Raising the Error-Alert
January 4th, 2007
(By John MacArthur)
The following is adapted from John’s upcoming book, The Truth War (Spring, 2007).
Why do so many evangelicals act as if false teachers in the church could never be a serious problem in this generation? Vast numbers seem convinced that they are “rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing—and do not know that [they] are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked” (Revelation 3:17).
In reality, the church today is quite possibly more susceptible to false teachers, doctrinal saboteurs, and spiritual terrorism than any other generation in church history. Biblical ignorance within the church may well be deeper and more widespread than at any other time since the Protestant Reformation. If you doubt that, compare the typical sermon of today with a randomly chosen published sermon from any leading evangelical preacher prior to 1850. Also compare today’s Christian literature with almost anything published by evangelical publishing houses a hundred years or more ago.
Bible teaching, even in the best of venues today, has been deliberately dumbed-down, made as broad and as shallow as possible, oversimplified, adapted to the lowest common denominator— and then tailored to appeal to people with short attention spans.
Sermons are almost always brief, simplistic, overlaid with as many references to pop culture as possible, and laden with anecdotes and illustrations. (Jokes and funny stories drawn from personal experience are favored over cross-references and analogies borrowed from Scripture itself.) Typical sermon topics are heavily weighted in favor of man-centered issues (such as personal relationships, successful living, self-esteem, how-to lists, and so on)—to the exclusion of the many Christ-exalting doctrinal themes of Scripture. In other words, what most contemporary preachers do is virtually the opposite of what Paul was describing when he said he sought “to declare . . . the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27).
Not only that, but here’s how Paul explained his own approach to gospel ministry, even among unchurched pagans in the most debauched Roman culture:
I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. (1 Corinthians 2:1–5)
Notice that Paul deliberately refused to customize his message or adjust his delivery to suit the Corinthians’ philosophical bent or their cultural tastes. When he says later in the epistle, “To the Jews I became as a Jew . . . to those who are without law, as without law . . . to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some” (1 Corinthians 9:20-22), he was describing how he made himself a servant to all (v. 19) and the fellow of those whom he was trying to reach. In other words, he avoided making himself a stumbling block. He was not saying he adapted the gospel message (which he plainly said is a stumbling block—1:23). He did not adopt methods to suit the tastes of a worldly culture.
Paul had no thought of catering to a particular generation’s preferences, and he used no gimmicks as attention-getters. Whatever antonym you can think of for the word showmanship would probably be a good description of Paul’s style of public ministry. He wanted to make it clear to everyone (including the Corinthian converts themselves) that lives and hearts are renewed by means of the Word of God and nothing else. That way they would begin to understand and appreciate the power of the gospel message.
Surely the answer to the opening question is that the meaning of “evangelical” has changed. For “evangelicalism” read “broad church pietism” not “confessional protestantism.”
But is this really new? Is it really news? Should those who hold to the primacy of historic evangelical theology just get on with evangelism, church planting and training and not get too distracted by other things?
Its true that we all need to be diligent in studying the Scriptures and checking back for ourselves to see if these things are so, like the Bereans. This would be true for churches emerging and traditional. I prefer the emerging churches that allow for much interaction and dialog over the Scriptures, rather than a single preacher who refuses discussion [doesnt the Bible say "preach the Word" and not "listen to the preaching"] and i do think we need to get back to pure Bible reading and memorization.
As for Paul, I think he did use what Don Richardson called “eye-openers” to grab his hearers’ attention, like the altar to the unknown God (acts 16), as a springboard for his message. And his message did seem to be different for the various people groups – ie, Greek thinkers in Athens (Acts 16) the Hebraic thinkers in Antioch Pisidia (Acts 13) and the more holistic thinkers in Lystra (Acts 14) who deserved an explanation for the power encounter. Nothing gimmicky in that, or compromising . . . just speaking out the good news to where people were, kinda like Jesus did . . . very much like Jesus did.
God help us all to preach the word as crucified people, in power and with fear and trembling, and let us not be known for “persuasive words” of wisdom.
“Bible teaching, even in the best of venues today, has been deliberately dumbed-down, made as broad and as shallow as possible, oversimplified, adapted to the lowest common denominator— and then tailored to appeal to people with short attention spans.”
This sounds like it could be a Pharisee criticizing Jesus to another Pharisee.
“Oh my, doesn’t this Jesus like story-telling and parables. He has deliberately dumbed-down spiritual truth, made it as broad and as shallow as possible, oversimplified it to the rabble, adapted it to the lowest common man.”
God forbid we should adapt our message to the actual needs of people. It isn’t the TV generation’s fault that they have short attention spans. And it isn’t the congenitally blind people’s fault they can’t see. But we produce ministry materials in braille. And I personally see Jesus’ stories and parables as IDEAL for people with short attention spans.
“Sermons are almost always brief, simplistic, overlaid with as many references to pop culture as possible, and laden with anecdotes and illustrations. (Jokes and funny stories drawn from personal experience are favored over cross-references and analogies borrowed from Scripture itself.)”
The Bible says that “The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law” (Mark 1:22)
And you have been given authority. Exousia.
“He avoided making himself a stumbling block.”
Who is being caused to stumble by these simple sermons which are in many ways so Christ-like? How can Rev. MacArthur criticize sermons “laden with anecdotes and illustrations” when these formed the core of the Messiah’s “preaching style”?
It’s one thing to be a stumbling block of offense to non-believers. It’s quite another thing to be an offense to nice, respectable church-goers. Offending a little one is not the same as offending a Pharisee.
“He was not saying he adapted the gospel message (which he plainly said is a stumbling block—1:23). He did not adopt methods to suit the tastes of a worldly culture.”
Not adapting the gospel message? Speaking from the perspective of a Jew in order to win Jews? Speaking from the perspective of someone under the law to win those under the law? Speaking from the perspective of those outside the law to win those outside the law? Speaking from the perspective of the weak to win the weak?
Honestly, if this isn’t “adapting” the gospel message, then what do you call it? And we’re not talking about “tastes” here. I thought we’d heard enough of this in Rev. MacArthur’s thread on so-called “Grunge Christianity.” That was where questions of middle-class taste, class-based decorum, and cultured propriety were the main basis of his assault on the preaching styles of other ministers.
Does Rev. MacArthur have similar criticisms of the preaching style that predominates in African-American churches, with the heavy interaction from the audience? Is that a vulgar capitulation to “suit the tastes of a worldly culture”?
(As though middle-class, respectable, linear culture isn’t “worldly.”)
Rev. MacArthur is stretching himself beyond his area of giftedness, which is expository preaching. I admired his broadcast Bible exposition for years. I first listened in the early 1980’s. I may have disagreed with the Calvinist and anti-Charismatic veneer that intruded into his exposition, but he was excellent nonetheless.
For a man who is capable of such careful, logical thought, I don’t understand this unreasoned, emotional, unbiblical slander. Just saying that something is worldly doesn’t make it true.
Jesus reserved his most vociferous attacks for the respectable religious establishment. And they attacked Jesus for hanging with tax collectors and sinners. When they called him “a wine-bibber and a glutton,” they were basically calling him a kind of “party animal.”
I have never been to a church service of one of these pastoral “shock jocks.” I don’t know that I would like them. I know my wife wouldn’t. But I don’t slander them, either.
Whyte, I beleive you should re-read Mark 4:10,11.
Bob S, point taken.
But Jesus followed that up by asking the disciples, “Don’t you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable?”
It seems that Jesus did expect serious followers, who had the desire to learn from him, to understand his parables.
His parable and story-telling style did stumble the Pharisees. They required “serious instruction” to consist of copious citations from the Talmud to be acceptable. I suspect they stumbled over the simplicity of Jesus’ words.
The common people did hear him gladly, whereas the Pharisees did not.
Whyte, Thanks for your kind response. As you well know, the twelve stll didn’t fully understand until Pentatcost, as the rest of Mark’s Gospel makes clear. There is no Scripture, to my knowledge, suggesting that He used methods or language to make it easier to understand the Gospel. In fact John’s Gospel makes clear that only those drawn by Him would come to Him. 6:44. I do not see in Dr. Mac’s writing where his views on Calvinism or Charismata are relevant. In any event, Whyte, I would encourage you to be more respectful toward JM based on the many Biblical commands & his position in THE Church. In CHRIST alone.
I will worry about myself if I ever haunt the site of someone I consistently was theologically and methodologically against for the sole purpose of not learning but merely being disagreeable.
Pray that I don’t do that, it does not reflect well.
I accept your gentle rebuke, Bob.
I have a question for you, and I’m not totally sure I understand what the answer is.
I look to Jesus as my role model. “Being Christ-like” has the status of a cliche in Christian circles. It is enough that when I am fully taught I will be like my Master. I am to emulate Paul to the degree that he emulates Christ. And so on.
I have dug into the very point you are making. In John 6 Jesus uses extremely offensive cannabalistic language, The Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10 he chooses a hated, heretical half-breed as the hero of the story, and in Luke 4 he highlights God’s momentary, exclusive favor on a Gentile, Naaman the Syrian.
In Jesus’ own teaching, he virtually asks for hostile rejection in his teaching. In the episodes I mentioned, just a few words of explanation would have clarified what he was saying.
Jesus, the living Word, the Incarnate God, did not strive for clarity. He seems many times to have actually striven for an offensive degree of opacity and murkiness.
Why then do we place such a premium on clarity, on the clarity of the Scripture (which you admittedly say is not the case in various situations with Jesus). We seek the same degree of clarity in our own communications, lest we offend, lest we be misinterpreted, etc.
For example, in John 6, if we had been giving similar instruction on eating and drinking the Lord’s body and blood, and a large group of serious followers (disciples), we could in a few statements dispel their “literal” view of Christ’s words.
Who would risk the loss of followers over a simple misunderstanding? And if Christ would, then why aren’t we willing to adopt Christ’s teaching style? He is very seriously the good shepherd, and pastors are also “shepherds” to the flock.
The question: Why do we insist on clarity in Scripture and in teaching when our Exemplar did not?
I heard a guy on TV use Romans 10:9,10 and saying that this was not only a salvation passage but should be used to confess things with your mouth and believe in your heart so that God will give them to you…then he said, “I don’t want to be poor” and said “that is why I confess with my mouth and believe in my heart, fully, with faith, and God gives it to me.”
Amazing…
Whyte…why do you continue to come to a blog you disagree with so much? Seems like you are doing the same thing you believe MacArthur to be doing…
Whyte Stone:
Your feedback is welcome. Your efforts to be deliberately insulting, and to overwhelm the meta here with multiple long comments in thread after thread are not. Please exercise a bit more self-control.
Steven, what can I say? I presented a critique of Rev. MacArthur’s post. I found his critique of contemporary preaching to be wanting, and I suggested that the same criticisms could have been made of Jesus’ sermons.
Likewise, I found his exegesis of I Corinthians 9:20-22 to be greatly disappointing coming from someone whose expository skills I admire so much.
I have found this site to be most stimulating. It is refreshing to engage in a spirited discussion with people who have a deep respect for the Scriptures.
Other people have mentioned the “iron sharpens iron” passage in Proverbs in connection with this site. I heartily concur.
I am curious how you see my methodology differing from the methodology of Rev. MacArthur and others who frequently post here. In most of my posts I work with Scripture quite intensively. My earnest desire is to be a constructive, edifying, and Biblical participant in these threads.
On occasion it seems to me that Rev. MacArthur doesn’t provide adequate Biblical support for his criticisms and attacks on other ministers and ministries. In those cases, I point out the disconnects, particularly where Scripture seems, in my opinion, misused.
If you google “shepherds fellowship pulpit” the first site should lead you to an interesting illustration.
Or you can try this: http://www.gracechurch.org/sfellowship/pulpitcm/front.asp
* * * * * * * *
Andrew, I share the valuation you place on increased participation for congregants. I find that maximum participation permeates Paul’s description of a desireable Christian gathering (I Corinthians 14:26-33).
Paul’s statement, “You can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged” endorses a high level of participation in Christian meetings. It also speaks of a spiritual spontaneity disallowed by 1) large group meetings, and 2) the unbiblical nature of professionalized ministry.
Seth, Phil, thanks for your input.
My attention was drawn to something Rev. MacArthur wrote in his post.
He remarked that “Sermons are almost always brief, simplistic . . . then tailored to appeal to people with short attention spans.”
Blog sites are a lot like that. I just believe that people deserve thoughtful responses to their comments and questions. The issues at stake in these threads are important.
Whyte, Thank you for your serious question. for what it’s worth let me give you my impressions. Firstly, we can never lose sight of the fact that the Man, JESUS, was GOD in the flesh. He was (and always has been) omnipotent & omniscient. Recall the OT passage: “My ways (& thoughts) are not your ways (or thoughts).” Also Dt. 29:29 comes to mind. Secondly I cannot be Christ-like w/o the enabing power of the HOLY SPIRIT. Rom 7&8. If my teaching is not SPIRIT-led, it is fruitless. Finally, & most importantly, our understanding of the Scripture comes as we continue to study, meditate on, & teach it. This is why it is so important to read Godly Bible teachers like JM & Piper. Of course we need, ultimately, rely on our SPIRIT-led understanding of GOD’s WORD whenever we teach (which I pray this response is). In CHRIST alone. Bob s
Whytestone, Mark S, Phil, et al,
Mark S makes a good point with Mark 4. Maybe it is God’s will for some to never understand. That still does not relieve us of responsibility, but it does relieve us of a lot of it. LOTS to consider there.
Here is the biblical balance, I believe. WS mentioned that to give the gospel to a Jew from a Jewish perspective is smart. He could not be more right.
The problem comes when we take ungodly cultural trends and philosophies in and let that shape our presentation of the gospel. That is the essence of the heresy that is the Emergent. Postmoderns are not practicing Jews. Postmodernism is blatant sin. It is the avoidance or outright denial of truth.
Try this for example. If I want to reach carpenters it might be a smart move to go into construction or hang out at the union hall or go to a construction site. However, to reach a drunk, I need to stay sober, because drunkeness is a sin. Carpentry is not. To become postmodern is to deny Christ because He spoke a lot of doctrinal certainty–the very thing to which postmodernism is opposed.
A distinction that makes a difference, as Al Mohler would say.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Whyte Stonne,
You said, “Who is being caused to stumble by these simple sermons which are in many ways so Christ-like?”
Answer: 1. Me. I can’t stand to waste my time listening to these clowns prattle about their week. I had a week, too. Want to hear all about it?
2. Unbelievers. They are made to believe that doctrine is unimportant and repentance irrelevant.
3. Believers. They, too, are made to believe that doctrine is unimporant and holiness unnecessary.
(Ask the average churchie what sanctification is. They don’t know. But many of them have heard of spiritual formation.)
Christ’s sermons were not simple. They were actually very complex, with many Scriptural references. AND He never down played truth. It is all He was about in His teaching ministry. (After all, are we supposed to teach fiction?) In fact, He said, “If you are ashamed of Me and My words, I will be ashamed of you…”
In Christ,
Phil Perkins. PS–Bob S, not Mark S–sorry.
I’m thankful I never was under one of these preachers, but only ones who have boldly proclaimed the truth.
I think Dr. Cornelius Van Til had it right when hes said that we need to confront and tell those who don’t know Christ they have no foundation for any reasoning, intelligibility, etc. b/c the God of the Bible presents Himself as True and not probably true.
One thing I noticed about Christ’s messages are His boldness to proclaim that He is the I am and not bust out all the reasoning needed to justify His claim. I’m afraid that many people are afraid to just proclaim the Word of God as is and are watering it down and presenting it indirectly.
I do agree that there needs to be some sort of “catering” and of course gentleness with our DELIVERY, but not the message itself.
Dumbed down. I hate that expression especially when it is applied to the church. Why is it that we feel like terms like “sanctification” just have too many syllables to be in our vocabulary? Thanks for the ALERT.
Josh
“…the word of God is not bound.”
–2 Timothy 2:9
Someone asked me once: If you preach a message and it offends your whole congregation…but one person is saved…is it worth it?
Feedback anyone?
And on the opposite hand…I would ask…if you preach a sermon and it doesn’t aoofend anyone..but no one is saved…is it worth it?
Excellent points, Eddie, and Josh.
Phil Perkins.
To respond to the question above concerning why do individuals and groups put such a high premium on clarity in Scripture when our “Exempler” did not, it can be said that Christ did not muddy the Scriptures in any sense, but sought to clarify. To the Pharisees: “Go and learn what this means” and He quotes Hosea. To the Saducees: “you are mistaken, not understanding the Scpripture.” To the men on the road to Emmaus: “Then beginning with Moses and will all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.” Jesus EXPLAINED Scripture. All of it. His Sermon on the mount was filled likewise with Scriptural clarification. Paul likewise exhorted Timothy to “accurately handle the Truth.” That entire phrase is a testament to clarity in preaching (and I might add comes in the context of Paul singling out two individuals who were not living up to that responsibility- having “gone astray from the truth…” Is Paul’s singling out “slanderous,” or guarding what was entrusted to him?). Much more could be said for the clarity of Scripture, much of which I have learned from John MacArthur, but space and time fail. We have the Spirit to guide us into Truth, and to proclaim it with boldness, clarity, and fulness. Let us strive toward clarity for the sake of the Name.
Let us all read Psalm 119, which is written for such discussions I think. One verse here from it, verse 104: “From Your precepts I get understanding; Therefore I hate every false way.” Understanding, not confusion. my love to all in the Truth.
Whyte:
You wrote:
The question: Why do we insist on clarity in Scripture and in teaching when our Exemplar did not?
The big difference between Jesus and some of the teachers critiqued here is that when Jesus was pushed for clarity, he gave it, whereas the modern teachers deny that it exists.
You wrote:
In Jesus’ own teaching, he virtually asks for hostile rejection in his teaching. In the episodes I mentioned, just a few words of explanation would have clarified what he was saying. Jesus, the living Word, the Incarnate God, did not strive for clarity. He seems many times to have actually striven for an offensive degree of opacity and murkiness.
Again, modern lack of clarity is asserted to avoid offense. Jesus’ “lack of clarity” was a sign of condemnation on those who wouldn’t hear.
Hey Scott,
I read the Scripture, and when I see complexity, I try not to force uniformity. If an issue can fall in more than one direction, legitimately and scripturally, then I choose not to take a position that would force me to explain away Scripture.
Others can choose to do this if they wish. They can resort to making appeals to “the context,” making appeals to the Greek, making appeals to “careful hermeneutics” or any other standard. I have observed that these appeals are generally made where a legitimate alternative understanding of Scripture exists.
I have convictions based on Scripture, you know that. And I “compare Scripture with Scripture” as you know, which is (dare I say it?) an appropriate hermeneutical technique.
I don’t insist on clarity the way many do. I don’t claim clarity where I don’t see it.
There’s a long tradition of insisting that where the Bible is unclear, the fault is in human understanding, not in the clarity of the Scripture itself. Either in our intellectual limitations, or in the transmission of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, or in the translation process, or in our knowledge of the culture — somewhere the human element has polluted the clarity and perfection of the Scriptures “in the original manuscripts.”
I must insist that this is an article of faith, an article of faith unsupported by the Bible.
If you want to have non-Biblical or extra-Biblical articles of faith, that’s fine. Our faith in the divine selection of the books in the canon is another such non-Biblical, extra-Biblical articles of faith.
I accept the canon as it is. I would not waste my time or energy trying to take out a book or insert a book. I simply live with the ambiguity of the human element in the formation of the canon.
(pause)
Let me put it this way: my faith in Christ, my walk with God, my reliance on the Scriptures — none of these relies on an inerrant Bible or a perfect canon.
If there are mistakes in the Bible, so be it. My faith in Christ is unshaken, my walk with God continues, I continue to read my Bible.
If there is a book in the Bible which was “inserted by accident,” or there is a book that was left out, so be it. My faith in Christ is unshaken, my walk with God continues, I continue to read my Bible.
Andrew Jones, fancy reading you here. I wonder if anyone besides Phil knows who you are. Your the respected emergent The Tall Skinny Kiwi.
One more thing when I say respected, that is not sarcasm…You are more gracious than most in the movement and quite a bit more sober minded…I look forward to listening in on your ‘conversation’ hear.
Aaron, you began your post, “To respond to the question above concerning why do individuals and groups put such a high premium on clarity in Scripture when our “Exempler” did not.”
I’ll go ahead and answer.
You did an excellent job showing how Jesus utilized the Scriptures. He utilized them to rebuke the Pharisees in their willful rejection of God, himself, and the Scriptures. I agree with you, Jesus explained much Scripture.
He also placed himself above divinely inspired Scripture, I’m sure you know. In the Sermon on the Mount, he says several times, “You have heard it said . . . but I say unto you.”
I suggest that at these points, his words superceded the Old Testament law. When he and his disciples were criticized for working on the Sabbath, he cited examples in the Hebrew Scriptures of similar law-breaking.
The Pharisees wanted to nail him for breaking the Sabbath, and he simply brought up the example of David being hungry and eating shewbread in the temple.
The Pharisees thought the teaching in the Ten Commandments about not working on the Sabbath, and the subsequent execution of a Sabbath-breaker, were sufficient to establish the clarity of the Scriptures.
Apparently they were not.
Scott, a little more cyber ink if I may?
I don’t deny clarity. I doubt that McLaren does either (although I haven’t read anything by him, so I don’t know).
Given the diversity in the Emergent Church movement, I’m sure some people categorically deny any clarity, but I’ll bet that a lot do.
Also, in those areas where I do not see clarity, it is not for the sake of being inoffensive that I do not assert clarity. It’s because I don’t see it.
[Lots of people see clarity where others don't: Calvinists, Arminians, eternal security proponents, dispensationalists, Papal Supremacy people, amillenialists, Christian Reconstructionists, all sorts of people.]
Friends, I have a prayer request. Let those who submit to the Lord in humility and prayer pray for those people who seek controversy, who desire to quarrel over words and meanings, and the fruit of such actions such as dissension, envy, slander, and evil suspicions.
There are those individuals who come and use interaction with these articles as a pretense to be contentious at all times, at all points, and with all people, unless those people conform to that individual’s peculiar understandings.
It would appear to my sinful, depraved, and selfish eyes that they enjoy being a voice of opposition, yet eagerly claiming a humble way.
Because of this, I am afraid we all might get sidetracked of the simplicity and clarity found in scripture. Let us pray for those individuals. Their interaction does not appear to be for learning or honest disagreement but because they enjoy disagreeing and “shaking things Up”. Far cry from the New Testament when we could speak the truth to someone and they would humbly be corrected, or simply move along.
Because I have been guilty of these things myself, I stand corrected and encourage my fellow brethren to correct me when I am wrong. I depend on it, because at times I am blind to my own wicked desires for contention based not on truth, but on my own pride and wisdom, I need the brethren to remind me of the Lord and his sufferings.
Disagreement is healthy, and we should always be charitable. Forsaking truth for total agreement is never Godly or wise, nor is forsaking truth for disagreement. Disagreement wherein the objective is to uncover the truth is a good thing.
This brings us to Unity. I like how David F. Wells described biblical unity. Referring to Ephesians 4:4-6 and Paul’s declaration to the church that there is one lord, faith, body, spirit, baptism, and God, Dr. Wells writes,
“The unity of the of the people of God is as secure as the trinity. The church’s responsibility, therefore, is not to create unity, as the ecumenical movement proposed, but to preserve the unity that God himself has already created in Christ. What militates against this unity is immaturity in doctrinal understanding (Eph. 4:14) and immaturity in moral behavior (Eph. 4:25-32)”
-(Wells, David F. “Above All Earthly Pow’rs” page 296)
Sorry for the long post. Let us pray for those who desire to be a trumpet. Perhaps they should get thier own blogsite?
Dr. Macarthur, enjoying your series. Thanks!
“I am afraid we all might get sidetracked off the simplicity and clarity found in scripture.”
You know, it’s difficult to engage you on the issue of clarity. I present Scriptural examples of a lack of clarity, and you simply come back, taking the high ground, and re-assert the clarity of Scripture.
In February, 2006 Rev. MacArthur posted the following:
“Biblical faith, therefore, is rational. It is reasonable. It is intelligent. It makes good sense. And spiritual truth is meant to be rationally contemplated, examined logically, studied, analyzed, and employed as the only reliable basis for making wise judgments. That process is precisely what Scripture calls discernment.”
(“The Rationality of Faith”)
Steven, I am responding to Rev. MacArthur’s assertion of the clarity of Scripture, and comparing it to Scripture. I agree with him, that “spiritual truth is meant to be rationally contemplated, examined logically, studied, analyzed, and employed as the only reliable basis for making wise judgments.”
Excuse me, my wife needs my urgent help finding her inhaler.
Thank you for your prayers and for your concern.
Whyte:
I’ll confess that trying to follow all of the posts is a bit confusing to me at times. I guess it mostly reveals how limited this forum is.
There does seem to be a difference in understanding about the level of clarity in the Bible. I do not believe that the Bible is equally clear on all things nor is it exhaustively clear on all things. However, when we start to discuss particular issues, I do see more clarity than you seem to see. I believe that there is a crisis in evangelical Christianity when it comes to submitting to clear portions of Scripture.
Hey Scott,
*chuckle* Thanks. This reply may seem like a non-sequitur at first, but it is not.
I realized something new yesterday. And it has grown directly out of these discussions. I hope you don’t mind if I use up a little cyber ink on it.
I’ve always liked Paul’s description of the body of Christ being made of different organs. Years ago I interpreted it in terms of the diversity of gifts in the local congregations. And I still accept that application.
I got a lot of understanding when I compared a bone to the stomach.
A bone is pretty much a rigid and unchanging structure of calcium, although a healthy bone does have sufficient resilience and flexibility to keep it from being brittle. A bone is insulated from foreign matter gaining entry into the marrow which would cause a destructive infection. The foreign material and subsequent infection would prevent the bone from doing what the body needs it to do.
The stomach is totally flexible and changeable. It shrinks in size when empty, and expands when filled with nourishment. It absorbs any nourishment that comes in. It’s hydrochloric acid dissolves bulk nourishment into smaller, more useable units for the body’s use. The acid also kills most of the bacteria and viruses which would injure the body.
When the bone and the stomach look at one another, there is absolutely no “intuitive” appreciation of the other, at least to begin with.
The bone looks at the stomach from the perspective of its function and own existence. “How can the stomach be that way? It’s so dangerous! It takes in everything from the outside with no differentiation at all! Allowing all that foreign matter into yourself will kill you. And look how changeable and formless it is. Where is it’s stability, its enduring form? If I were like that, the Body would die.”
And the stomach looks at the bone from the perspective of its function and own existence. “How can the bone be that way? It’s so dead! It so insulated from anything new entering it. Look how rigid and inflexible it is. Where’s the flexibility and the adaptability? If I were like that, the Body would die!”
They are both right. If the bone had the openness and flexibility of the stomach, the body would die. And if the stomach was as rigid and inflexible as the bone were, the body would die.
These differences are based on giftedness, calling, and personality. The bone and the stomach will never really understand one another. They’ll always shake their heads when they look at one another. But they may learn to appreciate one another if they accept the diversity of the organs in the Body of Christ.
I had already accepted the applicability of the bone and stomach concepts to the larger Body of Christ. But I hadn’t accounted for the *hundreds* of bones in the Body.
You’ve seen me criticize systematic theology as a means of discrediting the value of clarity and system. But in doing that, I haven’t allowed Paul’s diversity metaphor to have it’s full sway.
The bones in my body, the discrete, separate bones, MUST be rigid, relatively inflexible, discrete and separate for the Body to be healthy. (No-brainer, eh?) If the bones in my leg were fused, or those in my feet and ankles were fused, or my vertebrae were fused, etc., my essential mobility would be damaged.
Somehow the distinct theological systems, the distinct denominations, sects, and broad umbrellas of Christendom (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox) are all necessary for the health of the entire Body. One, uniform, regimented church would not do . . . apparently.
Not all Christian groups are that rigid and inflexible, however. And these other form muscles, ligaments, tendons, internal organs, etc. (Colossians 2:19; Ephesians 4:16) There is a lot of excellent teaching here, and many fruitful analogies to be drawn.
Suffice it to say, numerous structures in the Body are not as rigid as bones. Indeed, the entire complex of muscles, sinews, tendons and ligaments give mobility to the otherwise powerless bones.
But without bones, the rest of my tissues would collapse in a heap and the body would die.
As will come as no surprise, I generally see myself as a stomach. I ingest material which would not only be dangerous to other organs, it’s given me stomach upset and nausea from time to time!
The way I conceive the Body metaphor has other fruitfulness and utility. It legitimizes the migration of “cells” from one structure to another in Christendom. A Baptist converts to Catholicism, a Pentecostal becomes a Methodist, a Presbyterian becomes a Baptist — because giftedness and personality differ, because of a host of reasons.
As a “stomach” I am beginning to have an appreciation for the rigid, interconnected systematic theology “bones” require. I don’t really like rigid system, being a stomach and all (what a surprise!), but Paul’s Body metaphor has “sufficient clarity” to
cut the bones some slack.
So, with reference to seeing different degrees of clarity in Scripture and discerning a crisis in evangelicalism, I believe such differences are to be expected, and accepted.
The differences are okay. At least from the perspective of this “stomach.”
(Does that mean I have a stomach for diversity?)
I’m still waiting for WS to address the following replies, unless of course he’s just here to spout random ignorance such as claiming his faith could stand without an inerrant source – and then even being accepting of the claim that there could be error in Scripture!
Liberalism truly is a frightening malady.
—————
Whytestone, [Bob] S, Phil, et al,
[Bob] S makes a good point with Mark 4. Maybe it is God’s will for some to never understand. That still does not relieve us of responsibility, but it does relieve us of a lot of it. LOTS to consider there.
Here is the biblical balance, I believe. WS mentioned that to give the gospel to a Jew from a Jewish perspective is smart. He could not be more right.
The problem comes when we take ungodly cultural trends and philosophies in and let that shape our presentation of the gospel. That is the essence of the heresy that is the Emergent. Postmoderns are not practicing Jews. Postmodernism is blatant sin. It is the avoidance or outright denial of truth.
Try this for example. If I want to reach carpenters it might be a smart move to go into construction or hang out at the union hall or go to a construction site. However, to reach a drunk, I need to stay sober, because drunkeness is a sin. Carpentry is not. To become postmodern is to deny Christ because He spoke a lot of doctrinal certainty–the very thing to which postmodernism is opposed.
A distinction that makes a difference, as Al Mohler would say.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
———————–
Whyte Stonne,
You said, “Who is being caused to stumble by these simple sermons which are in many ways so Christ-like?”
Answer:
1. Me. I can’t stand to waste my time listening to these clowns prattle about their week. I had a week, too. Want to hear all about it?
2. Unbelievers. They are made to believe that doctrine is unimportant and repentance irrelevant.
3. Believers. They, too, are made to believe that doctrine is unimporant and holiness unnecessary.
(Ask the average churchie what sanctification is. They don’t know. But many of them have heard of spiritual formation.)
Christ’s sermons were not simple. They were actually very complex, with many Scriptural references. AND He never down played truth. It is all He was about in His teaching ministry. (After all, are we supposed to teach fiction?) In fact, He said, “If you are ashamed of Me and My words, I will be ashamed of you…”
In Christ,
Phil Perkins. PS–Bob S, not Mark S–sorry.
Whyte:
As one you would probably call a Bone (I’ll admit the possibilities for puns are limitless; it could keep our discussion from being too caustic
), my concern is still for the health of the body, which includes the stomach. While, in your analogy, you can take in and process things that I can’t because I’m a Bone, there are still things that you might take in and try to process that are bad for all of us–like Drano! Take something more subtle like arsenic or carbon monoxide–substances that are deadly but not noticeable to most senses of the body until the damage is done. To keep stretching your analogy, a body has to beware of cancerous cells that are able to co-exist withing the body without immediately killing it. However, if these cells are not removed they will continue to spread and thus kill the body.
At the risk of becoming too crass, doesn’t your body analogy need a colon and other organs to expel waste?
Hi Jay,
You’ve asked me to reply to Phil Perkins, which I’m happy to do. So you won’t mind if I address my replies to Phil. (BTW, Solomon wrote, “Where words are many, sin is not absent.” I write with that in mind.)
Phil, as you undoubtedly know, the idea of presenting the gospel to Jewish people from a Jewish perspective isn’t mine, it’s Paul’s. The entire passage is in I Cor. 9:19-23.
I interpret the passage thusly. Paul always tried to take into account the mind-set, psychology, or world-view of his listeners. When he says “I became like,” he could have meant several things.
I believe that he tried to understand “where a person was coming from.” I suspect he dug into his own experience to understand his audience.
Thus, he says, “I became like a Jew,” “I became like one under the law,” “I became like one not having the law,” “I became weak.”
No matter how you parse it, Paul is saying that, depending on his audience, he spoke from perspective 1) of a Jew, 2) of one under the law, 3) of one not having the law, 4) of one weak.
In other words, he understood the barriers to understanding the gospel that were specific to different types of people, their specific sorts of misunderstandings or needs, their specific value system, their specific world-views.
Phil, I’ve been scolded for writing overly long posts, but I want to answer you well. You wrote,
“The problem comes when we take ungodly cultural trends and philosophies in and let that shape our presentation of the gospel. That is the essence of the heresy that is the Emergent. Postmoderns are not practicing Jews. Postmodernism is blatant sin.”
Postmodernists probably come closest to the people Paul described as “not having the law.”
Point 1. Paul acknowledged that he was indeed under the Law of Christ, just as he previously denied being “under the law.”
Point 2. The habit of taking his audience’s world-view into account as he presented the gospel became automatic.
Remember that Paul was born and raised in the Gentile city of Tarsus–he was part of the Diaspora (“Dispersed” Judaism). Paul was genuinely multi-cultural.
He understood the world-view of the Jewish “common man” as well as the “under-the-law” Jewish world view of the religious. He understood the Gentile world view “without the law.” He understood the world view of the weak, I think because he understood his own weakness.
IN PARTICULAR: He understood the attraction God-fearing Gentiles had for Judaism, as well as the barriers to their full acceptance of Judaism (namely, circumcision). I am convinced that this, more than anything else, was behind his uncompromising hostility to Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy–the Torah (see Romans & Galatians).
Paul understood Isaiah’s words: “Build up, build up, prepare the road! Remove the obstacles out of the way of my people!” (Isaiah 57:14)
Paul would have said, “To the postmodern, I became as one postmodern.”
It is possible to receive and believe the gospel WITHOUT first accepting the philosophical belief in the existence of absolute truth.
A belief in the existence of absolute truth will probably develop when one is fully incorporated into an evangelical church.
One last point Phil. All of the mind-sets Paul describes are, in your words, ungodly, blatant sin, and involve a denial of the truth. Not just the Gentile (read: postmodern) mindset.
Phil, Jay, I hope this clarifies things at least a little.
Jay, you challenged me to answer anotherof Phil’s posts.
Hey Scott.
I totally accept your development of the Body metaphor. Metaphors are flexible. Someone I label a “Bone” may indeed function like the Immune System, fighting the sorts of infections and dangers you are describing.
Indeed, the “Body” image can apply to a local congregation, a denomination, or to Christendom. And truly, local congregations can die from rampant infection (especially contentiousness or sexual sin), just as denominations can wither away from a slow growing cancer (like compromise or clericalism).
Interesting how specific deficiencies will affect a specific organ but not the others. Or a vitamin overdose will damage a specific organ but not all of them.
Systematic Scatology: documenting everything we reject and why. But yes, the Body has redundant systems for fighting disease and eliminating toxic waste.
I’m glad Paul left us with such a fruitful metaphor.
On what grounds do we declare that “win” in 1 Cor. 9 refers to salvation? Where else does Paul use this terminology?
Question: who cleaned up someone’s complaints about “prattling on” about how someone’s week went?
I thought those comments were fairly illuminating in the context of this discussion.
Dear Whyte,
I commend you for sticking your neck out. My understanding here is that Jesus’ preaching was unique, being that He IS the Gospel. Also, may we never see the “simple” preacher as less effective if indeed his preaching is in THE TEXT. What I’m hearing here is really just a defense for the TEXT. And you should embrace it, Whyte. Whenever I visit another church, I always leave hungry because there was very little TEXT. So call Jesus’ “preaching style” what you will, but we have the whole counsel of The Word and a monumental responsibility to it!
Whyte,
I’m sorry. I only now saw that you addressed me. You are wrong in three ways.
First, Paul did not speak from any “perspective” but that of a saved Jew. He often tagged the message to something his audience knew. On Mars Hill he started with the unknown god, but when he finished all knew that Paul was calling them from their gods to the one God, Christ. The message DOES NOT CHANGE.
Second, Paul practiced good communication. The Emergent is practicing eclecticism. Electicism is the mixing of world views. The Emergent is a mix of a sinful world view (postmodernism) and Christianity. The result is not converts to Christ, but a new, more acceptable religion that seems Christian to the casual eye This new religion has the popular appeal of being vaguely “Christian” without the demands for intellectual and behavioral repentance.
If you doubt me, consider what the head of Emergent Village said: “Emergent doesn’t have a position on absolute truth, or on anything for that matter.”–Tony Jones.
Third, you have forgotten WHAT PAUL SAID, himself. He said that folks are only saved by the “foolishness” of preaching. This is a widespread Evangelical problem, not just Emergent. Namely, we do not witness, so we see no converts. Then we look for techniques, when we ought to be praying for boldness. Flesh dependence, not Spirit dependence is the problem and it’s blasphemous, because it seeks to do what God has said only He can do–save souls.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Whyte,
(First, as an aside, please read into my writing a tone of gentleness, not harshness.)
I must disagree with your stretching of Paul’s analogy of the body. You have stated that bones will never understand the stomach, and vice versa,and have thus said that there can be parts of the body of Christ which do not understand each other, and that is acceptable in your understanding. You ignore, however, all the other exhortations of Paul to achieve unity of thought, unity of understanding. You ignore the other side of the analogy that all the parts must work together for the common good. The emphasis in the body analogy texts are just as focused on unity as diversity. You wrote: “One uniform, regimented Church would not do…apparently.” Yet 1 Cor 12:25 says the diversity is there so that there may be no division. What you are accepting is division. We are to be One according to Christ in John 17. Indeed, in 1 Cor 3 did not Paul call fleshly those who said “I am of Paul” or “I am of Apollos” (Read “I am a Baptist” I am a Pentecostal”?) Diversity does not mean division, certainly not with respect to doctrine. Rather it is God’s design for unity (read Eph 4:16 in light of Eph 4:13, the diverse gifts of Christ are there to help us achieve unity in Christ in all His fulness). Perhaps you as a stomach ought to rely more on the Head (Colossians 2:19, just as you quoted) to tell you what is good for you to ingest.
Thank you, Aaron. I appreciate the fact that you wanted your reply to be read understanding that you wrote with a spirit of gentleness and concern , and not debate.
From the time I was a young man I knew the high value Jesus and Paul placed on unity. “May they be one, even as you are in me and I am in you.” Disunity in the Body of Christ was a problem for me.
I agree with you that the diversity of gifts is supposed to be a harmonious experience where our differences enhance our ministries. “Celebration of Diversity” started here.
Aaron, I’ve been focused on the problem of divisions in the Church on and off all my adult life. This is the conclusion I have come to.
I believe Christian unity is rooted in the Holy Spirit and in love. I believe that unity of thought and belief is a desireable goal, one encouraged in Scripture.
When intellectual, ideological unity is not possible, it is “the Spirit of unity in the bond of peace” that holds us together.
We have a number of Scriptural options open to us whenwe believe a belief or teaching is incorrect. One such option is to begin with love: “Love covers a multitude of sins.” Another is to “Keep your opinions between yourself and God.”
I used to be a strident young Christian intellectual ready to argue down people in home bible studies. I sometimes wonder how the people survived me! And as you know from these threads, I still have my moments.
But I determined that perfect intellectual agreement was impossible, and that since Jesus’ high priestly prayer (John 17) was for our perfect unity, that our unity could not be based on doctrine, on our interpretation of the Bible.
I concluded that Christian unity comes from the Spirit and is based on love.
The problem of disunity continues. It was only in the last few years that the intrinsic diversity in Paul’s Body metaphor gave me a way of accepting the rancorous, intractable differences between groups of Christians.
I appreciate you highlighting the fact that our diversity should be a source of strength for us. Unfortunately, in our flesh and perversity, Christian diversity becomes an opportunity for rancorous attacks and caricature.
God have mercy on me, a sinner.
Whyte:
I have really enjoyed interacting with you in these threads. I’m entering a period where I’m not going to be able to post for a while, but maybe some day in the future we’ll be able to converse again.
In our interactions, I believe the core of our disagreements center around the understanding of the New Covenant and how that is lived out. This will be the lasting thing I take away from our discussions that I will really have to think through.
May we both be sanctified by the truth.
And I have enjoyed interacting with you as well.
God bless you, your family, and your little ones.
It was for freedom that Christ set you free.
Whyte and Aaron,
The idea that doctrine is not the source of unity is dangerous, worldly, and contrary to Scripture and our Lord’s words.
While Whyte’s aim toward unity is commendable, his doctrine is wrong. AND his fruit proves it. (Will explain at the end.)
Whyte said, “…I determined that perfect intellectual agreement was impossible, and that since Jesus’ high priestly prayer (John 17) was for our perfect unity, that our unity could not be based on doctrine, on our interpretation of the Bible.” (Notice the Emergent idea of “I determined” in lieu of “Scripture says” and the illogical notion of a “unity” that is simultaneously “perfect” and doctrinally unsound.)
Jesus asked God to sanctify the apostles in “truth” in the very passage to which Whyte refers. Unity is part of holiness (sanctification.) Strife is evil. Was Jesus’ solution to bring in love and unity by means of the ignorance of doctrine? No–the solution was more truth, not less. In Philippians Paul said, “And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment…” So love increases in “real knowledge and all discernment,” not less.
Jude says of those bringing in false teaching, “These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage.” So then, false teachers, not those seeking to defend the faith, divide.
Here are three subtle ways these discussions go wrong. First, “love” in Evangelical circles usually means being polite and non-confrontational. This is not so. Jesus was so loving that He always dealt with error directly. He knew souls were at stake, making silence a sin. Biblical love is obedience to God (I John 5:2-3), not gushy-goo. Only godly men can love in a godly way. The sham love of effeminacy and cowardice has no place in the real faith.
Second, we misidentify the real dividers. Brian McLaren is the divider. He has done so by bringing in false teaching, constanly finding fault with believers. If you care to read his books, you will find what I call drive-by smears against believers on just about every page. He calls us “moderately-educated” in one passage, “arrogant” in others. So, why is it we are to be unified in not caring about whether or not his doctrine infiltrates the assembly? Why not end the strife the biblical way–expel the false teacher?
Third, we bring worldly ideas to the discussion. Whyte said, “…our diversity should be a source of strength for us.” Really? The Bible calls for doctinal unity. Whyte calls for doctrinal diversity. Who’s right, God or Whyte? OR do some logic. With one breath, Whyte calls for “unity.” With the next breath he calls for “diversity.” Which is it? Tolerance on subjects not stipulated in Scripture is a scriptural ethic. Doctrinal fuzziness is not. You will not find the Bible ever encouraging doctrinal diverstiy. That is simply a notion borrowed from bumper stickers and public service announcements for the latest political feel-good fad, not the Bible.
Finally, remember I wrote that we would take a look at some of the fruit of Whyte? Here it is: Whyte talks of “diversity,” “unity,” and “love.” However, he still defends a false teacher who smears believers. Whyte’s disobedience to the plain teaching of Scripture proves his doctrine is wrong.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Phil, you have experienced great disappointment in your life. As a result, a root of bitterness has sprung up.
I don’t know the trouble that results from this bitterness, but you know, as does God.
I don’t know who it is you need to forgive, but you know who, as does God.
Whyte,
Actually, I just read that stuff in the Bible.
Can you answer my argument logically and biblically?
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Yes, I can answer your arguments.
But it remains that a root of bitterness has sprung up in your life, and there is someone you need to forgive.
Dear Phil,
I wrote the logical and Scriptural reply you requested, but it was far too long for this venue. If you want an edited copy, e-mail me at whytestonne@hotmail.com.
I would simply say that you have reviled and slandered me (check the dictionary definitions, I chose the correct words). According to Scripture, revilers and slanderers will not enter the kingdom of heaven: these are works of the flesh.
You need to read my posts more carefully before you critique me. Misrepresenting people you disagree with is not a good or noble thing to do.
I forgive you, Phil.
Whyte,
Send your answer to my websites “Zits” or “Al” as a comment on the latest blog post. Then I will post it as a separate blog post at “Zits.” That way you can make it public and I can answer.
Ok?
One note, though: Leave out the personal speculation about motivations. Critique only my arguments–are they logical, righteous, and biblical? I have shown you that courtesy and such courtesy should be returned.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Whyte,
Send your answer to my websites “Zits” (by clicking my name) or “Al” (at http://dontadddontsubtract.blogspot.com/) as a comment on the latest blog post. Then I will post it as a separate blog post at “Zits.” That way you can make it public and I can answer.
Ok?
One note, though: Leave out the personal speculation about motivations. Critique only my arguments–are they logical, righteous, and biblical? I have shown you that courtesy and such courtesy should be returned.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Phil, speaking the truth in love is not always perceived as “courtesy” or politeness.
Your disappointment has grown into bitterness. That bitterness has caused you a great deal of trouble. Your unwillingness to forgive has been a serious problem for a long time.
Well, I will continue to show you that courtesy. Please send me your answer. I think my readers will enjoy reading them.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Phil, I have reconsidered. There are several passages of Scripture which have come to mind, discouraging me from pursuing this discussion with you further.
Sorry for denying your readers the enjoyment of reading my response to you.
Whyte,
I’m disappointed. I’ll just excerpt what we have said so far over to Zits. Feel free to answer over there if you wish.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.