neutral in this world will not be grasped too tightly when we see Christ more clearly.  “The moment we care for anything deeply, the world (that is, all the other miscellaneous interests) becomes our enemy.”7 Francis Schaeffer wrote, “Do we understand that even right entertainment can be the wrong integration point and be just as wicked and just as destructive as wrong entertainment if I put it in the place of God?”8 The difficulty for our generation seems to be to love Christ enough that we stop loving the world!

Christians are called to leave the world

Peter writes that we have been called out of darkness into his marvelous light (1 Pet 2:9) and that through Christ, God has called us to glory and virtue (2 Pet 1:4).  It’s not just that we are called (verb) saints, but that we are called (adjective) saints!  You are to walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory (1 Thes 2:12).  Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thes 2:14).  We are on our way to heaven!

Houses in the country used to have back doors!  I can remember both my grandmother and later my mother standing at the back door of an old house and calling us to dinner.  When that call came, all else took second place.  All of us quit what we were doing and ran toward the voice that was calling us.  God is calling us out of this world!  It may be a good distance yet before we see Him and enter the door, but neither the cares nor the labor of this world should hinder us from our path.  “Those who want Heaven most have served Earth best.  Those who love Man less than God do most for Man.”9

And so . . .

Spurgeon asked, “Does the world satisfy thee:  Then thou hast thy reward and thy portion in this life; make much of it, for thou shalt know no other joy.”10 For those whom the world satisfies, Jesus said, they have their reward, but for those whom it does not He says, Thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly (Matt 6:2-5).

Notes:
1.        Quoted by Alister McGrath, I Believe: Exploring the Apostle’s Creed (Downer’s Grove: IVP, 1997 31.
 
2.        See Ravi Zacharias, Light in the Shadow of Jihad (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2002) 40.
 
3.        3. C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1984) 51.
 
4.        Tony Sargent, The Sacred Anointing: The preaching of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994) 136.
 
5.        T.S. Eliot, Christianity and Culture (New York: Harvest Book, 1949) 101.
 
6.        L.S. Chafer, Satan (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972) 76.
 
7.        G.K. Chesterton, Heretics (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000) 22.
 
8.        Francis Schaeffer, True Spirituality (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1971) 147.
 
9.        C.S. Lewis, Present Concerns (New York: HBJ, 1986) 80.
 
10.     C.H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David, I (Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1978) 424.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

The Vision Of The Traditional Church

Written by Rick Shrader

The Vision Of The Traditional Church

by Rick Shrader

The 8th century Irish hymn Be Thou My Vision has, ironically, become popular today as a modern “Celtic” hymn.  In my opinion, the irony lies in the fact that so many people today do not make the Incarnate Christ the subject of their vision at all, but rather seek for an individual vision from Christ.  This is typical of the modern twisting of normal language and doctrine.  But it is not a new phenomenon.

In his book, The Anabaptist Story, William Estep points out a problem that existed in the 14th century church:  “Failure to distinguish between the Anabaptists, inspirationists, and rationalists has led to gross misunderstanding of the entire Radical Reformation.”1 The “inspirationists” were those such as Thomas Muntzer and the Zwickau prophets (like the later Quakers) who sought spiritual visions and revelations.  The “rationalists” such as Faustus Socinus, placed too much emphasis on reason and rationality.  But “For the Swiss and south German Anabaptists, the final authority for the Christian life and the faith and order of the church was the New Testament, in particular the life and teachings of Christ.”2 There has always been a conflict over the nature of “vision” for the church and the believer.

One suspects that the current love for the “Celtic” hymns (I am pronouncing that with a hard “C”, though I am still a fan of the Boston “Celtics”) is actually more a love for the mystical and medieval than for the historic incarnation of Christ.  This was true of the “inspirationists” who sought mystical self-revelatory guides for their life, as opposed to the core of independent brethren who searched the Scriptures for their direction.

I think there is a growing impreciseness today over what we mean by “vision.”  Some may simply mean new ideas, but others obviously mean revelations from God.  Most, I suppose, are somewhere between these two and yet speak as if God has given them something unique and individual.  It is not uncommon to hear of someone getting their own vision from God for a particular ministry.  Each person’s vision is different from another’s but each is authoritative for their life and calling.

The danger is that these individual visions become the real directive in a Christian’s life, while the Bible serves merely as a general set of principles and values to guide the vision to its finish.  No matter how orthodox one claims to be, this kind of thinking is alarming.  George Barna, for example, writes, “Our task is to grasp and articulate God’s vision for our future and to facilitate the change necessary to create that future.”3 For Barna, this vision is given by God to a Christian leader for his specific ministry and is not to be taken as a guide for anyone else’s ministry.

The Traditional Church has always been skeptical of such language.  It is used too flippantly by some and too loaded with mystical meaning by others.  Proverbs 29:18, Where there is no vision, the people perish, is often used to support individual revelations (even Barna uses it this way), but we must agree with Alden when he writes, “Vision here does not refer to one’s ability to formulate goals and work toward them, nor does it mean eyesight or the ability to understand.  Vision instead is a synonym for what a prophet does.”4 Without our thoughts and actions being grounded in God’s Word, we will “perish” in our ministry for God.

I would like to offer five aspects of the vision of God’s churches.

The Reception of the Vision is Historic

Jude wrote his short epistle that we should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints (Jude 3).  Peter said that holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Pet 1:21). Both of these verses speak of the church possessing the finished revelation from God and it is a dangerous thing for Christians to talk of receiving new vision from God.

Spurgeon wrote, “I have heard many fanatical persons say the Holy Spirit revealed this and that to them.  Now that is very generally revealed nonsense.  The Holy Ghost does not reveal anything fresh now.  He brings old things to our remembrance.  ‘He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have told you.’  The canon of revelation is closed: there is no more to be added.  God does not give a fresh revelation, but He rivets the old one.”5

We would be much better off if we could see that God has given us all the vision we need in the Incarnation of His Son and in the written revelation of His Son.  The Holy Spirit, then, is our resident Teacher to convict and remind us of things that are written.  He may burden us in a way that is compelling for us to act, but He always convicts, and we always act scripturally.

The Content of the Vision is Universal

The inspiration of the Scripture which contains the incarnation of Christ, IS the vision for EVERY believer!  The writer of Hebrews said, God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by his son (Heb 1:1-2).  Peter said that the Bible is a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed (2 Pet 1:19).

Believers all over the world and in every generation have had the same vision given to them in the Scripture.  This is what has given unity to the Body of Christ.  Wherever you might find believers in this whole world, you can count on them believing and doing the same things you believe and do.  If you differ, it is due to hermeneutics, not to subjective mystical experiences.

Many movements have departed from this universal foundation into subjective experiences.  John Wimber, founder of the Vineyard Movement, wrote, “I assumed that Bible study, especially as approached in evangelical seminaries, was the key to being equipped and empowered to do God’s work….but I no longer see it as the sole avenue to being equipped and empowered to do God’s Work.”6 Peter Wagner, Wimber’s life-long associate in this “signs and wonders” movement also wrote, “In the early years….I focused mostly on Bible study….Now I know more about worship, reverence, and praise.  I seek a daily refilling of the Holy Spirit in a way I can actually feel his presence….I am beginning to distinguish the voice of God from my own thoughts and to allow him to speak to me directly.”7

These modern “inspirationists” should not set the pattern for Bible-believing people.  This was Jude’s fear that we would not contend for the “once for all” faith.

The Goal of the Vision is Discovery

Since we have God’s vision for us, and we know it is for all of us, we should be diligent about studying it to find truth for today.  It is the Postmodernist who tells us that truth is not discovered but created.  To him, all history is obsolete and only new information can be true.  I am not saying that all “inspirationists” are postmodernists, but that we may be influenced more by the culture than we think!

R.A. Torrey wrote, “It is not by seasons of mystical meditation and rapturous experiences that we learn to abide in Christ; it is by feeding upon His word, His written word as found in the Bible, and looking to the Holy Spirit to implant these words in our hearts and to make them a living thing in our hearts.”8 Jesus said, Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me (John 5:39).

One of those early Anabaptists who was converted under Zwingli but broke with him upon further study of the Bible was Conrad Grebel.  He wrote, “We were listeners to Zwingli’s sermons and readers of his writings, but one day we took the Bible itself in hand and were taught better.”9 A man’s vision of what needs to be done will always fall short of what the Bible itself will show us by diligent study.

The Result of the Vision is Practical

Zwingli was the spiritual father of a number of young students in Zurich.  The October Disputation of 1523 brought the group of young reformers into conflict with the city council.  Zwingli had promised that he would stand with the young men to oppose the Christmas mass and ask for freedom to observe the simple Lord’s Supper.  When Zwingli bowed to the council’s wishes, betraying his young students, one young man, Simon Stumpf, excaimed, “Master Ulrich, you do not have the right to place the decision on this matter in the hands of my lords, for the decision has already been made, the Spirit of God decides.”10 Estep explains that “Zwingli next delineated the difference between truth as determined from study of the Scriptures and the implementation of truth by the council.”11

Bible believing people have always held that the Bible is the basis for practice as well as faith.  In the Scripture we do not merely have what is “described” for us but  what is “prescribed” for the pattern of the church.  We do not leave the doctrinal matters with the Scripture and find the practical matters in visions.  Both faith and practice come from the Word of God.  As Bruce Shelley described, “Little groups of Anabaptist believers gathered about their Bibles.  They discovered a different world in the pages of the New Testament.”12

The Priority of the Vision is Submission

All is vain unless there is a willing conformity to this changeless Body of truth.  The Word of God has a way of humbling the individual to the point of denying his selfish interests for the sake of revealed truth.  Paul commended the Thessalonians  by writing, When ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe (1 Thes 2:13).

We need not bow to the cultural pressure of being perceived as great visionaries who have received special direction from God and must, therefore, insist that our people follow without question.  Our people ought to question such self-serving attitudes in leaders.  Paul chided the Corinthians for being duped in such a way, For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise. For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face. (2 Cor 11:19-20).

No great man ever wanted to be great!  He wanted to be like Christ and was thrust into service.  Most leadership training today is ego-building based on common business principles.  The sad thing is, it will work in most churches because the price of submission to revealed truth is too high.  As G.K. Chesterton said, “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting.  It has been found difficult and left untried.”13

And So . . .

God grant us the ability to walk by faith and not by sight, and may our anchor hold, steadfast and sure, to the One who is entered within the veil, where authorities and powers are made subject unto Him.

Notes:
1. William Estep, The Anabaptist Story (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) 21.
2. Estep, 22.
3. George Barna, The Second Coming of the Church (Nashville: Word Publishing, 1998) 98.
4. Robert Alden, Proverbs (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983) 202.
5. Charles Spurgeon, “The Comforter,” Understanding the Holy Spirit (AMG, 1995) 179.
6. John Wimber, Power Evangelism (San Francisco: Harper, 1992) 91.
7. Peter Wagner, The Third Wave of the Holy Spirit (Ann Arbor: Vine Books, 1988) 129.
8. R.A. Torrey, How To Pray (Chicago: Moody Press, nd.) 68.
9. Estep 20.  10. Estep, 16.  11. Estep, 17.
12. Bruce Shelley, Church History in Plain Language (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1995) 248.
13. G.K. Chesterton, What’s Wrong With The World (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994) 37.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

A Case For The Traditional Church

Written by Rick Shrader

A Case For The Traditional Church

by Rick Shrader

%%tb-image-alt-text%%

A student was once asked whether ignorance or apathy was worse, to which he answered, “I don’t know and I don’t care.”  Within the last few months I have visited a “non-traditional” church, watched a promotional video from another “non-traditional” church, and read web sites from other “non-traditional” churches (not to mention various articles, books, etc.). My observation is that the “virtues” of the non-traditional church are usually manifestly accepted while the “vices” of the traditional are quickly believed without experience or investigation.

The common argument of the non-traditionalists seems to be that lost people don’t like traditional churches. For this reason traditional churches are no longer effective in reaching the lost.  Unless church is exciting and enticing, the unchurched are not convinced of its usefulness or truthfulness.

Well, a tornado may cause a lot of excitement, but is not very effective for the farmer’s purpose.  In my experiences, non-traditional churches are often popular with the wrong people and can easily be filled for the wrong reasons.

I am using the description “non-traditional” because I want to defend the “traditional” church from general accusations.  I could use the terms progressive, or contemporary as well.  All of these terms have their denotations, but their connotations are well known to most church attenders.  In all of the defenses of the non-traditional churches, “traditional” seems to be fair game for blame, accusation, ridicule and the like.  I have spent a number of issues in this paper defending the traditional (I would also say normal) church from such accusations.  I am not defending the High-Church denominational traditionalism, in which countless souls never heard the gospel, but rather the traditional local church that generations have known and loved and where they came to Christ.

Without doubt, the traditional church is a struggle for the lost or backslidden person.  His mind and heart are not on the things of God, and there is no reason why he would enjoy what spirit-filled Christians enjoy.  The normal church service is so different from what he experiences daily in the world that he must be convicted and led by the Holy Spirit to want to stay around.  The singing is Christ-centered; the teaching is authoritative; the praying is humbling and the conversation is spiritual!  Why would a lost person want to remain there?

D.L. Moody once wrote, “But, some say, if we take the standard and lift it up high, it will drive away a great many members from our churches.  I believe it, and I think the quicker they are gone the better.”1 Today, we do not understand what Moody meant by such a statement.  It was not a lack of concern, but a burden for the lost that we have seldom seen that made Moody say such a thing—a burden we desperately need again.

Churches adopt certain patterns because they believe those patterns conform to biblical standards and therefore allow the Spirit of God to change people.  Here are five characteristics of traditional churches that have been patterned from biblical conviction.

Anchored in Providence

Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle (2 Thes 2:15).  The local churches have a two thousand year history drawn from a two thousand year-old Bible.  They have songs born from spirit-led hearts that have satisfied the souls of believers for hundreds of years.  They have built buildings, sent missionaries, suffered persecution, sat reverently under the teaching of God’s Word, observed the ordinances with Godly fear and passed on their faith to others with rejoicing.

When T.S. Eliot said that “a religion requires not only a body of [ministers] who know what they are doing, but a body of worshippers who know what is being done,”2 he could have been speaking of any generation of believers.  But few church-shoppers today even care what a church believes much less how they practice and are not much concerned with making a commitment to those things!  They seem to think, “A rolling stone gathers no moss!”  Yes, and the stone is dead, carried about by the current while the moss is alive and clinging to the immoveable foundation.

Traditional churches help people get their feet on solid, immoveable ground.  They help people look back and anchor themselves to a truthful history while encouraging them to look beyond the present to a heavenly reward. C.S. Lewis referred to his own atheistic past as “‘chronological snobbery,’ the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited.”3 In such a time as the present, we cannot afford to disconnect our churches from their own Christian history.

Forward with its Message

Traditional churches do not use stealth tactics to lure people into their services.  That is more cultic than evangelistic.  Paul’s prayer for Philemon was, That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus (Phile 6).  The most effective means for gospel witness is to “acknowledge” the “good thing” we have that the world does not have.  Too often churches are busy trying to win themselves to the world rather than winning the world to Christ.

Os Guinness wrote, “The very reason why penny loafers speak better to other penny loafers than to Air Jordans and wingtips is the reason why a penny-loafer gospel will never be the whole counsel of God.”4 It is not our business to convince the world that they should like us, or that they will enjoy our worship, or that Christianity will fit their busy life-style.  God desires to change them and change them drastically!  And the way He wants to do this is by believers displaying their faith in a visible, unapologetic manner.

Traditional churches do what they do because they believe that is what God wants them to do, not because they think that is what the world is looking for.  Jean-Paul Sartre once criticized Christianity by saying, “I did not recognize in the fashionable God who was taught me, Him who was waiting for my soul.  I needed a Creator; I was given a big businessman!”5 A Japanese businessman similarly said, “Whenever I meet a Buddhist leader, I meet a holy man.  Whenever I meet a Christian leader, I meet a manager.”6 What the world needs to meet are Christians who are going about worship because God is there, not because they are there!

Separated from the World

Though everyone feels his view of biblical separation is biblical, traditional churches have made this a priority because they know it reflects God’s character. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty (2 Cor 17-18).  This command is still in the Old and New Testaments of our Bible!

Yes, traditional churches have their hypocrites but hypocrisy is hypocrisy.  It always imitates the real thing.  The Apostle John wrote, Love not the world, neither the things in the world (1 Jn 2:15), and said of false teachers in the church, They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them (1 Jn 4:5).  Jesus said, Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! For so did their fathers to the false prophets (Lk 6:26).

We will not win the world by loving everything about the world and affirming that to the world.  G.C. Morgan wrote, “I am often told today—told seriously—that what the Church of God needs in order to succeed is to catch the spirit of the age.  I reply that the Church of God only succeeds in proportion as she corrects the spirit of the age.”7 The primary reason for separation from the world is the Lord’s command to be holy because He is holy.  The next reason is so that being holy, we might be filled with the Spirit of God and have power for witnessing and preaching.

Available to its People

Contrary to what many are saying, traditional churches are more available to people for teaching, fellowship, discipling and worship than non-traditional churches.  We still have Sunday School (Bible study) graded for all ages, Sunday night services and Wednesday night prayer and Bible study, and all of these with fully staffed child-care!  These are not times when people merely “go through the motions.” They are well prepared, taught by qualified teachers, done in comfortable (and neutral!) settings and, most of all, this all takes place when and where the brethren have agreed to meet.

I, for one, am not buying the tired old line that Christians, because they happen to be teens, college age, or busy professionals, cannot come to where the saints are when they should.  They do everything else they want to!  John wrote, They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us (1 Jn 2:19).  Why don’t professing Christians love the brethren enough to meet with them?  Because they have more pressing needs?  John the apostle didn’t buy that excuse.  He called it not loving the brethren!

Traditional churches offer services for all believers, regardless of age, race or status.  I find that they offer more time to be with the brethren than any other kind of church.  These churches, rather than catering to exclusive attitudes, honor the elderly who have no one to visit with or care for them; accept families who can use some help with their kids for an hour; encourage the young people to broaden their social horizons; don’t target specialized groups of people; and promote body unity for all of the church.

Insistent on Results

Traditional churches expect sinners to change when they come to Christ and are comfortable showing that change in the church service.  They expect the gospel and the Holy Spirit to change a person immediately upon placing his/her faith in Jesus Christ.  Invitations are still given with that end in mind.  They are not willing to change that doctrine to a more gradual view of conversion.   Too often today, the sinners are simply being called righteous, rather than being called to repentance.  Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new (2 Cor 5:17).

The reason most surveys show that unbelievers (or “unchurched”) do not like traditional churches is that something is being asked of them: some effort, some struggle, some patience, even some blessed quietness.  For all of the talk of traditional churches being unwilling to change, the fact is, they have changed—when they believed—and it is the critics who are unwilling to give up their own life-style and change into the image of Christ.

And So . . .

Traditional churches are what they are.  It is not a show or a stage where anyone performs for anyone else.  It is plain people, forgiven in Christ, doing what they would be doing whether you or I or a complete stranger were or were not there.

Notes:
1. D.L. Moody, Spiritual Power (Chicago: Moody Press, 1997) 120.
2. T.S. Eliot, Christianity and Culture (New York: HB, 1949) 96.
3. C.S. Lewis, Surprised By Joy (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1955) 207.
4. Os Guinness, Dining With The Devil (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993) 28.
5. Quoted by A.W. Tozer, Whatever Happened To Worship? (Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publishers, 1985) 10.
6. Guinness, 49.
7. G.C. Morgan, Commentary on Matthew, 179.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles, Featured
1 Comment
Read More

Thinking Inside The Box

Written by Rick Shrader

Thinking Inside The Box

by Rick Shrader

G .K. Chesterton wrote, “The mind that finds its way to wild places is the poet’s; but the mind that never finds its way back is the lunatic’s.”1 It seems we have no shortage of “visionaries” and “original thinkers,” but fewer and fewer of them seem to be able to find their way back home!   It is a day of point and click exegesis, word-searched information, downloaded knowledge and back-lit preaching.  A.T. Pierson told of a country church member commenting on the new pastor: “Well, I’ll tell yer how it is.  He’s de best man I ebber seed to tak’ de Bible apart, but he dunno how to put it togedder agin.”2

We have heard the expression, “thinking in (or out of) the box” for quite a while now.  I think it is an attempt to describe one who can think only within set parameters,  as opposed to one who can think beyond those parameters.  In Christian circles it is frequently applied to stuffy people who will not accept new ideas or think in any way except what has been done in the past.  On the surface, most of us would agree with the criticism, as A.W. Tozer wrote, “The stodgy pedestrian mind does no credit to Christianity.”3 But I am not convinced that that’s all there is to the expression of thinking in (or out of) the box.

Does anyone still doubt that the world has lost its moorings when it comes to thinking and normality?  For them, thinking out of the box means the absence of absolutes, the freedom for unlimited self-expression, or as one popular restaurant advertises, “No rules, just right.”  It means living in a world where wild imagination is normal and the old normal is boring.  In that world, biblical Christianity has no place.  One online writer criticizes Christianity for holding too strictly to the Bible :

This is what happens when people take the stories their religions offer a bit too literally. . . In that paradigm, if you subscribe to the right story and follow the rules, all you have to do is hang in there and wait for the ending, and you’ll be saved.  Best of all, the real quandaries of human existence—questions such as where do we come from, what is the right way to live, and where do we go when we die—are all preordained.  A closed book. . . Thank[fully], we now have a way out of the story: We can write our own endings.”4

As the world criticizes us for thinking biblically, we must not shy away from accusations that we do not think broadly enough.  We must not prefer the company of broad worldly thinking to plain biblical thinking.  In some instances I would agree that Christians ought to broaden their thinking, but in many ways people think worldly and simply call it broad. I am here advocating that a disagreement which is conservative is not necessarily blind.  There may be good reasons for it.

Too often, “thinking inside the box” is a caricature of more conservative thinking that has become annoying or even embarrassing in our day and age.  Here are a few of those caricatures of thinking which get labeled “in the box.”

Thinking that is Stagnant

We have all heard the explanations of how corporations go through a cycle from being new and enthusiastic to old and stagnant.  This can be true of corporations and churches.  We all fear crossing that line of old age where our only topics of conversation are stories that everyone has already heard a thousand times.  But the reaction to this can be as bad and worse.  An immature answer is to disregard everything that is said.  This is often done with church.  As Chesterton said, “The vice of the modern notion of mental progress is that it is always something concerned with the breaking of bonds, the effacing of boundaries, the casting away of dogmas.  But if there be such a thing as mental growth, it must mean the growth into more and more definite convictions, into more and more dogmas.  The human brain is a machine for coming to conclusions; if it cannot come to conclusions it is rusty.”5

Thinking that is Irrelevant

Besides the things that are old and boring, many things can seem to be worthless because they don’t “work” as well as they used to.  Business lives and dies with sales methodology and they must work or the product won’t sell.  Commercials have become what I call the obvious lie:  we know it can’t really be that way but we excuse it because we know it’s only a commercial.  The add is “truthful” if it sells the product.  Reality is of little consequence.

Irrelevance, then, is what is non-pragmatic.  If it doesn’t get the job done, why keep it?  Albert Einstein called the modern age one of perfected means and confused ends.6 R.C. Sproul wrote, “The Christian rejects the spirit of pragmatism.  He lives in terms of long-term goals.  He eschews the expedient.  He stores up treasure in heaven.  He is willing to wait for the hour of God.”7

Thinking that is Negative

I have known truly negative people and they are hard to be around.  Some people don’t know there is another end to the magnet.  But other people are as afraid of a negative as this generation is of the law of non-contradiction.  The fact is, two opposites cannot both be true, and for every positive there is its opposite which is negative.  If the positive is true, the negative can’t be.  But if the negative is true, the positive can’t be.  “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil” (Isa 5:20).  T.S. Eliot said, “Incumbent upon all Christians is the duty of maintaining consciously certain standards and criteria of criticism over and above those applied by the rest of the world.”8 Even if that is in a different box!

Thinking that is Pietistic

“Pious” has become one of those Christian swear words like legalistic, traditional, progressive, controlling, liberal, etc. that we use on someone we don’t want to talk to.  Too often, even Christians shy away from what seems too holy or pious.  We are more used to the world’s standards than God’s.  Francis Schaeffer said, “Ancestral man has entered his own head, and he has been adapting ever since to what he finds there.”9 Piety is too narrow of a box for this generation. But God invites man to a far different perspective! Though no Christian who fancies his thinking to be “out of the box” would ever see his thinking as “unbiblical,” my fear is that that is what has happened and far too often.  When we don’t take the negative seriously enough, we forget that it is different than the positive.  The anti-biblical, with time, can seem only non-biblical.  And then the non-biblical, with more time, can seem only preferential.  Then the preferential becomes preferable.

An Alternative

The Corinthian church had gotten a little too far “out of the box” for the Apostle Paul.  Their thinking had become too much like the world around them and Paul reels them back into the parameters of a biblical perspective.  In 1 Corinthians 4:6 he told them that he had written to them so that they wouldn’t think beyond what is written.  This was their problem with preferring one above another, and also their problem in every other area.

What is written means more than simply what Paul has already said to them.  They are not to think ?per (above, beyond) gegraptai (what is written).  This expression is used throughout this book and many other New Testament books to introduce an Old Testament quotation. For example:  For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise (1:19).  This is the exact same form of the verb as Paul uses in 4:6.  They were not to go above or beyond what they Scripture says.  G.G. Findlay adds, “It was a Rabbinical adage—as much as to say, Keep to the rule of Scripture, Not a step beyond the written word.”10

Regardless of how the world sees us, God says our reward is from gold, silver and precious stones, not wood, hay and stubble; our message is the foolishness of God, not the wisdom of this world; our preaching is with demonstration of Holy Spirit power, not enticing words of man’s wisdom; and our foundation is Christ alone, no other foundation can be laid.  In chapter 4, Paul chided them for remaining spectators of the real Christian life, while he had become a “spectacle” to the world.

I think Paul could have said These things I have written that you may learn not to think outside the Box of Scripture. Though we don’t like to think we do, we are probably not more adept at knowing the parameters than the Corinthians who also had the Apostle’s presence to guide them!

And So . . .

A.W. Tozer, who had a way of bringing our thoughts down to reality, wrote, “Whatever keeps me from the Bible is my enemy, however harmless it may appear to be.  Whatever engages my attention when I should be meditating on God and things eternal does injury to my soul.  Let the cares of life crowd out the Scriptures from my mind and I have suffered loss where I can least afford it.  Let me accept anything else instead of the Scriptures and I have been cheated and robbed to my eternal confusion.”11

 
Notes:
1.  G.K. Chesterton, What’s Wrong With The World (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994) 92.
2. A.T. Pierson, Pulpit Legends (Chattanooga: AMG, 1994) xii.
3. A.W. Tozer, Born After Midnight (Harrisburg: Christian Publications, 1959) 95.
4. Douglas Rushkoff, “Playing God,” Yahoo Internet Life, Dec. 2000, p. 101.
5. G.K. Chesterton, Heretics (Nashville: Nelson, 2000) 151.
6. Quoted by Phillips & Okholm, Christian Apologetics in a Postmodern World (Downer’s Grove: IVP, 1995) 25.
7. R.C. Sproul, The Mystery of the Holy Spirit (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1990) 172.
8. Quoted by Bruce Lockerbie, Dismissing God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998) 20.
9. Francis Schaeffer, True Spirituality (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1971) 112.
10. G.G. Findlay, Expositor’s Greek New Testament, W.R. Nicoll, ed (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1970) 800.
11. A.W. Tozer, Worship and Entertainment (Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 1997) 42.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

What Child Is This?

Written by Rick Shrader

What Child Is This?

by Rick Shrader

What Child is this, who, laid to rest, on Mary’s lap is sleeping?

Whom angels greet with anthems sweet, while shepherds watch are keeping?

Why lies He in such mean estate where ox and ass are feeding?

Good Christian, fear—for sinners here the silent Word is pleading.

So bring Him incense, gold and myrrh—come, rich and poor, to own Him;

The King of Kings salvation brings—let loving hearts enthrone Him.

English melody, fifteenth century

It has always been one of the striking testimonials of Christianity that Jesus Christ came quietly into this world and left the same way.  Though he ascended to heaven while five hundred watched, when His mortal put back on immortality, He simply sat up inside a tomb, quietly put His clothes aside and walked out without audience.  At His birth, although angels sang to shepherds on far away hills, when the Babe cried and first breathed terrestrial air, only cattle turned their heads in witness.  The gospel account simply fits with the reality that we know of this world.

A human author, writing strictly on his own initiative, would characteristically tend to describe such a momentous and amazing event in an expansive, detailed, and elaborate manner.  But not the apostle Matthew.  He does relate additional circumstances surrounding the virgin birth, but the basic fact is stated in one simple sentence: “After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.1

With the gospel writers, we are not to take the miraculous conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit in any other way but matter of fact.  They don’t ask us to.  We don’t have to give an explanation of the miracle, we only have to believe it or reject it.  Is it any less reasonable than the alternatives we are offered?

For example, the Romans believed that Zeus impregnated Semele without contact and that she conceived Dionysus, lord of the earth.  The Babylonians believed that Tammuz (see Ezek. 8:14) was conceived in the priestess Semiramis by a sunbeam.  In an ancient Sumerian/Accadian story inscribed on a wall Tukulti II (890-884 B.C.) told how the gods created him in the womb of his mother.  It was even claimed that the goddess of procreation superintended the conception of King Sennacherib (705-681 B.C.).  At the conception of Buddha, his mother supposedly saw a great white elephant enter her belly.  Hinduism has claimed that the divine Vishnu, after reincarnations as a fish, tortoise, boar, and lion, descended into the womb of Devaki and was born as her son Krishna.  There is even a legend that Alexander the Great was virgin born by the power of Zeus through a snake that impregnated his mother, Olympias.2

The biblical account is above all such make-believe.  Nothing about Christ’s incarnation violates what we know of this world.  It only asks us to accept that the Creator of the world can enter and leave it when He wants and as calmly as He wants.  It doesn’t insult us with tortoises or sunbeams in the womb.  It is not God who is unreasonable in the Christmas story, it is man with his selfish nature and bent toward the fantastic.  As Pascal wrote, “The incredulous are the most credulous.  They believe in Vespasian’s miracles only to disbelieve in those of Moses.”3 Or, as Chesterton noted, “Take away the supernatural, and what remains is the unnatural.”4

We might say that God has asked us to accept a balance of reality in the world into which the incarnation fits perfectly well.  God has placed us in a middle world between the telescope and the microscope.  We can ascend into the starry heavens until we are overwhelmed by the size and awesomeness of space itself.  Or we can descend into the microcosms of the cells and atoms only to find smaller worlds revolving in their own atmospheres.  Man was placed between those two extremes at the center of God’s creative process so that we might be in a place to receive God’s revelation with a reasonable faith that fits with reality.  William Lane Craig responded to a question concerning the impossibility of miracles by saying, “Only if you believe that God does not exist!  Then I would agree—the miraculous would be absurd.  But if there is a Creator who designed and brought the universe into being, who sustains its existence moment by moment, who is responsible for the very natural laws that govern the physical world, then certainly it’s rational to believe that the miraculous is possible.”5 The greatest revelation was when God became man, coming into the center of His creation, to reveal Who and What is the reason for our existence.

We learn in the Scriptures that God is both transcendent and immanent.  God is transcendent in that He is totally separate, apart from and above His creation.  Nicholas of Cusa  said, “God is the greatest possible circle with the smallest possible curvature.”6 He is not as transcendent as the existentialist and agnostic would have us think.  He is willing to reveal Himself and has done so in many ways, coming into the center of His world with voice, letter and in person.  God is immanent in that He is close to and everywhere present in His creation.  But He is not as immanent as the pantheists and new-age thinkers would have us believe.  He does not consist of the material universe and cannot be found present in its parts.  Rather, as before, He must come into the world in order for us to know Him.  “God is a person and he made us as persons in his likeness.  Because we are persons and he is a personal God, we have the capacity to worship him and to know him and to love him.”7

Though it is true that in our day we must try the miraculous spirits to see whether they are of God, in that day God had prepared the world for the greatest of miracles.  Sir William Ramsay once wrote of the apostle Paul’s miraculous work:

That Paul believed himself to be the recipient of direct revelations from God, to be guided and controlled in his plans by direct interposition of the Holy Spirit, to be enabled by the Divine power to move the forces of nature in a way that ordinary men cannot, is involved in this narrative (Acts 14).  You must make up your own minds to accept or to reject it; but you cannot cut out the marvelous from the rest, nor can you believe that either Paul or this writer was a mere victim of hallucinations.  To the men of that age only what was guaranteed by marvelous accompaniments was true.8

We have spent much time today unmasking false miracles and deceptive claims to divine authority.  The Christian spends too much of his time answering all the counterfeits while the counterfeits only have to answer Christianity.  But we can never forget that the miracle of the incarnation, with all of its revealed facts, was miraculous!  The transcendent God became immanent within our world!

And this brings us back to the Christmas story.  It is that wonderful record of a mighty God overshadowing a virgin Mary, sending angels to sing in concert to shepherds and throwing a star in the sky for wise men to see.  That same God came quietly into our world among the mud of a stable floor and the smells and sounds of common herds.  He came as an infant who needed to be nursed and protected from his enemies.  He was the perfect revelation of a transcendent, immanent God.  There was enough light to lighten the willing and enough mystery to keep them in awe.  Yet there was enough mystery to hinder the unwilling and enough light to show them God’s law.  It was the perfect form for man to receive.

There’s a song in the air! There’s a star in the sky!

There’s a mother’s deep prayer and a baby’s low cry!

And the star rains its fire while the beautiful sing,

For the manger of Bethlehem cradles a King!

There’s a tumult of joy O’er the wonderful birth,

For the Virgin’s sweet Boy is the Lord of the earth.

Ay! The star rains its fire while the beautiful sing,

For the manger of Bethlehem cradles a King!

In the light of that star lie the ages impearled,

And that song from afar has swept over the world.

Every hearth is aflame and the beautiful sing,

In the homes of the nations that Jesus is King!

We rejoice in the light, and we echo the song

That comes down thru the night from the heavenly throng.

Ay! We shout to the lovely evangel they bring,

And we greet in His cradle our Savior and King!9

Notes:
1. John MacArthur, God in the Manger (Nashville: W Publishing Group, 2001) 4-5.
2. John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, Vol I (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985) 12.
3. Blaise Pascal, Pensees (London: Penguin Classics, 1966) 100.
4. G.K. Chesterton, Heretics (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000) 49.
5. Interview with Lee Stroble, The Case For Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000) 61.
6. Quoted by Norman Geisler, Philosophy of Religion (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974) 48.
7. Robert Wenz, Room For God? (Grand Rapids:  Baker Books, 1994) 162.
8. William Ramsay, St. Paul:  The Traveller and the Roman Citizen (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1962) 87.
9. Josiah G. Holland, There’s A Song In The Air!
 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Considering The New King James Version

Written by Rick Shrader

Considering The New King James Version

by Rick Shrader

Because I agree with Calvin when he says, “Sacred word does not deserve to be accused of novelty,”1 and also with Thomas à Kempis when he says, “Truth, not eloquence, is to be sought for in Holy Scriptures,”2 I offer this conclusion to my comparison of these two Bible versions.  It will be an annoyance to some and be welcomed by others.

The translators of the King James Version wrote in their preface, “We never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark” (¶ 16).  Truly, their process of updating the available translations was very much like today’s process of updating the Old KJV to the New KJV.  They even saw their work as a no-win proposition when it came to eventual criticism:  “But we weary the unlearned, who need not know so much; and trouble the learned, who know it already” (¶ 14).  But the criticism was the lesser of two evils, for the greater evil would be not to bring the Word into greater light:  “So, lest the Church be driven to the like exigent [in need of aid], it is necessary to have translations in a readiness.  Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water” (¶ 6).

This will not be an exercise in textual criticism.  Obviously, the textual tradition of these two versions is the same, and arguments for and against that tradition is not my objective.  Nor will this be an apologetic for one version over the other but rather a Bible reader’s comparison of what I believe to be the advantages and disadvantages of both. (If, of course, one adheres to a different textual tradition, and I do not rule out such  adherences, he then sees an a priori disadvantage).

I would also beg the pardon of my friends who see no need (indeed, even a real danger) in doing this at all.  As even the translators addressed, I cannot win with either the harshest critics nor with the most zealous advocates.  I’m sure my conclusions will land somewhere between you both.  I love the King James Version and have no desire to disparage it in any way.  That is not to say I am unaware of its difficulties in use.  But I have been reading the New KJV this year (the OT once and the NT about a dozen times) and have learned to appreciate it in many ways, while at the same time balking at some of its newer expressions.

Over the last several months, I have merely kept a paper in the back of my NKJV with one side labeled “Reasons I would use the NKJV” and the other side labeled “Reasons I would use the old KJV.”  I added various references to the entries each time I read.  I will give seven from both lists.

Reasons why I would use the New King James Version

1. I am glad that the NKJV has no “ghosts” and “devils” and I would not miss reading such words in public as “asses” and “bastards.”  There is no different Greek word for “Ghost” than for “Spirit” and there is only one “devil” but many “demons.”  Non-offensive words are updated as well, such as “cheribims,” “disannulled,” “conversation,” etc. to make the meaning more quickly understood.

2. The layout of the text is much easier to follow.  In poetical books, the verse is set aside for easier eye contact.  Quotations of the OT in the NT are set aside as well and become easily recognizable as such.  It is not a paragraph Bible, but these changes in appearance make it easier to follow.

3. Difficult readings are made clearer by changing a few words.  Instead of “that recompense of their error which was meet” (KJV) you have “the penalty of their error which was due” (NKJV) in Rom 1:27.  Instead of “only he who now letteth will let until . . .” (KJV), you have “only He who now restrains will do so until . . .” (NKJV) in 2 Thes 2:7.  These kinds of examples are numerous.  The translators put it, “variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures” (¶ 17).

4. Many old words in the KJV do need updating if the reader is to immediately grasp the meaning.  The NKJV gives you “clothing” for “raiment;” “useful” for “meet;” “basic principles” for “rudiments;” “desire” and “passion” for “concupiscence;” “precede” for “prevent;” “money” for “lucre;” “annul” for “disannul;” and “teacher” for “schoolmaster.”

5. Specific wordings become more pointed and therefore more powerful and persuasive.  In 2 Tim 1:12, the KJV has “which I have committed unto him against that day” but the NKJV has “what I have committed to Him until that Day.”  In 1 John 5:13, the KJV repeats the first part of the verse and concludes, “that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.”  The NKJV has it, “that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.”

6. Most editions of the KJV have not capitalized the personal pronouns for the God-head.  The NKJV always has “He” when referring to any member of the God-head.  In addition, in Rom 8:16, where the KJV has “the Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit” the NKJV has “The spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit.”  The NKJV is consistent in using the masculine pronoun in English though the Greek can express it differently.

7. Sometimes the NKJV is simply more accurate in giving the sense.  In Prov 19:27, the KJV has “Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge.”  The NKJV has, “Cease listening to instruction, my son, and you will stray from the words of knowledge.”  In 1 Tim 6:5 the KJV has, “supposing that gain is godliness” where the NKJV has “who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.”  But by far the most important are the changes in statements referring to Christ’s deity!  In Rom 9:5 (see also Tit 2:13, 2 Pet 1:1) the KJV has “Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever” but the NKJV has “Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God.”  Quite a difference!

When someone in my church just cannot understand the older language of the KJV, I urge them to use the NKJV, especially when following me or a teacher who is using the old KJV.  A newer language Bible will change the entire verse or sentence, where the NKJV will simply replace a single word or two and the reader will follow more easily.  Also, of course, the “thees and thous” and all the older endings are removed.  Less experienced Bible readers find this a welcomed change.

Note of caution:  I must be sure a change to the KJV is for clarity and not (necessarily) for accommodation to lesser biblical interests.  I still think it is not wrong for people to struggle some in their Bible education!  It did not hurt most of us (rather it helped greatly).  However, as the translators wrote, “Now what can be more available thereto, than to deliver God’s book unto God’s people in a tongue which they understand?” (¶ 12).

Reasons why I would use the old King James Version

1. One of the most compelling reasons for remaining with an English text is the familiarity for reference and recall.  How many of us will ever quote John 3:16 in anything other than the old King James English?  When reading the older version I am so familiar with the wording that meditation and cross-referencing become second nature.

2. We may not have noticed, but much of English literature, hymnology as well as well-known commentaries include great amounts of quotation from and allusion to the King James Version.  When we sing “Here I raise mine Ebenezer—Hither by Thy help I’m come,” it just wouldn’t be the same with “Thus far the LORD has helped us.”  The fact that we don’t sing hymns much anymore, nor actually read the commentaries or classics, and therefore have lost much affinity with the KJV wording, is not a compliment to our modern age.

3. One of the most noticeable differences in the NKJV from the old, is the dropping of the emphatic sentence order.  This is one place where I think the “style” of the older version is much better!  The texts lose a lot when we read otherwise familiar phrasing in very plain English word order.  For example:  “for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect” (Lk 12:40); “even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus” (1 Thes 4:14); and “because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world” (1 Jn 4:4).

4. In addition to the sentence order is the loss of dignity in language that the older version retains.  I would rather have, “and so shall we ever be with the Lord” (1 Thes 4:17), than “and thus we shall always be with the Lord.”  I would rather have “then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child” (1 Thes 5:3), than “as labor pains upon a pregnant woman.”  Sometimes the meaning gained does not warrant the dignity lost.

5. I also miss a few of the old dynamic equivalents of the older version!  Somehow “certainly not!” does not bring the same effect as “God forbid!”  Although I know that “God” is not in the text, and we probably can’t picture an old Englishman or Puritan giving his ghastly expression, I like them anyway.

6. For my part, what I would call “faddish” changes add nothing to the reading.  Why have “do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation?”  Why not “excess?”  I don’t get any more out of “as no launderer on earth” (Mk 9:3), than I do out of “fuller on earth.”  I’m not sure about “drinking parties” (1 Pet 4:3) instead of “banquetings” except that today’s school kids have no vocabulary to compare.  “Who came in by stealth” (Gal 2:4) may give an odd image today rather than “who came in privily.”

7. Technical terms such as “ten minas” (Lk 19:13) are no improvement over “ten pounds.”  Nor is “a denarius a day” (Mt 20:2) over “a penny a day.”  Does a transliteration of an old term help our understanding over a translation of the term?  It may spare some misunderstanding but doesn’t add much to the reading.

Note of caution:  When my love for the older language surfaces, and my disappointment with the new, I must be sure I am not sacrificing the benefit to my hearers (in preaching) for the sake of my own preference.  The translators wrote, “If we will be the sons of the truth, we must consider what it speaketh, and trample upon our own credit, yea, and upon other men’s too, if either be any way a hinderance to it” (¶ 15).

And So . . .

I hope you have not faulted me in too many places for simply giving the observations of a Bible reader.  I see many of my own inconsistencies! (but I remember R.W. Emerson’s retort:  “Foolish consistency, the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by statesmen, philosophers and divines”3).    A more important element in this subject is what D.L. Moody expressed, “A man filled with the Spirit will know how to use ‘the sword of the Spirit.’  If a man is not filled with the Spirit, he will never know how to use the Book.  We are told that this is the sword of the Spirit; and what is an army good for that does not know how to use its weapons?”4 For the sword of the Spirit IS the Word of God!

Notes:
1. Quoted by Thomas G. Lewellen in an article in Vital Theological Issues, Roy Zuck, ed. (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1994) 163.
2. Thomas à Kempis, The Imitation of Christ (Chicago:  Moody, 1984) 32.
3. Quoted by F.F. Bruce, Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 323.
4. Dwight L. Moody, Spiritual Power (Chicago: Moody Press, 1997) 37.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More