Category Archives: Ministry

George Swinnock, The Christian Man’s Calling, 1.4b

25 Thursday Feb 2021

Posted by in George Swinock, Preaching, Rhetoric

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

This is a continuation of working through George Swinnock’s The Godly Man’s Picture. The previous post on this may be found here. In this post I primarily look at the introductory exhortation to pursue godliness with industry. It is a remarkable rhetorical exercise, demonstrating a great mastery over language. It is the sort of language which would make someone from a far future culture wonder if this constitutes “poetry”, in that the language is so compressed and controlled. Not only do I find such control of language fascinating, I also think that a great deal of preaching and teaching in the church would be improved by a greater ability to express propositions not merely with theological accuracy, but also with a passion which matches the content and helps the listener both understand and apply the exhortation. When the expression of the truth contradicts the purpose and content of the truth, we actually make it harder for the turth to have the desired effect. Yes, God can use the most incompetent speaker; but there is no reason we should strive to maximize our incompetence.

B.        Pursue Godliness With Industry:

1.         He is laborious in his efforts

2.         He takes advantage of all opportunity to be godly.

Secondly, To make religion one’s business, containeth [includes the concept] to pursue it with industry in our conversations. 

He then follows this proposition up with an expansion of the concept. I have broken it down by clauses and grouping so that the overall structure of this exhortation can be seen clearly. I will note the rhetorical elements below

A man that makes his calling his business 

is not lazy, but laborious about it; 

what pains will he take! 

what strength will he spend! 

how will he toil and moil at it early and late! 

The tradesman, 

the husbandman, 

eat not the bread of idleness, 

when they make their callings their business; 

if they be good husbands, 

they are both provident to observe their seasons, 

and diligent to improve them for their advantage; 

they do often even dip their food in their sweat, 

and make it thereby the more sweet. 

Their industry appears in working hard in their callings, 

and in improving all opportunities for the furtherance of their callings.

The rhetoric. This passage is extremely well constructed. He uses a variety devices to make the exhortation stirring and interesting. He does not over use one device. As you will see, he doubles but does not triple. We will start at the first stanza:

A man that makes his calling his business 

is not lazy, but laborious about it; 

The first line: Alliteration: man … makes . It is also iambic a MAN that MAKES. 

There is then the repetition of the his in parallel phrase “his business his calling” 

The second line is structured like a line of Anglo-Saxon poetry: there is a major break in the line. One either side of the break there is a strong accent which is matched by an alliterative strong accent on the other side of the line: is not LAZY, but LABORIOUS. The line is further helped by the lack of an “is” before Laborious. A perfectly parallel line would read, “is not lazy, but is laborious”. By dropping the “is”, the line gains speed and power. There is then the near rhyme: laborious about it. If you drop the “l” is it aborious about it. There is finally the “b” which marks the two line end words: “business/about”

Second stanza:

what pains will he take! 

what strength will he spend! 

how will he toil and moil at it early and late! 

The first two lines are near repetitions:

WHAT pains WILL HE take

WHAT strength WILL HE spend. 

Note also that “p” “t” are both plosives. Thus, will note a strict alliteration, it does create a parallel sound.  In the second line we have an alliterative “s” with a reversal of the order of the plosives. Note the structure of the sounds in the words which were not duplicated:

P   – T

ST- SP

In the third line we read:

how will he toil and moil at it early and late! 

Moil is a now-archaic word, which means work or drudgery and was common in this stock phrase, “toil and moil”. Looking at the Google N-gram, the word was quite rare in 1800, being primary found in dictionaries. By 1820, the word seems to have disappeared altogether. 

This third line repeats and rephrases the previous two lines in concept: the laborer will work very hard. But here he balances the line by means two stock phrases “toil and moil/early and late”. By running out this longer line and adding in the stock phrases, he slows the entire movement of the passage down. It has the effect of giving the reader’s “ear” a rest. 

In the third stanza he creates an “if-then” structure:

if they be good husbands, 

they are both provident to observe their seasons, 

and diligent to improve them for their advantage; 

they do often even dip their food in their sweat, 

and make it thereby the more sweet. 

The “then” conclusions are each a pair of clauses, both of which are marked with a “they”: they are both/they do often. The “if” clause likewise pivots on the word “they” If they be.

they are both provident to observe their seasons, 

and diligent to improve them for their advantage; 

they do often even dip their food in their sweat, 

and make it thereby the more sweet. 

The first of these paired clauses are both three beat lines: provident-observe-seasons/diligent-improve-advantage. The opening beat: provident/diligent rhyme which further strengths the parallel.

The second then clause: What is most striking if the near-rhyme: sweat/sweet. I don’t know precisely how Swinnock would have pronounced these words, but it is possible there were even closer in sound when he spoke them. In the first line there is the repeated “d” including the addition of the unnecessary “do” they DO often even DIP their fooD.

The final stanza is not nearly so musical as the previous stanzas: the lines are longer the effects are less. These two lines are marked by concluding both lines with the same phrase “their callings” (I have not named all the various effects. This particular device is called “epistrophe”. The names and uses of these devices can be found at the excellent webpage: http://rhetoric.byu.edu)

Their industry appears in working hard in their callings, 

and in improving all opportunities for the furtherance of their callings.

Developing Theological Tools for Biblical Counseling to Evaluate Psychological Propositions

09 Tuesday Feb 2021

Posted by in Biblical Counseling

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

(The following is a draft introduction for an article for the Journal of Biblical Soul Care.)

An underlying issue when considering the application and usefulness of any proposition or theory from what is called “psychology” lies with the nature of the theological commitments which make possible or which are inherent in any such proposition of theory. By means of this essay, I hope to begin to provide some tools for the analysis of psychologies. 

To take the simplest example, one must begin with some rather remarkably non-Christian presuppositions and commitments to hold that the psychology of Freud or Jung constitute accurate views of the human being. Indeed, both Freud and Jung (to cherry-pick two examples) require explicit commitments about God to be received as accurate theological constructs. Merely read Freud’s The Future of an Illusion or anything by Jung on the collective unconscious and you will see you are in the midst of a fundamentally non-Christian worldview.

One could easily contend that I do not need to swallow whole Freud’s wish-fulfillment theories of God to find his discussion of the unconscious useful. Nor must I follow Jung into his introduction to the Tibetan Book of the Dead to find something useful in his consideration of the shadow-self and the integration into wholeness. 

But to think that I can lay hold of one proposition and not drag along other commitments is naïve. It is like picking up a twig tangled in web with a spider and her eggs hitching along for the ride. This is not to say that we can never consider an observation made by a non-Christian. But such an interaction requires substantial nuance. 

From a biblical perspective, there must be biblical justification for the use of such “foreign” doctrines.[1]

There are a couple of theories which have been advanced to support such interaction. One theory has been reliance upon the supposed scope of common grace. However, as I have demonstrated in the prior to essays, there is no basis from common grace to support a wholesale appropriate of assured results of modern academic or clinical psychology broadly stated. I proposed a three-tiered structure of various types of psychology, ranging from physiological, sociological observation, and finally clinical theories. I proposed varying degrees of use we could make of this work.

The other major justification for integration[2] is based upon the example of Solomon who unquestionably interacts with traditional wisdom form Egypt in the book of Proverbs.[3]

This interaction of Solomon with non-Israelite wisdom has been raised specifically as a point in the discussion of the “integration” of biblical counseling and secular psychologies. John Hilber, having reviewed the use of “foreign” sources of wisdom in the drafting of his proverbs, made the following conclusions: 

The implications of these examples for the question of integration in counseling are significant. First, some situations call for expertise from specialists within the covenant community, namely, professional counselors. Second, wisdom is creative and often unconventional. Methods of counseling intervention are not limited to those techniques that can be derived explicitly from Scripture. Third, the use of the Bible in counseling is not mandatory in order for the counseling to be “biblical.”[4]

The argument that Solomon’s usage justifies any usage I determine to make is problematic, because it presumes that I have the wisdom of Solomon so as to know what and how to proceed.  Here is selection from another Egyptian sage, what should a wise Christian do with this?

    Trust not a brother, know not a friend,

    Make no (5) intimates, it is worthless.

    When you lie down, guard your heart yourself,

    For no man has adherents on the day of woe.[5]

Do I accept it? Do I reject it because it contradicts the Bible elsewhere? If I reject because it contradicts the Scripture, then what do I do with propositions which are ambiguously related to Scripture. But perhaps this example from Charles Dickens will make the matter more clear. Solomon compares the diligent to the ant. What about bees? Bees certainly are a good example:

‘Thankee, sir, thankee,’ returned that gentleman. ‘And how do YOU like the law?’ ‘A–not particularly,’ returned Eugene. ‘Too dry for you, eh? Well, I suppose it wants some years of sticking to, before you master it. But there’s nothing like work. Look at the bees.’

‘I beg your pardon,’ returned Eugene, with a reluctant smile, ‘but will you excuse my mentioning that I always protest against being referred to the bees?’ 

‘Do you!’ said Mr Boffin. 

‘I object on principle,’ said Eugene, ‘as a biped–‘ 

‘As a what?’ asked Mr Boffin. 

‘As a two-footed creature;–I object on principle, as a two-footed creature, to being constantly referred to insects and four-footed creatures. I object to being required to model my proceedings according to the proceedings of the bee, or the dog, or the spider, or the camel. I fully admit that the camel, for instance, is an excessively temperate person; but he has several stomachs to entertain himself with, and I have only one. Besides, I am not fitted up with a convenient cool cellar to keep my drink in.’ 

‘But I said, you know,’ urged Mr Boffin, rather at a loss for an answer, ‘the bee.’

‘Exactly. And may I represent to you that it’s injudicious to say the bee? For the whole case is assumed. Conceding for a moment that there is any analogy between a bee, and a man in a shirt and pantaloons (which I deny), and that it is settled that the man is to learn from the bee (which I also deny), the question still remains, what is he to learn? To imitate? Or to avoid? When your friends the bees worry themselves to that highly fluttered extent about their sovereign, and become perfectly distracted touching the slightest monarchical movement, are we men to learn the greatness of Tuft-hunting, or the littleness of the Court Circular? I am not clear, Mr Boffin, but that the hive may be satirical.’ 

‘At all events, they work,’ said Mr Boffin. 

‘Ye-es,’ returned Eugene, disparagingly, ‘they work; but don’t you think they overdo it? They work so much more than they need–they make so much more than they can eat–they are so incessantly boring and buzzing at their one idea till Death comes upon them–that don’t you think they overdo it? And are human labourers to have no holidays, because of the bees? And am I never to have change of air, because the bees don’t? Mr Boffin, I think honey excellent at breakfast; but, regarded in the light of my conventional schoolmaster and moralist, I protest against the tyrannical humbug of your friend the bee. With the highest respect for you.’[6]

You see, it is not so simple as it may seem.  

Beginning in this essay the goal will be to take a closer look at the propositions of “psychology” broadly stated and provide tools for detailed evaluation. The criteria I proposed for reliance upon common grace as a basis for interacting with secular psychologies, while useful (I trust) is not sufficient. 

It is the thesis of this examination that our utilization or examination of any “secular” proposition begin with the nature of the theological commitments which make the proposition possible. If that is unclear, and I admit it will take some unpacking, I trust the actual work of examining theological commitments will be made plain as we work through the types of information offered to us by “psychology.”

In proceeding with this examination I will assume familiarity with the previous two essays as proceeding chapters in a long argument concerning the relationship between Biblical Soul Care and the work of other men and women having been done concerning what can broadly be stated as psychology. “Psychology” includes far more than the work of modern “scientific” psychology, and entails a great deal of work done by explicitly Christian thinkers pertaining to pastoral work and theology.

I will examine psychology under the three-tiered categorization which I posited in the previous essay (fully granting all of the limitations of a broadly stated categorization) and will examine the theological commitments in the following areas: Epistemology, Anthropology, Teleology, and Methodology.  The last three make a neat acronym, ATM. I could offer “TEAM”, but that acronym does not follow the levels of analysis which are necessary to make this work properly. The best I could do is EAT’M,  which one can use if it helps!

The Importance of Understanding the Theological Basis for Facts and Observations

Facts are not merely about to picked-up as so many pebbles on the beach. The very decision to look for facts, what facts to look for; the determination of the beginning and ending of a fact as a segregable unit of information; et cetera are all determined by some prior commitment. 

As a practical matter, we rarely consider the nature of our knowledge. We look at the world, draw conclusions, et cetera without intensive thought on the matter. Unless and until we need to communicate with someone who operates on a different basis and with a different set of presuppositions, we do not even need to consider the nature of our knowledge. 

The scope of commitments and the nature of knowledge is not perfectly identical between any two human beings. However, the difficulty in communicating in most instances amounts to slight “misunderstandings.” As we expand the number of differences between any two humans, the degree of difficulty increases. The task of “translation” needs to be further formalized.

We understand this need for translation when it comes to language, moving between Spanish and English, for instance. But we are also aware of the need to engage in the task of cultural translations. 

What I am proposing here is the work knowledge translation as move between a biblical and a non-biblical worldview. If we were to reject every instance of  information which was not expressly derived by those holding a biblical understanding of reality, it would be impossible to function in this world. Yet, if we unquestionably receive all “so-called knowledge” without critical analysis, we will find our souls poisoned by the rankest heresies. 

The Four Basic Issues of Knowledge:

In the essay, “Epistemology and the Mirror of Nature,” Michael Williams lists out four perennial issues concerning the nature of knowledge:

1. The analytical problem. What is knowledge? (Or, if we prefer, what do we, or should we, mean by “knowledge”?) For example, how is (or should) knowledge be distinguished from mere belief or opinion? What we want here, ideally, is a precise explication or analysis of the concept of knowledge.  

2. The problem of demarcation. There are two sub-problems here. The first concerns whether we can determine, in some principled way, what sorts of things we might reasonably expect to know about? Or, as is sometimes said, what are the scope and limits of human knowledge? Do some subjects lie within the province of knowledge while others are fated to remain in the province of opinion, or even faith? Since the aim here is to draw a boundary separating the province of knowledge from other cognitive domains, we call this the “external” boundary (or demarcation) problem. But there is also an internal boundary problem. We may wonder whether we should think of knowledge as all of a piece Or there importantly different kinds of knowledge: for example, a priori and a posteriori knowledge?

3. The problem of method. How is knowledge obtained or sought? Is there just one way, or are there several, depending on the sort of knowledge in question? (Here the problem of method interacts with the internal demarcation problem.) Furthermore, can we improve our ways of seeking knowledge? 

4. The problem of skepticism. Given the existence of seemingly intuitive skeptical arguments, why suppose that knowledge is even possible? 196

We cannot deal with all of these problems in these essays. But what you must understand is that even the very fact of knowledge has become an increasingly difficult problem for everyone.  

Some Examples of How Presuppositions Effect the Content of Knowledge

Let us we perform an experiment and we consider only are searching for something which we can see with our eyes. We flip a switch; a light goes on. Since we have not utilized any mechanism which can “observe” electricity, we have no fact of electricity. And thus we conclude that some magical substance which does not move through physical space causes the light to go on when we flip the switch.

The example is obvious, because we “know” what we are looking for – electricity. But that is the point; it is only when we know what to look for that we can find a thing. A thing which is not sought will not be found. 

Or what of this example involving Jesus:

14 Now he was casting out a demon that was mute. When the demon had gone out, the mute man spoke, and the people marveled. 15 But some of them said, “He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons,”

Luke 11:14–15 (ESV). Much of the original audience for Jesus’ miracles had difficulty knowing what to make of this man. The fact of the exorcism was not in dispute – the understanding, the meaning of the event was profoundly disputed. In order to understand the event which everyone observed, one must begin with some other body of knowledge, presuppositions which underlay the observed event. Understanding those presuppositions is critical if we are to evaluate the meaning of a report from this exorcism.

Let’s take a look from the perspective of Michael Williams’ four question: If I have been present at the event, what “knowledge” do I actually possess. How can I go about determining what there is to know about this strange circumstance? Do my senses provide sufficient knowledge? How and should expectations or presuppositions fill out my “knowledge.” Should I consult such expectations or should use some other skill? What is the beginning and ending of the “facts” at issue?

Imagine speaking to two different observers. One person says God has visited Israel in the work of this prophet Jesus of Nazareth (his Divinity being an even more difficult matter to comprehend). Today this prophet cast out a demon. A second observer says that Satan is deceiving the people through all manner of lying miracles. If we imagine a more skeptical observer we would have this report: Today a person suffering from a psychosomatic psychological delusion immediately snapped out of his self-inflicted insanity at the suggestion of a remarkably persuasive man.

The different events were the result of three different sets of presuppositions.[7]

Consider this example draw from psychology. A study determines that Finland is the happiest country in the world, and that some aspect of Finnish society causes this happiness.

Happiness is certainly not contrary to the Scripture or orthodox Christianity. Now consider these remarkably different understandings of happiness. The Puritan Thomas Manton writes:

Christians, a man that flows in wealth and honour, till he be pardoned, is not a happy man. A man that lives afflicted, contemned, not taken notice of in the world, if he be a pardoned sinner, oh, the blessedness of that man! They are not happy that have least trouble, but they that have least cause[8].

Christ, in the Sermon on the Mount, begins with a series propositions of what makes a person “blessed” (supremely happy): poor in spirit, meekness, sorrow, hunger and thirsting after righteousness, being persecuted. Compare those prerequisites for happiness with this academic conclusion from John Reich, Emeritus Professor at the University of Arizona:

Based on clinical interviews and self-report measures I’ve initiated and studied, I believe that happiness is being aware not only of the positive events that occur in your life but also that you yourself are the cause of these events–that you can create them, that you control their occurrence, and that you play a major role in the good things that happen to you.[9]

I am not here to contend with Dr. Reich. What I merely mean to underscore is that Jesus and John Reich have fundamentally different understandings of what constitutes and causes “happiness.” Thus, when I consider the Finnish report on happiness, I need to understand the basis of what is even meant by “happiness.” 

Or consider perhaps the clearer example a dinosaur bone. In recent years, much to the surprise of the paleontologists who have found them, dinosaur bones and fossils have shown up with remarkably well-preserved soft tissue. In some cases, proteins have been retrieved from the remains. That is the fact. But the meaning of the fact is a point of some contention. Does this mean that the bones are not 65,000,000 years old; or does it mean that the mechanics of tissue preservation have been wrong and that such tissue can does resist the grinding of time? The answer to that question rests upon other foundations and presumptions.[10]

Thus, when we consider some proposition from academic psychology or therapy, we cannot start with the ultimate proposition. Rather, we must understand the theological cradle in which that fact was laid. To start with the wisdom of Amenemope does not help us understand what that wisdom means or even what sayings of the dead sage or even wise. 

We need not necessarily shy away from consideration of the Egyptians’ learning; but also need to as wary of their words as we would a serpent in our arms.

One further example may help here. 

The Arians and the Son is Like the Father: The whole history of this matter can be found any competent church history. Briefly, there were those in the early church (the heretics later known as Arians) who held the Son was like the Father. In Greek, the pertinent word was homoiousios. The church however, at the Council of Nicea, concluded this was wrong: The Son was the same substance as the Father, homoousios. 

For the average pastor busy dealing with the troubles of a congregation the difference between the two: like and the same, separated by a single letter, likely seemed insignificant. Of course the Son is like the Father, it is the nature of sons to be like fathers. But the real issue was whether the Son and the Father were of the same “ousia” (and so that I do not take a topic from which I may never return, I will leave the matter there and direct you to competent theologies). The “average” pastor would most likely not known what he was dealing with. The Arians, who supported the Son is like knew better. As Church historian Jaroslav Pelikan writes: 

In many ways Arianism was more aware of the nuances of the trinitarian problem than its critics were. It compelled them, in turn, to avoid the oversimplifications to which church theology was prone.[11]

If an average pastor accepted the language of like rather than same, he had set his theology on a disastrous trajectory. The Arians knew what they were doing; but it took work to teach the orthodox what was at stake.[12] A similar problem presents itself when dealing with non-biblical accounts of human psychology. We need to understand precisely what we have before us.

Before we can take hold any “fact,” “conclusion,” or “study,” we first need to understand precisely the nature of what we have before us.

[1] From the perspective of biblical soul care, the counseling of a fellow human being is not merely the mollification of emotions, the easing of pain, the relief of depression. We are not in the therapeutic business of helping people feel better as an end in itself. We have the overarching duty of making disciples. All other things must be subordinated to glorifying God and enjoying him forever. A psychological practice that ameliorated the troubled conscience of an adulterer and left him without repentance would be good therapy and a disaster for soul care. Thus, when we make use of some proposition beyond the bible we must be careful that we do engage in syncretism. 

[2] One could simply decide they would integrate non-Christian and biblical principles into counseling without any particular theory or justification. But, should one seek to justify that use from a biblical perspective, the two options are common grace or the example of Solomon. I have seen variants, but in the end these variants are simply restatements of either of these theories.

[3] See discussions regarding the Proverbs of Amenemope, and Prov 22:22–24:22. See, e.g., “Discovery and Debate Over the Relationship to Proverbs” Richard Halloran, “Amenemope, Instruction of,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016);” Rowland E. Murphy, Proverbs, vol. 22, Word Biblical Commentary, “Excursus on the Book of Proverbs and Amenemope” (Dallas: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 290;  John W. Hilber, “Old Testament Wisdom and the Integration Debate in Christian Counseling,” Bibliotheca Sacra 155 (1998): 411.

[4] John W. Hilber, “Old Testament Wisdom and the Integration Debate in Christian Counseling,” Bibliotheca Sacra 155 (1998): 420 (fn. omitted).

[5] Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature: Volume I: The Old and Middle Kingdoms (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973–), 136.

[6] Charles Dickens, Our Mutual Friend. 

[7] Another way in which we could think of these circumstances is under the rubric of “social imaginary,” a term coined by Charles Taylor. He defines this briefly as “the way that we collectively imagine, even pre-theoretically, our social life”. Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007), 146. As he develops this concept it comes to mean that which could conceive to be possible.  My great grandmother, an American Indian born in Texas, taught me that if you cut your hair while the moon was waxing it would grow back better than if you cut your hair when the moon was waning. I cannot even conceive of that being potentially true, but my great grandmother could not conceive of the world operating otherwise.

[8] Thomas Manton, The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, vol. 2, “Twenty Sermons” (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1871), 188.

[9] John Reich and Ed Diener, “The Road to Happiness,” Pyschology Today, July 1, 1994, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/199407/the-road-happiness.

[10] For a discussion of such issues, begin here: David F. Coppedge, “Evolutionists Gloss Over Implications of Dinosaur Tissue Remains,” Creation Evolution Headlines, December 22, 2020, https://crev.info/2020/12/evolutionists-gloss-over-implications-of-dinosaur-tissue-remains/.

[11] Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971), 200.

[12] A similar sort of naivety is apparent in the relationship of contemporary Christians pastor when they interact with not merely psychology of various sorts, but the contemporary espousals of “critical theory” in its various forms. Even the supposedly well-informed make statements that are either foolish, overly simplistic, or simply cynical deceptions. 

Philip Rieff, The Triumph of the Therapeutic 4.4 (with some notes on current Church)

29 Friday Jan 2021

Posted by in Apologetics, Psychology

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

The pervious post in this series concerning Rieff may be found here: https://memoirandremains.com/2020/08/28/philip-rieff-the-triumph-of-the-therapeutic-4-3/

In the remainder of the book, Rieff is going to examine what various disciples of Freud did with Freud’s original work. Thus, we will examine Jung, Wilhelm Reich, and D.H. Lawrence. But before he turns to these men who developed the ideas of Freud in strikingly different directions, Rieff considers those who make up the mass of psychoanalysts. In the main, Rieff has little good say about such practioners.

The fault, as I read Rieff, is that the analysts follow Freud so well. The practice of psychoanalysis is not to construct some new culture but rather to free one from the symbolic world which they have internalized. As such, it is a sort of indefinite project, but the world which followed Freud domesticated it, Freud “could cope with his enemies; his friends defeated him.” (85) 

Those who take up the practice have attended “trade schools” (89) who wish to take up a quiet, stable, “suburb[an]” life.

The need for conflict with opposing structures is necessary to keep the disciple alive, “As an ultimate rule of organization, honesty is death to organization itself. Reticence, forbearance, tolerance – these civilities and hypocrisies are necessary to organized life.” (91)

To that extent his epilogue is of little interest except as an observation. What I do find interesting is an observation he makes early in this section. He notes that orthodoxy is sharpened in conflict: which is a point Harold O.J. Brown made in his work Heresies.

It is at this point he makes a point which may be of some encouragement to Christianity at this point in the West, “Nowadays, the world is full of tame Christians; in consequence, the churches are empty of life, if not of people.” (84) The Church seems to suffer worse from excess of ease than even trial (which seems to be true for us personally as well).  Thus, our current conflict may be of use by putting the church into a position where it may critique the culture rather than be overly at home. 

While there are various positions which have been offered by many, such as Niebuhr’s Christ & Culture, (Christ Against Culture, Christ of Culture, Christ Above Culture, Christ and Culture in Paradox, Christ the Transformer of Culture), Luther’s Two Kingdoms, and so on. All of these positions have shown themselves to be useful at some times and places, and disastrous at others. 

When the Netherlands can elect a Kuyper as Prime Minister, Christianity is a position to influence culture in a way that the Baptist in the Gulag of A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich could never dream. When being an influence entails comprising, then the church must take a prophetic stance. There are issues on which the church has no dogmatic position (should the capital gains tax be 15% or 20% on securities held over five years but less than ten?). But there are issues where the Church – if it has a public voice, cannot remain silent.

There are issues of wisdom: At what point does one confront the state; at which point should the church retreat? The church in the West (this is not to prioritize the Western church, nor to ignore the very real troubles faced throughout the world; it is simply I know far more about where I live and what I experience than things which I learn secondhand. I simply wish to avoid speaking where beyond what I could reasonably know) is coming to face increasing troubles from a direction it did not expect. 

In the early 20th century, the church on one-side retreated from intellectual engagement with a hostile culture. Another element of the visible compromised. The space of engagement deepened theological positions in many areas and gave us an apologetic and social voice. 

Now we are facing an entirely new challenge for which the church broadly is not ready. Even the previous secular adversaries of the church have little idea on how to respond. But as Rieff noted in connection with Freud’s tame disciples, conflict can deepen and sharpen our thinking. Let’s pray that God gives us the wisdom for our age.

The Unique Challenges of Managing a Church (or other Christian organization)

27 Wednesday Jan 2021

Posted by in Ministry, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

This is an early draft of the introduction to a series of courses which will cover issues related to Church Administration. In this section I try to explain why church management face issues which simply are not present in any other equivalent enterprise. If anyone has a comment or correct on the direction which I intend to develop the course work, please comment. I am attempting something I have not seen dealt with elsewhere in this manner:

INTRODUCTION

Having spent decades sorting out conflicts within and between businesses, families, landlords and tenants; and having had decades experience within multiple churches (inside leadership and with outside counsel), I have concluded that the complications and difficulties faced by the one who “runs” a church organization are far greater and often more insolvable than the problems which face the CEO of a corporation or the manager of an apartment building.

These difficulties lie in the seemingly inconsistent obligations which confront the church as a public entity, as an internal structure, and which arise in leadership. 

Some of these problems can only be faced and resolved when they arise. Some problems “come out of nowhere” and cannot be anticipated. (We will speak about how to prepare for the unavoidable and unforeseen problems during this coursework.)

We cannot prevent the unavoidable; but we should avoid “self-inflicted wounds.” Many of the problems faced by a church were problems built-into the original formation of the church. Churches begin as some sort of “plant.” The planted church must make a number of decisions. Often these decisions are made without much thought and without any training. 

The pastor who plants the church approaches this task with a seminary degree which has prepared him with an overview of church history, doctrine, and certain practices such as prayer, preaching, evangelism. He has been trained to do the primary task of shepherding, but comes to the work with little or no knowledge of business formation, managing employees, leasing a building, or responding to threats of lawsuits based something said from the pulpit. 

This understandable ignorance leads to poor decisions which create future problems. The lack of knowledge in these areas will lead to poor responses to arising problems. The result will be new problems. And because these problems arise in a church, the latest management advice cannot be received and implemented in the same way it could be used in a hardware store. In fact, many churches have failed because the leadership ran the church as if it were any other business. (And other churches have failed because they ignored the very same issues.)

We are going to provide you guidance through these troubles. We will start at the beginning with business formation issues. We will also try to provide some direction about how to restructure and resolves issues which are present at an existing organization where you have come to work. 

Up until this point, I have spoken of problems in the abstract. If you have experience in the leadership of a church, you have already begun in your mind to list problems you have experienced (and if you have been the leadership of a church for any length of time, you have unquestionably faced serious questions). If you are new to church leadership, you had best be prepared for sorrow.

Some years ago, I was speaking with a pastor friend who was facing a problem which threatened to destroy the entire congregation. He was looking for help with this problem. He said the problem was so bad, that he was looking for a Clint Eastwood character from a spaghetti western with a scar on his cheek and an ammunition belt slung over his soldier. 

There will be days when it seems that only such a character could help. But we trust when you complete this coursework, you be able to avoid the need for such extraordinary efforts. 

A Quick Overview of the Problems Faced by Church Administration

The problems faced by every organization

There are legal and financial duties owed to the various levels of government where you work. It will not be unusual if you must consider differing obligations to the city, the county, the state, and the federal government. These obligations begin with the business structure you create. And, as you will learn, that if you try to avoid this problem by merely starting a congregation without making a formal decision about business structure, you have actually made a decision about business structure. 

You will owe tax records to the state and federal government, and you must prepare tax records for all employees, independent contractors, and donors to the church. 

You will need to make contracts, whether for purchase or lease of real property. If you meet in a home, you will need to consider laws and general obligations respecting permissible conduct in residential locations. 

This course is being written well into the Covid Crisis, which caused churches to face extraordinary public health restrictions which baffled the best Christian minds, brought out a variety of responses, and even resulted in sharp critique of one-another (even conflict) between those who came to differing decisions. 

You will owe legal duties to your employees. The employee duties and obligations within a church are similar and very different than those owed by secular organizations. You provide a working environment which must comply with some standards for all businesses; and you must provide an environment which comports with your duties as Christians generally, as leaders specifically, and as a church. 

You will have the problems faced by every “business” which is open to the public – except that you will be open to and have oversight over infants and octogenarians. There are very few businesses which provide toddler care and instruction, while also providing food to the poor, solace to the wounded, correction to the wayward, instruction to willing. A private day school for 3-year-olds has no duty to care for the child’s great grandmother. 

Those Problems Unique to a Church

The leadership of church cannot be measured on the same ground as business tycoon. Consider the following obituary of the CEO of Scott Paper and Sunbeam:

Swagger, arrogance, ego, “Chainsaw” Al Dunlap had them all. 

The corporate raider — turnaround specialist, if you prefer — boasted about laying off workers. He blasted his corporate brethren’s incompetence for necessitating his slash and burn tactics. He’d name names. 

Hot tempered, he was known to yell at subordinates. 

“If you want to be liked, get a dog,” he was fond of saying.[1]

While this may have made for a good CEO, it would make a failed church leader.

Christians must live with one-another in love:

34 “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” 

John 13:34–35 (ESV). In the “High Priestly Prayer” of Jesus recorded in John 17, the Lord prays:

20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.”

John 17:20–21 (ESV) . These are not abstract principles or bare aspirations. It is a duty incumbent upon every Christian and a duty which adheres peculiarly to the Church as a witness to and in the world. Francis Schaeffer explained the importance of this duty in work The Mark of a Christian:

The church is to be a loving church in a dying culture. How, then, is the dying culture going to consider us? Jesus says, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” In the midst of the world, in the midst of our present culture, Jesus is giving a right to the world. Upon His authority He gives the world the right to judge whether you and I are born-again Christians on the basis of our observable love toward all Christians.

That’s pretty frightening. Jesus turns to the world and says, “I’ve something to say to you. On the basis of My authority, I give you a right: you may judge whether or not an individual is a Christian on the basis of the love he shows to all Christians.” In other words, if people come up to us and cast in our teeth the judgment that we are not Christians because we have not shown love toward other Christians, we must understand that they are only exercising a prerogative which Jesus gave them.[2]

If we professing believers do not demonstrate visible love to one-another we give the world the right to (1) say that we are not Christians, and (2) say that Jesus was not sent by the Father. In short, if we who lead churches or professing Christian institutions and do not exhibit love we have failed. No CEO has ever been judged a failure because he did not love the sales staff, or accounting, or the administrative assistant. He may have been thought a jerk, but he still could be revered and honored.

Look at the kind of love we must show, “as I have loved you.” John 13:34.

You may think this is going far afield from what is entailed in Church administration: I need to know how to form a non-profit, how to file tax returns, create an employee manual, et cetera. And all those things you must do. But all of those tasks must be completed with the end to fulfill the duty of being a Christian and being a public congregation of Christians[3]. 

We as Christians, and peculiarly as Christians gathered and presented to the world, have a duty not merely stay open and “make money” (which is the duty of a “normal” business). Christian organizations have a duty to act as a witness to the world. This duty involves demonstrable, actual love among the members of the organization. No CEO has ever been presented with the obligation of seeing to it that all the employees love one-another. 

I want you to consider these words on “love” which Paul addressed to the Church at Corinth. But as you consider these words, I want you to note that the first three verses each list some element of public display which someone could raise as proof that their Christian ministry was a success, and to note that these marks of success mean nothing without love:

13 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

1 Corinthians 13:1–3 (ESV).  We could add, If I publish and distribute 6,000 books a month and have conferences attended by 10,000 people a quarter and have not love, I am making a lot of noise and collecting a lot of money – but I am nothing. 

Now, I want you to seriously consider the following words and realize that the operation of your church ministry must not only be efficient, professional, effective (as must all businesses), but it also be operated in such a way that it exudes this sort of conduct:

4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 

1 Corinthians 13:4–7 (ESV). Or look at the words which Paul addresses to the assembled congregation of Colossians:

8 But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. 11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all. 

12 Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, 13 bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. 14 And above all these put-on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. 

Colossians 3:8–14 (ESV). These are characteristics which must in the “culture” of your leadership and the culture the employees. It also must be the culture which you must engender among your “customers”. No manufacturer of glass bottles ever had the duty to encouraging meekness among its customers. 

You must understand that as we work through the issues raised in the various employment, financial, and legal matters which we will address throughout this course work, that we must keep in mind the aim of each of these tasks. Paul in his church administration instruction to Timothy wrote that the end of work is to be “love that issues from a pure heart.” (1 Tim. 1:5). 

When you work through materials on non-profit corporations, you will not find instructions on love.

This is what makes Church administration different from running a small business or even managing a non-profit. You will have to do all of the things which are required of any business owner or charity manager. But you also must do this with an eye toward the goal of being a witness to Christ.

The CEO of a Fortune 500 corporation does have the duty of making sure his employees avoid “foolish talk” (Eph. 5:4) or “slander” (Col. 3:8) or “gossip” (2 Cor. 12:20). But we do. No District Manager has ever been written up for failing to make disciples of the Lord (Matt. 28:18-20), but that is our job description. 

If we fail in this, we at the very least face the prospect that all our work will be “burned up” on the Day. (1 Cor. 3:12-15).

Our goal in this course work is to train you in the dual responsibilities of operating within the law of the state, but also to comply with the law of God. These are not things which you will learn from the Nolo Press book on “Non-profit Corporations” nor from a community college course on accounting. 

This course work is unique, and we trust it will be valuable to you.

[1] Brink, Graham. “Remembering ‘chainsaw’ Al Dunlap, Ruthless Corporate Cost Cutter and Big-Time Fsu Donor.” Tampa Bay Times, January 29, 2019, www.tampabay.com/business/remembering-chainsaw-al-dunlap-ruthless-corporate-cost-cutter-and-big-time-fsu-donor-20190129/.

[2] Francis A. Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview, vol. 4 (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1982), 187.

[3] By referencing “public congregation of Christians”, I mean to include not only churches proper, but para-church ministries such as apologetics ministries, teaching ministries of various sorts, services provided under the promise of being a “Christian” practice. 

Offering Counsel to One Troubled by “Conspiracy Theories”

12 Tuesday Jan 2021

Posted by in Biblical Counseling

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

A theory is an explanation for a series of facts: these are ways to connect various facts into a comprehensible whole. The theory is useful because it makes sense of the world; it reduces anxiety at one level – but it also refocuses the anxiety on some appropriate response (usually a political response). 

If you confront the theory directly, then the discussion becomes whether the theory is true or false. That will (1) prove to be next to impossible; (2) completely sidetrack your counsel.

Let us assume that this theory is true, and there are nefarious forces at work in the world and that such forces have power. That is nothing new in the history of the world. We do live on the planet that murdered Jesus. What do we do? What is the solution?

When we break this down in terms of the elements of the theory the counseling responses are something you already know. First, there is response to anxiety. Rather than trying to figure out the precise evil machinations of evil people (we know the trouble of the human heart), we should remember the goodness, knowledge, and power of God. Paul wrote about contentment while imprisoned by Rome. Thinking about the theory only causes greater anxiety. Yes, we should be wise, but it is not wise if it creates sinful fear and unnecessary preoccupation of our attention. Phil. 4:8-9

Second, the theory suggests a future course of action. While not counseling complete passivity in response to political problems and while being thankful for common grace means to restrain evil, we need to realize that these responses are at best provisional and limited. Putting more effort into trying to get wild boars to behave like bunnies will always ultimately fail; it will never resolve the anxiety nor fix the world. Yes, we should work for good in the world, but always remember the fixed limitations.In the end only the change of a heart of stone for a heart of flesh will change one. If you are worried about the evil in the world, then we should use those tools which respond to evil. 2 Cor. 10:1-7.

Finally, always be careful to show grace to someone who is deeply concerned about the wrong in the world. They are fearful; you bring comfort. And teach them useful hymns

This is my Father’s world:

O let me ne’er forget

That though the wrong seems oft so strong,

God is the Ruler yet.

This is my Father’s world:

Why should my heart be sad?

The Lord is King: let the heavens ring!

God reigns; let earth be glad!

Sermon on 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 (Part Two)

15 Tuesday Dec 2020

Posted by in 1 Thessalonians, Ministry

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

In sum, know these in men in their office, esteem them their labor, do this work in love. 

            How then are we to appreciate and esteem them? What labor is the congregation called upon to render as a fit reward for such labor.

            Before we look to the text, let us consider the relationship between the work of the elder – that is to instruct – and the reward for such work. What actually convey esteem in such a context?

            There are some who have coached a children’s sports team, gave instruction in piano, taught someone how to read. Parents teach their children how to drive a car. What is the joy of a teacher when seeing a student?

            You are at a piano recital. The teacher is there with her students, the parents and other family are in the room. As each student comes forward and plays their piece, what does the teacher hope? What would give the teacher joy in that moment? Her students doing well; their success. 

            The coach rejoices in a victory. The school teacher rejoices in the students reading. 

            A teacher is rewarded by the student having learned the matter and putting the instruction into practice. And it is just this which Paul writes to this congregation. Turn to 1 Thessalonians 1:2

            We give thanks always for all of you

Why is that. Look at verse 3:

Constantly bearing in mind your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ

Go now to chapter 2, verse 19:

For who is our hope or joy or crown of exultation? Is it not ever you, in the presence of our Lord Jesus at his coming? For you are our joy and glory.

What then shows esteem and appreciation for the pastor’s work? Your labor, your love, your hope. Your sanctification is the honor shown to your pastor. 

            Think how wicked a thing it would be withhold this esteem and respect to your pastor. If you withhold your own life of holiness so as to refuse esteem because you have decided that the pastor is not worthy of such respect, it speaks of remarkable wickedness. You are injuring yourself to refuse such esteem.

            You would like someone who be burnt to death in your own house because you have a personal grudge against the fireman who comes to save you. You clutch to the flaming beams and shout, I will die here before I give you the honor of saving me!

            Now that you know what you are looking for you will see this point is made throughout the New Testament. Turn over to 3 John 4:

            I have no greater joy than this to hear my children are walking in the truth.

Do you seek to honor your pastor, then honor the truth which he strives to teach you week after week. Walk in the truth.

            This is for your benefit. In the Christian life, the giving what is due is a blessing to the one who gives. “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” Acts 20:35. The work of the church is the work of everyone. Walk in the truth. 

            Who is the one who is blessed? As it says in Psalm 1:2, the blessed man is the one who delights in the law of the Lord. The 119th Psalm begins with these words:

Blessed are those whose way is blameless,

Who walk in the law of the Lord.

            The teacher teaches. You bless the teacher by showing that you have learned your lesson. But in this case, you are the one who is blessed. The pastor who labors to teach the truth and to show you the straight path which leads to the heavenly city is seeking your good. 

            And how do you bless him? By walking in that straight path which leads toward the heavenly city. And what is the cost to you? You will be blessed. This is like a magic treasure that the more you give the more have. Will you esteem your pastor? Then make much of his Lord. The pastor is a steward, the Lord is the pastor’s joy.

            Do you think this wrong? It comes from Paul himself. 

            When Paul was in prison, there were Christians who sought to make Paul’s imprisonment more painful by preaching Christ. This thinking is sad and bizarre. But perhaps these preachers thought: See, we are preaching freely. We are the ones blessed by Christ! Paul is in prison. This only proves that Paul was not all he pretended to be. 

            It is such a strange thing that when we read of this in Paul’s letter to the Philippians, it seems it must not be true. Paul writes that these men “proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition.” Phil. 1:17. These were busy trying to dishonor Paul by preaching Christ. They thought they would “cause [Paul] distress.” 

            How does Paul respond? 

            What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice.

Phil. 1:18. You see, Paul was not looking for human beings to praise him; he was looking for praise which comes from Christ:

In the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved his appearing.

Let us think again about the fear that a pastor preaching our passage in 1 Thessalonians 5 to respect to esteem a pastor. We immediately think, Oh, we must place this man on a pedestal. This means he wants us to all give praise to him.  But what does Paul say, My joy is in you and in your holiness. My reward is from Christ. Perhaps you did not anticipate that turn in our investigation.

But there is more. In John chapter 5, and you should turn there now to see these words for yourself, Jesus is speaking with the crowd at the temple. And as seems to have always happened, there at the temple a dispute broke out. These people were seeking proof of Jesus’ claim. 

In verse 41, Jesus says, I do not receive glory from men.

Then Jesus applies this principle to all of the people present:

How can you believe, when you receive glory from one-another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?

            Now think we me along these lines. The esteem which are to show to your pastor is not directly give glory to him. It is not praise for his brilliance. That is not the way to esteem him. 

            There is a story told of the great preacher Charles Spurgeon. After a sermon someone said, “That was a great sermon.” He answered, “I know, Satan already told me.”

            I do not mean that you should never encourage him. The work of being a pastor can be mighty discouraging. To pray for him, to show friendship to him is all very good. When he has helped you learn a thing, it is right to thank him. But do not think that esteeming the pastor is about praising him as if he were some vain entertainer. That is not the point; but do treat him as a dear friend. We do not give vain to our praise to our friends, but we do encourage them. 

            You know how to encourage those you love. Do that. 

            So we have established that walking in the truth is the way in which you actually esteem your pastor. Your holy life is proof of his labor and will become his joy and reward on the day of judgment. 

            Let me show you this one more time how this works. Paul writes to the church at Corinth. Turn to Second Corinthians chapter 3.

            He begins by telling them he is not trying to commend himself: that is, Paul is not seeking to be praised by them. Instead, he writes the Christians of Corinth are actually a letter written by the Spirit:

2 Corinthians 3:1–4 (NASB95) 

            1          Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you? 

            2          You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 

            3          being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 

            4          Such confidence we have through Christ toward God. 

The steward of Christ’s riches; the minister of grace; the pastor who teaches you truth looks to see if this truth is written in your life. If you walk in the truth, the pastor is blessed and you are blessed. Your life is proof and reward for his work. And a life of holiness is blessing to you, to your pastor, indeed to everyone about you.

            Paul’s command to know, to esteem the pastor is no burden to you. The command is seeking your blessing. But we need one more qualification as we examine this matter of walking in the truth. 

            There is a way in which walking in the truth – or at least an appearance of the truth – can actually be sinful. It sounds so strange that I will need to prove this to you. 

            The Pharisees were known to be precise in their obedience to the law. They, of all people, could be said in a way to be “walking in the truth.” They have, but in a wrong way. Paul, writing to the church at Philippi writes in the third chapter of his life before knowing Christ. Paul writes of himself

            As to the law, a Pharisee… as to the righteousness which comes from the law, found blameless. 

            You can take hold of the truth and misuse it. The wrong use of the law can make one rigid, proud, unloving. The truth can make one positively evil, when it is ingested in the wrong way. But the fault does not lie in the law, the fault lies in us. As Paul writes in the 7th chapter of Romans, the “law is holy, and the command is holy and righteous and good.” (12) But sin in us take the law up in the wrong way and turns that which is good to evil. That is the work of sin.

            How then do we walk in the truth such that it does not turn to sin? The truth taken up in the right way causes no sin; rather, it brings a blessing as we have seen.

            Look over the 2 John 6 and read:

2 John 6 (NASB95) 

                        And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it. 

Now look at 1 John 2:5, 

            but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. 

The truth of God, the command of the Lord is kept in love. It is not a rigid, joyless obedience to a tyrant it is love toward God and love toward man. This is what the Lord himself said:

Mark 12:28–31 (NASB95) 

            28       One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?” 

            29        Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; 

            30        and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ 

            31        “The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

            What would true obedience look like? It would look like love. Love fulfills the law. This is what Paul wrote to the church at Rome:

Romans 13:8 (NASB95)

           Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

Do you hear that? Do you want to truly fulfill the law, love. Paul continues on this point:

Romans 13:10 (NASB95) 

            Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. 

You are supposed to esteem your pastor. How do you do that? You walk in the truth. What does that look like, living in love with one another. And what does love look like? Turn to 1 Corinthians 13. You know the passage well; we always read it at weddings. But I want you to understand something important: Paul wrote this to a church. Yes a marriage should be filled with such love. But it is to a local congregation that Paul gave this instruction.

            Do you want respect your pastor? Do you wish to obey the commandment of this passage? Then live like this. When the members of this congregation come together, this is precisely how we should live. This is the fact of a congregation that esteem the pastor:

1 Corinthians 13:4–7 (NASB95) 

            4          Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 

            5          does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 

            6          does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 

            7          bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 

You want to bless the pastor, live like this. You want to esteem his labor, bear with one another. You wish to show respect for the Word of God diligently laid before you, explained and made plain? Be patient, be kind. Stop with your arrogance; put an end to seeking your own. 

And do this to and for your pastor. He is a shepherd, but he is also a sheep. Show him patience. Be kind to him. Don’t engage in any silly jealousy. Don’t brag and speak as if you could all of this better. Do not seek your own. Don’t be provoked when he fails, because the work of a pastor does not confer perfect sanctification. Bear with him. Believe the best of his family. Weep with him when he weeps. Rejoice with him when he rejoices. 

And a last note. Part of the love you must show this man and his family is to provide for their livelihood. You have determined that your congregation would best be blessed by a pastor who can devote himself full time to this work.

            Sadly, it is at this point, that many, many congregations and pastors have come to conflict. Congregations routinely begrudge the pastor’s family sufficient money that they should live without constantly burdens. I have known truly sinful ways in which congregations have abused their pastors. 

            It would not profit at this time to rehearse the history of such stories. But know that it seems to be a mark of pride for congregations to impoverish their pastor; as if his poverty was a mark of their holiness! These same people would think it a scandal if they had to live in such straits. But to starve their pastor they excuse because the pastor will receive some heavenly reward. 

            Are their pastors who live too well, who abuse their congregation and “fleece the sheep.” Yes. But stealing from the congregation is the mark of a false teacher. 

            And starving the pastor is the mark of a selfish and sinful congregation. 

            Why should a pastor live worse than a plumber or painter? The plumber and the painter do good honest work and are rightfully rewarded for their skill. But the pastor? It takes years of education to become a pastor. The work and skill needed to become a pastor could easily have been turned to any number of careers such as being a lawyer or professor. The pastor has given up those opportunities to do good to you.

            We want to pay for the best doctor, because we think the doctor can do good or evil to our bodies. And we treat pastors as if their work could be done by anyone, and we pay them accordingly. 

            The pay of a pastor is not the primary point of this passage. The point is to live in love with one another. But one application of that command to live in love is to care for and protect the pastor and his family – just as you should care for and protect the reputation, and the health, and the well-being of everyone in the congregation. 

            Esteem the Lord, walk in the truth, live in love. And in so doing you will become a blessing to your pastor.

[A Final Note: I wrote this sermon for a friend’s congregation. The structure is primarily such that someone who was not a member of the congregation would preach this. The reason for that structure is that in 1 Thessalonians 5, Paul is not commending himself but the current leadership of the church. He is not writing, “esteem me”, but “esteem them”.]

He is well aware, after all, when is the time for what is causing us depression to be removed

14 Wednesday Oct 2020

Posted by in Biblical Counseling

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Let us not take this with a grain of salt; instead let us learn also from this the highest values, and when we fall foul of some disaster, even if we are suffering grief and pain, even if the trouble seems insupportable to us, let us not be anxious or beside ourselves but wait on God’s providence. He is well aware, after all, when is the time for what is causing us depression to be removed—which is what happened in her case as well.

It was not out of hatred, in fact, or of revulsion that he closed her womb, but to open to us the doors on the values the woman possessed and for us to espy the riches of her faith and realize that he rendered her more conspicuous on that account.… Extreme the pain, great the length of grief—not two or three days, not twenty or a hundred, not a thousand or twice as much; instead, “for a long time,” it says, for many years the woman was grieving and distressed, the meaning of “for a long time.”

Yet she showed no impatience, nor did the length of time undermine her values, nor the reproaches and abuse of her rival; instead, she was unremitting in prayer and supplication, and what was most remarkable of all, showing in particular her love for God, was the fact that she was not simply anxious to have this very child for herself but to dedicate the fruit of her womb to God, offer the first fruits of her own womb and receive the reward for this fine promise.

John Chrysostom Homilies on Hannah 1.

 John R. Franke, ed., Old Testament IV: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1–2 Samuel, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 195.

Be careful when telling others to “trust God”

12 Sunday Jul 2020

Posted by in Biblical Counseling, Ministry

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, ,

There is sort phrase which Christians use, carelessly and often harmfully. I have seen and heard it used with great sincerity and without content or comprehension. 

When faced with another’s overwhelming struggles, whether it is some loss or an immediate problem as crushing and quotidian as paying bills or watching children, we counsel one-another to “trust God” or “rely on God.” We are “turn over” our problems to God. 

The more ambitious will add a reference such as Philippians 4:6-7, “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything with prayer and thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God which passes understanding will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.”

In counseling people, a preparatory question is, “What have you done about your circumstance?” To which the most common answer is, “I prayed and Philippians 4 didn’t work.”

The trouble which such an understanding of the work of God in human trouble is that distorts and discourages us.

If you are going to start an automobile, you need gasoline the tank and a functioning motor and a charged battery and you must turn the key and so on. Now imagine one who put gasoline in the car and then sat in the car waiting for it to start. We would think such a person crazy. And yet this is how we seem to think troubles work with God. 

Prayer is critical in the process of relying upon God but it is not the only thing. 

When you have a trouble, your reliance upon God is a reliance upon me. If I am here, and I can help, then I am part of that answer to prayer. The proposition is plain and common throughout Scripture. Perhaps we don’t see the connection because we have a tendency to compartmentalize the aspects of the Christian life in such a way that we don’t see the interrelated nature of the Church’s life. 

In 2 Corinthians 1, Paul tells the Corinthians that in the midst of suffering God has given comfort to Paul so that Paul can give comfort to them. 2 Cor. 1:6. God is going to comfort them by means of Paul comforting them.  

In Matthew 25, Jesus tells the story of judgment day when he will reward those who cared for the needy, because caring for the hungry or naked or the one in prison, they were caring for Jesus.

Paul in Galatians 6:2 writes, “Bear one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ.” 

James writes in the second chapter of his letter that if you see a brother who is need of clothes and food and you say, “Be warm and filled” but you do not give him food and cloths, your faith is dead.

The point could be multiplied for pages. 

To rely upon God is to rely upon the people of God, too. 

Yes, can miraculously solve problems. And yes, God does give fortitude through unbearable trials. 

But that is no excuse for me to neglect you. If you are to rely upon God in the midst of your trial, and I say that to you, then I must necessarily implicate myself. And I must necessarily see how easily I fail here.

And lastly, just to show how persistent sin can be, there is an equal sin in helping others.

Submission to Unjust (or perhaps Foolish) Authority and the Lockdown Order

16 Saturday May 2020

Posted by in 1 Peter, Apologetics, Culture, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

How seriously should I take the lockdown orders from my county? How seriously should I consider the consequence of disregarding the orders? Is it a trivial matter? It is there any real sin at stake?

[First caveat: I am considering a mere disregard for the law — not appropriate challenges to the law. There are a number of appropriate challenges to a law.  For instance, a lawsuit against the local authority on the grounds that the law in question is unconstitutional on equal protection for first amendment grounds would not be disregard of the law. Petitioning the local authority to revise the law would not be disregard. 

[Second Caveat: There is a moral case to be made against the law on the economic cost. There could even be a case to be made that in some circumstances, disregard of the law is necessary to preserve life. The moral case would require a different analysis and presents different consideration.]

The easiest way out would be merely to say this is no big deal. And perhaps as an ultimate matter, the stakes are inconsequential and no one will be immediately hurt by disobedience. But that decision was not given to me to make. First, I am not tasked with the civil authority to make such a decision. Second, there is plain direction from Scripture on my duty to obey the law. So, I cannot merely say this is at most a “little sin” (I will come back to this point, below.)

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the lockdown orders are unfair, poorly conceived and poorly executed. What is my responsibility as a Christian?

As an American, ignoring leaders and laws I dislike seems like a fundamental right. “Don’t Tread on Me” is in the history of the country. To be submissive to authority sounds like weakness or foolishness.

There is also the innate human desire for autonomy. When we first come into this world, we come as tyrants demanding submission from all whom come near.

And so adhering to rules which I think are foolish or wrong makes me feel like a sucker. Why would I willingly surrender any authority to the petty tyrants who see fit to control my life?

And so, the wisest response seems to be to just disregard the rule when it seems overwhelming ridiculous.

In addition, when the rule sees ridiculous or unwarranted, the easiest understanding of the rule is that is simply too silly to be obeyed.

In the instance of the lockdown, the stakes are ostensibly life-and-death. Whether the rules instituted actually will help in that regard; and whether the threat is actually life and death (or at least sufficiently dangerous that extraordinary measures are needed). Thus, the concern is extreme; even if the means to protect against that concern are absurd.

Perhaps it will be learned that the lockdown regime was as effective as smoke was in protecting against the Black Plague.

So for argument’s sake let us stipulate that the rules are somewhere between non-effective to excessively restrictive. Perhaps the rules are brilliant, but the argument will be clearer if the rules are simply wrong.

And so, may I disregard laws which I think are foolish, ineffective, or annoying? My political instincts and education and the default positions of Americans (as is readily apparent from both sides of the aisle, depending upon the ruler and the law) is that I may and perhaps should disregard the dumb laws – or at least laws I dislike.

That is one side of the argument, but I don’t believe it can be supported from the Scripture.

In First Peter, the apostle begins a long discussion of submission in verse 13 of chapter two. The general rule is given in verse 13,

1 Peter 2:13–14 (ESV)

13 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.

The command is exceedingly clear: submit, put yourself in subjection to the authorities.

As Paul writes in Romans 13, all governmental authority has been instituted by God. Rom. 13:1. It is sufficient to observe that Peter and Paul both set down this rule with respect to a government which condemned both Peter and Paul to death:

Nero was emperor when St. Peter wrote. Christians were to obey even him, wicked tyrant as he was; for his power was given him from above, as the Lord himself had said of Pilate

H. D. M. Spence-Jones, ed., 1 Peter, The Pulpit Commentary (London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909), 73. Unless some other rule specifically makes for an exception, this rule stands absolute.

And yes there is an exception to the law: the government has no right to make us sin. The example of Daniel continuing to pray even when the law forbade his prayers is the right example. Daniel prayed despite the law; and Daniel accepted the consequence of his disobedience.

The command is quite clear, and so is the rationale, “For the Lord’s sake.” There are two aspects of this rationale. First, our obedience to a governmental authority “for the Lord’s sake” is ultimately obedience to the Lord. This aspect is made plain in verse 16:

1 Peter 2:16 (ESV)

Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.

Our obedience to the authority is not because we consider our primary allegiance to that authority: we are free people. But our freedom also makes us servants of God. Or as the NASB has it “bondslaves of God.” The Christian is absolutely bound to the direction of Christ. And thus, if the Lord has given a command, we have no discretion in the matter. [An issue in the lockdown order is whether the stay home orders conflict with a duty to corporate worship.]

This leads to the rationale for obedience found in Paul. As he explains in Roman, obedience to the authority is grounded on the proposition that God has instituted the authority.

Peter, however, adds an additional rationale: as a witness to the authorities and to the world.

In verse 15, Peter writes:

1 Peter 2:15 (ESV)

For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.

Peter’s concern is for the public witness of the Christian. This is a thought that goes back to verse 12:

1 Peter 2:12 (ESV)

Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.

The “Lord’s sake” of verse 13 is the public demonstration that we willing lay down even our freedom for the sake of something more important, our testimony that our concern is God’s glory “on the day of visitation.”

The concept here is that by our obedience to human authority, we remove any ground that anyone could speak ill of our behavior.

Peter’s point is that Christians are called upon to be as obedient to the government as possible so as to remove any argument against Christ:

By submitting to government, Christians demonstrate that they are good citizens, not anarchists. Hence, they extinguish the criticisms of those who are ignorant and revile them. Such ignorance is not innocent but culpable, rooted in the foolishness of unbelievers.

Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 130. As Christians we are called upon to willingly set aside ground for disobedience to governing authorities because have a duty to remove any possible ground for anyone to speak ill of us.

Do I really want to violate an inconvenient law if the effect would be give anyone a reason to slander Christ?

If we Christians are hated, then we must not be hated because we have disobeyed the authorities. If we suffer, then let us suffer as a Christian for being a Christian:

1 Peter 4:14–15 (ESV)

14 If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. 15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler.

To underscore and explain his point concerning obedience to authorities Peter sets out a series of examples. First, he speaks of slaves who are mistreated, even physically beaten for unjust cause:

1 Peter 2:18–20 (ESV)

18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. 19 For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.

Notice how Peter describes the master: “unjust” (NASB, “unreasonable”). The suffering is “unjust”. The result is a “beating.” The cause of the beating is having done “good.” The slave did what was “good” and was beaten by an unjust master.

The slave is called upon to endure the beating in patience, “because this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.”

The second example given is Christ suffering unjustly. Christ did not revile when he was reviled (1 Peter 2:23). Rather, Christ turned the response over to God:

1 Peter 2:23 (ESV)

When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.

In verse 21, Peter specifically says that Christ has given us an “example” which we are required to follow.

Peter then gives a third example, a wife being “submissive” to an unbelieving husband. The position of a woman in the ancient world was very difficult. Peter specifically mentions that she is to be submissive to her husband (the same command given to all and to slaves with their own masters) and do so without fear of “anything that is frightening.” (1 Peter 2:6). These are very hard words.

Why is the wife called upon to engage in such extraordinary conduct? To “win” her husband:

1 Peter 3:1 (ESV)

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives,

The demand being made upon Christians is extraordinary. It by nature unreasonable and at times even dangerous. Why would Christians lay aside their defense? For the Lord’s sake. We are called upon to suffer injustice so that none may have a cause to speak against our Lord.

Before going further, someone could say that bearing up under unjust or difficult orders is one thing, but dealing with silly or foolish orders is quite another. There are three responses to this. First, if we must maintain our submission even when being beaten for doing good. If we must do the greater thing, then we must do the lesser.

Second, this makes the bad testimony even worse: you are willing to disobey on the slightest cause. You have must have a very low regard for those in authority.

Thomas Brooks in his Precious Remedies for Satan’s Devices list as device number three of Satan, “extenuating and lessening the sin.” To bring us to sin, the Devil tells us the sin is a very small thing. He makes a number of points about small sins, such as the fruit in the garden may seem a very small sin; small sins lead to greater sins; a small hole can sink a great ship; many saints have suffered death rather than commit the smallest sin, such as just offering up a pinch of incense upon a pagan altar.

Speaking of refusing to follow because the law is so silly, “That it is sad to stand with God for a trifle.” If this thing is so small and insignificant, then it is especially foolish to refuse to obey. For instance, the lockdown does not require heroic acts; it is merely very inconvenient. And yes there are very serious economic issues for many people, but that is a different argument than the law is silly.

Two more that bear consideration: Your soul cannot stand the weight of guilt which is inherent in even the smallest sin. Nothing less the death of Christ was necessary to preserve you from the guilt of this “small sin”. If God were to set the full weight of this guilt upon your soul and you were to understand it aright, it would put you into a horror of madness.

Also, “there is more evil in the least sin than in the greatest affliction.” If it is a sin, then it is inherently worse than death itself.

And lest you think that perhaps I am seeing something new, the Venerable Bede in 7th Century England wrote:

This there is the praise which good men receive, when they act properly and obey the king’s servants, even when it means putting up with ignorance of unwise governors.

As he notes, there is no, but my governor is a fool exception to the rule.

In the Second Century, Justin writing to the Roman Emperor sought clemency for Christians. In his argument, Justin explained – based upon these propositions in Peter and Paul – that Christians were the best of citizens:

And more than all other men are we your helpers and allies in promoting peace, seeing that we hold this view, that it is alike impossible for the wicked, the covetous, the conspirator, and for the virtuous, to escape the notice of God, and that each man goes to everlasting punishment or salvation according to the value of his actions. For if all men knew this, no one would choose wickedness even for a little, knowing that he goes to the everlasting punishment of fire; but would by all means restrain himself, and adorn himself with virtue, that he might obtain the good gifts of God, and escape the punishments. For those who, on account of the laws and punishments you impose, endeavour to escape detection when they offend (and they offend, too, under the impression that it is quite possible to escape your detection, since you are but men), those persons, if they learned and were convinced that nothing, whether actually done or only intended, can escape the knowledge of God, would by all means live decently on account of the penalties threatened, as even you yourselves will admit. But you seem to fear lest all men become righteous, and you no longer have any to punish. Such would be the concern of public executioners, but not of good princes.

Justin Martyr, “The First Apology of Justin,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 166.

We Christians obey the laws because we are concerned the judgment of God – not the judgment of the king. You have nothing to fear from Christians, we are your best of servants.

The importance of obedience to the civil authorities – even bad civil authorities – as a means of testimony, and the willingness to accept the consequences for disobedience when to obey would be sin, was eloquently stated by Pastor Wang Yi of the Early Rain Church in China in a statement released after his imprisonment:

As a pastor, my firm belief in the gospel, my teaching, and my rebuking of all evil proceeds from Christ’s command in the gospel and from the unfathomable love of that glorious King. Every man’s life is extremely short, and God fervently commands the church to lead and call any man to repentance who is willing to repent. Christ is eager and willing to forgive all who turn from their sins. This is the goal of all the efforts of the church in China—to testify to the world about our Christ, to testify to the Middle Kingdom about the Kingdom of Heaven, to testify to earthly, momentary lives about heavenly, eternal life. This is also the pastoral calling that I have received.

For this reason, I accept and respect the fact that this Communist regime has been allowed by God to rule temporarily. As the Lord’s servant John Calvin said, wicked rulers are the judgment of God on a wicked people, the goal being to urge God’s people to repent and turn again toward Him. For this reason, I am joyfully willing to submit myself to their enforcement of the law as though submitting to the discipline and training of the Lord.

At the same time, I believe that this Communist regime’s persecution against the church is a greatly wicked, unlawful action. As a pastor of a Christian church, I must denounce this wickedness openly and severely. The calling that I have received requires me to use non-violent methods to disobey those human laws that disobey the Bible and God. My Savior Christ also requires me to joyfully bear all costs for disobeying wicked laws.

But this does not mean that my personal disobedience and the disobedience of the church is in any sense “fighting for rights” or political activism in the form of civil disobedience, because I do not have the intention of changing any institutions or laws of China. As a pastor, the only thing I care about is the disruption of man’s sinful nature by this faithful disobedience and the testimony it bears for the cross of Christ.

As a pastor, my disobedience is one part of the gospel commission. Christ’s great commission requires of us great disobedience. The goal of disobedience is not to change the world but to testify about another world.

When placed in the matrix of life of the apostles and martyrs, when measured against the life of men like Wang Yi, our rebellion against inconvenient orders seems terribly misplaced.

Rieff, The Triumph of the Therapeutic, Chapter 2.1 (Discipleship and Therapy)

21 Tuesday Apr 2020

Posted by in Apologetics, Biblical Counseling, Freud, Theology of Biblical Counseling, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Chapter Two

The Impoverishment of Western Culture

There is an implicit claim here that symbols function as a mechanism by which a culture gains ascent over the various individuals in the culture: the means by which the superego functions. A curious question which is left unanswered is “Why symbols?”

We could argue that symbols point to the transcendent, but a proposition of Freud must be that there is no real transcendent. Why then any sort of desire or inclination in that direction? That is left unanswered. We simply learn that Freud provides us a mechanism to strip out the symbols.

We then learn that essentially Western Culture developed by means of suppressing sexual desire. (40) The control over sexual desire was the high water mark of character.

Since there is no objective morality, only pragmatics, there is no particular need for such suppression except in and so far as it is functional for the culture.

On an aside, I have noticed that the treatment for “sexual addiction” is distinction amoral in this regard. The problem is not whatever inclination, but rather whether there are negative consequences for following such an inclination.

There is an unstated morality which is present in this: Desires are inherently good. That is a moral equation in the guise of amorality. But if it were truly amoral there would be nothing better about indulging or refraining. Moreover, personal happiness could not be relevant, because anyone else’s concern for your well-being is also irrelevant.  In short, the moral question is really not as absent as some pretend. It is always there; the difference is where does not draw a line?

But back to Freud: The “analytic attitude”, the aim of “therapy” is always at the distinct individual. There is no reason to “cure” any sort of desire; because what makes Mr. X happy is necessarily good.  “Well-being is a delicate personal achievement”. (41)

This is taken as an ethical demand upon “therapy”. We start with the idiosyncratic evaluation of the patient and seek to assist in achieving that end.

That is fundamentally antithetical to the Christian demand. In Matthew 28, Christ places a solitary command upon the Church: “make disciples”. The process of disciple making is “teach the to observe all that I have commanded.”

Now one can reject the proposition that Christ spoke or that Christ spoke these words. That is an honest position, and the position of Freud, for instance. But for one to claim to be a “Christian” and also take a position that Freud has a contribution on this issue is perplexing.

The position of the Scripture is not terribly confusing. Yes, there can be knotty issues, but those are not the main. The center of the road is abundantly clear.

What is confusing is when someone proposes that there is any sort of integration possible at this key point. No one is contesting the ability of anyone to make observations about the relative frequency of X behavior. But when it comes to this question of the fundamental presuppositions, What is a human being, What is the purpose of a human being, What is necessary for human beings to change: those issues are beyond compromise or “integration”. When we get to presuppositions, those are questions of grammar.

In the English and German language, the sound “gift” has a fundamentally different meaning. In English you get one at Christmas. In German, it is “poison”.

Discipleship and therapy are similar in that both involve words and directions and people who know something is wrong. “Gift” sounds the same in English and German. But O the difference!

As a final note, if you are at all curious about the matter of the importance of “presupposition”, I must direct you to my brothers at:

Domain for Truth: https://veritasdomain.wordpress.com