09/23/2021

On Grief and Hope

By Phillip Powers

As most churches usually do, we begin our Sunday school class every week with a time for sharing prayer requests. And just personally, I am so glad that we do this. I have actually heard pastors criticize this practice, complaining that the requests are always the same, i.e. praying for someone’s illness or medical condition. The complaint, as it usually goes, has to do with the perceived depth of these requests, as if they are not important enough, not spiritual enough, to occupy our time and concern. What a shame! Sharing burdens with one another, no matter how trivial they may seem, is the beauty and the power of the body of Christ. But I digress; we will save that topic for another time. Over the last several weeks, I have been amazed to see and hear how many of the prayer requests that have been shared that have to do with COVID. Every week there is someone else who has been diagnosed with COVID. Every week there is someone else who has been hospitalized due to COVID. Every week there is someone else who has passed away from COVID.

Every time I hear one of these requests, along with the many others that are shared, I find myself taken by a twinge of grief. There is a sadness that is appropriate to the suffering of those that we love, and we must allow ourselves to feel it. The Scriptures encourage us to “rejoice with those who rejoice; weep with those who weep,” to “carry one another’s burdens; in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.” (Romans 12.15, Galatians 6.2) However, we must not allow ourselves to be overtaken by this grief, whether it be that of others or even our own. When we allow our pain to become all-consuming, we fall quickly into feelings of depression, despair, and hopelessness. As Christians we must remember that we do “not grieve like the rest, who have no hope.” (1 Thessalonians 4.13) Grief, sadness, heartache; these are not the end of our story. “For our momentary light affliction is producing for us an absolutely incomparable eternal weight of glory.” (2 Corinthians 4.17)

This is the point, namely that what we are waiting for so far outshines our present difficulties as to almost make them seem trivial by comparison. They are not trivial, of course; we feel them acutely. But we know that when our Lord returns, all of our griefs, all of our groanings, will prove to have been worth it. “We wait for the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” (Titus 2.13) What I am trying to say is that this vibrant hope, this anxious expectation, should characterize the disciples of Jesus; it should stand at the very foundation of our faith. We should all be anticipating and desiring that day when our Lord Jesus will return to establish His Kingdom on this earth once and for all, when He will do away with sin and sickness and death, and when He will welcome us into His glorious presence to remain for all eternity. However, for many Christians, it would seem, this glorious hope is the farthest thing from their minds, and their lives sadly reflect the want of it.

For the most part, our eschatological reflection in the church is either entirely absent or hopelessly mired in frivolous speculation about secondary and tertiary details that result in even more confusion. This is not to say that questions regarding the rapture or the millennium are unimportant, but it is to say that having the right answers to these questions is not the basis of our hope. Our hope is grounded in the promise of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “If I go away and prepare a place for you, I will come again and take you to myself, so that where I am you may be also.” (John 14.3) This promise is the sure and firm foundation for our hope, especially when we are facing times of difficulty, sadness, and grief. And so, “Let us hold on to the confession of our hope without wavering, since he who promised is faithful.” (Hebrews 10.23.)

Throughout its history and even today, the body of Christ is beautifully and abundantly diverse, but one of the things that has united all Christians at all times and in all places is our vibrant hope that looks expectantly forward to the return of our Lord Jesus Christ. We are called to be a people who “love His appearing.” (c.f. 2 Timothy 4.8) And when the darkness of grief threatens to choke out every flicker of joy, on those days we must redouble our conviction, we must fan the flame of our expectation, we must set our gaze once again upon that day when “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, [when] Death will be no more; grief, crying, and pain will be no more.” This is our blessed hope, and in it we find the strength to persevere, to endure every circumstance. Our waiting, our groaning, is not in vain. “He who testifies about these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.” [And we say], Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!” (Revelation 22.20)

2 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Biblical Theology, Spiritual Formation

09/01/2021

On Pastoral Tenure as Covenant

By Phillip Powers

I recently read an article about an Oklahoma pastor who is retiring after serving in the same church for 60 years. And let me just begin by saying that this is the kind of pastor that deserves the platform though he would probably never ask for it. So often, we platform the personalities that are the most visible, those pastors who have the largest churches, who have published the most books, who speak regularly on the conference circuit. It would seem we have missed the mark. Our measures of ministry success reflect all of the values and metrics of the world and none of the values of God, who says in His Word that, “Humans do not see what the Lord sees, for humans see what is visible, but the Lord sees the heart.” (1 Samuel 16.7) This pastor exemplifies the kind of nameless faithfulness that is the backbone of Christ’s church; pastors serving tirelessly in insignificant and forgotten places, loving people who are regular and ordinary, proclaiming the Word of God week in and week out. He never published any books; he wasn’t asked to speak at anyone’s conference. He held no denominational influence or power beyond his local association. May his tribe increase!

However, this story is not simply about a pastor who served in the same place for six decades. According to the pastor in question, and I quote, “A lot of it has to do with a church that has kept a pastor for years.” This, it would seem, is the key to long term pastoral tenure; it is churches that keep pastors. A pastor’s theological fidelity and moral integrity notwithstanding, churches bear a God given responsibility to keep the pastors that God has called to care for their souls. (c.f. Hebrews 13.17) According to research, the average pastoral tenure has risen over the years, from 3.6 years in 1996 to 6 years in 2016, but it is clear that the constant churning of pastoral leadership in churches all across this county is at least one major contributor to the weakness of American Christianity. Every pastor I know, myself included, has been hurt by churches who prematurely requested their resignation at the first sign of disagreement, disappointment, or difficulty. Sadly, these stories are often filled with the tears of betrayal, of broken trust, and of shattered confidences.

The point is that we need a better paradigm for thinking about the relationship between pastors and congregations. An employer/employee model that is driven by consumeristic expectations fundamentally lacks the virtues of grace that should define the church’s life together. This is why I believe we must recover the biblical idea of covenant, because covenants move us beyond a “what’s in it for me, what have you done for me lately” mindset by forcing us to consider our own responsibility for maintaining the relationship. There are many examples of covenants in the Bible: Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New to name just a few. But I would suggest that it is the marital covenant that stands as the closest parallel to the relationship between a pastor and a congregation. Consider the following similarities.

During the “dating” period, the pastoral candidate and the interviewing church put their best foot forward. Both parties accentuate their assets and their strengths and conceal their weaknesses. For the most part, this “get to know you” phase is full of excitement and anticipation of the possible match and its attendant benefits, and each subsequent interaction merely adds to the perception that this is a “match made in heaven.” Both parties wonder if the other might be “the one God intended”. The votes are totaled; the call is accepted. And the relationship moves into the “honeymoon phase”; it is a time that is filled with great idealism and blissful naiveté. Both the pastor and the congregation view each other through “rose colored glasses”; neither party can do any wrong in the eyes of the other. As the relationship grows, every new experience, every new situation is an opportunity to relish in the seeming perfections of the other.

Eventually, however, the difficulties come. The rose petals fall off; the idealism fades. What was once endearing is now annoying; what was once a source of great fulfillment now causes great frustration. Differences in opinion and perspective on all sorts of issues seem nearly insurmountable. The waves of conflict and division threaten to tear the relationship apart, and sadly, in many cases, it does. Marriages end in divorce, and pastors resign, sometimes of their own volition, other times at the behest of church leaders. It is a cycle that is all too familiar, but it need not be so. As in marriage, so also in the church, both parties have a decision to make as to how they will navigate this season. Instead of separation, they can choose to remain committed to each other. They can choose to work through their differences by listening, by showing grace, by compromise. They can persevere and come out on the other side together and stronger for it. Churches can choose to keep their pastors, and pastors can choose to love and serve the church that God has called them to.

This is what relationships should look like within the Body of Christ. We do not give up each other when relationships get hard; we do not throw in the proverbial towel because circumstances are difficult or challenging. We choose love, we choose grace, we choose hope. We covenant together for the sake of the Gospel, for the growth of each other in Christlikeness, for the glory of God. It has been said that most pastors, and I would include most churches, overestimate what can be accomplished in the span of three years, but underestimate what can be accomplished in the span of ten years. So, rather than aiming for some set of five year goals that are ultimately unrealistic, let us strive for that biblical standard of godly faithfulness over time. And when we do this, we can rest assured that we will one day hear those most blessed of commendations from our Lord Jesus, “Well done, good and faithful servant! Share your master’s joy!”

This post was also posted at SBCvoices, here.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Ecclesiology, Ministry, Practical Theology

08/12/2021

On Theological Discourse and the Example of Jesus

By Phillip Powers

In many ways, the nature of theological discourse, especially when it comes to navigating areas of disagreement, is like a crucible. It very quickly burns away every veneer, every façade, every pretense, and it reveals in no uncertain terms the condition of a person’s heart. It exposes the quality of person’s character in ways that no other interpersonal endeavor seems to. In my last post, I suggested that no matter how stark our disagreements may be, we must still engage our opponents Christianly. We must cultivate the virtues of Christ-likeness even when we are required to address questions of Biblical interpretation about which we hold strong convictions or for which we have the most zeal. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the exemplar par excellence when it comes to interacting with people with whom we have sharp and pointed disagreements, and as His disciples, we would do well to consider His conduct in these matters and do likewise.

Of course, a cursory reading of the Gospels quickly reveals that Jesus was not afraid of theological debate. There were many occasions where things got quite heated in the discussions that He had with the religious leaders of His day, and Jesus certainly did not hold back in His rebuke of them. He variously referred to them as a “brood of vipers” (Matt 12.34, 23.33), as “hypocrites” (Luke 12.56, 13.15), even as “sons of their father the devil”(John 8.44). To our modern ears, this sounds overly harsh and smacks of contempt. Moreover, it appears to be nothing more than a kind of ad hominem attack, which is a logical fallacy that attacks the person rather than engages the substance of their argument. However, Jesus was a master of language and rhetorical strategy; therefore, He cannot be charged with any kind of personal malice or fallacious argumentation. Upon further study of these exchanges, it becomes clear that Jesus’ disagreements with the Jewish religious were, in fact, quite substantive, and that these disagreements were a large part of the motivations that led the Jewish leaders to plot for His death by crucifixion.

Further reflection on these scenes is beyond the scope of this article; however, the question remains: to what extent are Jesus’ interchanges with the Jewish religious leaders exemplary for our approach to navigating disagreements in theological discourse? Does our pursuit of Christlikeness require that we emulate the rhetorical strategies of Jesus against the Pharisees? Are we supposed to treat our theological opponents with the same attitude and method as Jesus? In answer to these questions, I would like to offer the following thesis: Jesus’ interactions with the Jewish religious leaders of His day are not an example for how we should address our disagreements in modern theological discourse. And in the space remaining, I would like to offer three reasons in support of this conclusion.

First, Jesus had the proper authority to rebuke. The question of Jesus’ authority was the driving force in the majority of His conflict with the Jewish religious leaders. In Mark, chapter 1, and verse 22, we read that the people “were astonished at his teaching because he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not like the scribes.” Jesus possessed inherent authority as Messiah, and this was a direct threat to the Jewish religious establishment. This was the primary point of contention between Jesus and the religious leaders. In fact, the differences in biblical interpretation that separated them were not even that significant by comparison. The religious leaders rejected the messianic claim of Jesus, and that rejection pushed them to conspire for His death as early as Mark chapter 3. So, in truth, the conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders was never really a theological one to begin with. It was through and through a question of authority and submission, specifically the messianic authority of Jesus and the refusal of the Jewish leaders to submit to Him. Therefore, we must conclude that the rebukes that He spoke against them were aimed, not at their theological disagreements, but rather, they were meant to provoke the religious leaders to repentance and submission.

Secondly, Jesus had the necessary character to rebuke. We confess that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity incarnate, fully God and fully man, born of the virgin Mary, born without sin. He was “tempted in every way as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4.15). He lived a sinless life in perfect obedience to the Father. He was not given to vices like pride and arrogance, contempt, scorn, guile, etc. Even in His anger, He was without sin. This means that the rebukes that He levied against the Jewish religious leaders came from a heart that was perfectly righteous and holy. He was genuinely driven by love for God and by love for His opponents; He championed the truth for the sake of the truth, not for personal gain or one-upmanship. His motives were never mixed, never polluted, never turned toward self, but always meant to bring His opponents to repentance and faith. This is the ideal to which we must aspire; however, on this side of glory, we can never be certain that our motives are perfectly pure. As long as we live in this fallen world, our attitudes will necessarily be mixed with sin, which is why we be ever conscious, always examining the motives of our hearts before venturing to rebuke those with whom we disagree. We should submit ourselves to the examination of the Spirit, praying as the psalmist taught us, “Search me, God, and know my heart; test me and know my concerns. See if there is any offensive way in me; lead me in the everlasting way.” (Psalm 139.23-24)

And lastly, Jesus had the ideal context to rebuke. It goes without saying that the world has changed since the days of Jesus and His first followers. His was a culture that was primarily oral, where theological discourse was a public affair, where disagreements were hammered out in face to face dialogue in front of a crowd of onlookers. By contrast, ours is a culture that is primary literary, where theological discourse is a written affair, where disagreements are hammered out in books and journal articles that are subject to peer review and the editorial process. Of course, the proliferation of social media has all but circumvented those processes; avenues for both formal and informal review are nearly nonexistent in the facebook realm, the twitterspace, and the blogosphere. But there is a big difference between discussing our theological differences in face to face conversation and taking anonymous potshots from behind a computer screen. When Jesus launched His rebukes against the Jewish religious leaders, He was operating in a open and public context that required active listening and clear argumentation. It was a context that had natural checks and balances in the form of the watching crowds. He knew His opponents, and they knew Him; there was no hiding. The point is this: context matters. In other words, context determines how we navigate our theological disagreements. How we discuss these matters in face to face dialogue is very different from how we handle them on social media or in the pages of published scholarship.

In conclusion, there is a vast difference between the rebukes that Jesus levied against those who had rejected Him as their Messiah and navigating our theological disagreements within the body of Christ. And what we must affirm is that Christians are called to navigate their disagreements with attitudes and approaches that are counter to the ways of the world at large. We are called to be different, we are called to righteousness and holiness. We are called to the way of love. It is natural and easy to love those with whom we agree, but it is whole other challenge to love those with whom we disagree, even when that disagreement is relatively minor. We must learn to love others theologically. The example of our Lord Jesus Christ demands nothing less than this.

For further study:
Smith, Brandon D. “Loving Others Theologically”, posted at mereorthodoxy.com, July 10, 2018.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Biblical Theology, Gospels Studies, Historical Jesus, Practical Theology

06/23/2021

On Theological Discourse, False Teaching, and the Ministry of Rebuke

By Phillip Powers

In my previous post, I began to outline the general contours of a biblical ethic for theological discourse. The ability to discuss questions of theology and biblical interpretation Christianly, especially where there is disagreement, is a primary indication of a person’s maturity in Christ. However, so often in this current cultural climate, godly virtues like humility, gentleness, kindness, love, and grace are glaringly absent from most (online) theological discourse. In addition to that, the proliferation of social media has created a practical cacophony of voices making it nearly impossible to know which ones are faithful and true. As Christians, we are called to contend passionately for the truth, which necessarily includes calling out those errors which are in direct contradiction to the clear teaching of the Bible. And so, the question remains, how can we contend for theological truth without being unnecessarily contentious?

The fact is that false teaching has always been a plague on the people of God. From Mosaic prescriptions that lay out the consequences for those making false prophecies to the writing prophets and their warnings about those who offer false promises of peace and security in the face of judgment to the warnings of the New Testament Gospels and epistles even to Revelation’s descriptions of an eschatological false prophet, the Bible is consistent in calling the people of God to be on guard, always watching our lives and our doctrine closely. However, we are also responsible for the lives and doctrine of each other within the community of faith. We bear a mutual responsibility for each other’s souls as we pursue biblical faithfulness, and when a brother or sister wanders off the path of truth, when they are swept up by the deceptions of false teaching, then we are called to the ministry of a loving rebuke that we may point them back to faithfulness.

The challenge, however, comes in identifying exactly what is and what is not false teaching. It has become common practice it seems to label our theological opponents with ideological and emotionally charged epithets that end up causing more confusion than clarity, which results in even more division. Labels like false teacher, heretic, liberal, etc. simply cannot be thrown around carelessly. Merely holding a different theological conclusion than someone else does not mean that they deserve to be identified as a false teacher. This is why we need a clear definition of what false teaching is. False teaching is any teaching that contradicts the primary and essential truths of the Bible. It is any doctrine that stands contrary to the fundamental essence of the Gospel. This has been the common understanding throughout the history of the church, but it would seem that in the current cultural climate many people have forgotten how to distinguish between friend and foe.

We desperately need to recover the discipline of theological triage. The ability to appreciate what is primary and what is secondary or tertiary is an ability that seems all but lost in most theological discourse. The threat of false teaching only applies at the level of the primary, those core truths that if compromised place one outside of the Christian faith. Historically, these primary doctrines have been defined by the classic creeds of the early church. These creeds (e.g. Apostle’s, Nicene/Constantinopolitan, Athanasian, etc.) were forged in the crucible of theological controversy, so they are helpful in identifying what does and does not constitute false teaching. Of course, they do not replace or supersede the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, but they can be helpful in clarifying the contours of Christian orthodoxy. Clearly, as it was then so also now, any teaching or doctrine that falls outside of these bounds is rightly called heresy or false teaching, and anyone who holds, affirms, or promotes this kind of doctrine must be rebuked for their error. With that being said, in what follows, I would like to outline a few biblical priorities that we must keep in mind as we engage each other in these matters.

The first priority is the priority of the local church. The local church is the primary locus of God’s redemptive and sanctifying work, and this includes the ministry of rebuke. It is in the local church that we are taught sound doctrine. It is in the local church where we submit to pastor-elders who keep watch over our souls. It is in the local church where we hold each other accountable and consider how we might provoke one another to love and good deeds. All of the commands that instruct us to correct and rebuke false teaching are addressed to the local church. This means that the local church is the right and proper context for hammering out our theological differences, for wrestling with the text of Scripture. It should be a safe place where people can ask questions, where they can express their understanding of particular issues and questions without fear of judgment or ridicule, and when necessary, where they can be pointed back to the way of biblical truth by correction or rebuke. In other words, it is not our job as pastors or as church members to police the theology of all Christians everywhere. Rather, it is our job to maintain biblical faithfulness within the context of the local church community where God has placed us.

The second priority is the priority of relationships. Relationships matter. What we must realize is that the Great Commandment to love God and to love people is not two but one. These are two sides of the same coin, to halves of one whole. Loving God necessarily includes loving others, and we can only do this in personal intimate friendships. When these relationships are grounded in mutual love for God and for each another, then and only then can we be assured of a person’s intent, that they are for our good and not for our harm, that they only wants what’s best for us. This unwavering trust is the currency that must be spent in speaking words of rebuke to one another. Outside of this basic assurance of a person’s good intentions, our rebukes will almost always come across as harsh, demeaning, belittling, and divisive. This is why the greater the relational distance that exists between us and our theological opponents, the greater amount of grace we must be willing to show them. This means giving the benefit of the doubt; it means taking our opponents at their word. And it means attributing questions or concerns first to misunderstanding, differing emphases, or lack of clarity before immediately impugning, slandering, and mischaracterizing someone’s biblical fidelity and devotion.

The third priority in the ministry of rebuke is the priority of repentance. Repentance, restoration, reconciliation. This must be the guiding principle, the primary purpose, in every church discipline situation. This is especially so when it comes to the ministry of rebuke. There may be occasions where a stern rebuke is necessary and warranted, but we are not simply trying to win arguments for the sake of being right. We are not engaged in a game where we need to win theological points to defeat our opponents. If false teaching is any doctrine or belief that would invalidate the Gospel, then we cannot pretend that these questions have no consequence. We are engaged in a spiritual battle for the soul, that we might turn them to Christ. This is why doctrine matters; this is why we must contend for the faith. It can never merely be a question of who is right and who is wrong. Every theological conversation must be guided by the primary desire of both parties to be more like Christ, to submit more to Christ, to trust more in Christ. This is why we must be ready and willing to repent and seek forgiveness, and it is why we must engage our theological differences in ways that invite others to do likewise.

And finally, the fourth priority for our theological discourse is the priority of Christlikeness. We are called to demonstrate the virtues of Christian character in every situation, in every interaction, in every conversation. Even when we must speak hard words, we are not permitted to speak them harshly. We cannot give into attitudes like hate, bitterness, or pride. We cannot treat our theological opponents, no matter the severity of their error, with derision or disregard or contempt. We must always seek to “speak the truth in love” even when that truth is confronting. Of course, there are plenty of examples in the Gospels where Jesus had to deliver hard words, and to our ears, his confrontations with the Pharisees may seem downright combative or argumentative. I will consider these examples and how they relate to theological discourse in my next post; however, suffice it say here that tone matters. Even when we must confront those who are descending into grave theological error, we must endeavor to deliver our rebukes with the virtues of Christ-like character, not the least of which are grace, humility, and love.

This post was also posted at SBCvoices, here.

1 Comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Bible Exposition, Ecclesiology, Ministry, Practical Theology, Systematic Theology

05/19/2021

On Theological Discourse, Disagreement, and Division

By Phillip Powers

The legacy of Donald Trump’s term as President of the United States will not be measured in terms of legislation passed, appointments made, or diplomatic accords achieved. It will not be counted by any advancements of the Republican party’s agenda, by any conservative causes that were championed, or by any national or international crises that were averted. No, the lasting influence of the 45th President will only be measured by the bitter division and caustic animosity that has absolutely engulfed our country. It is an insidious sickness that has pervaded every sphere of our public discourse, and sadly, the church is no exception. We are a people divided, perhaps more than ever, and this is much to our shame.

Nowhere has this mood been more evident than in the Christian blogosphere. Interactions between Christians on social media, whether via Twitter, Facebook, blogs, podcasts, etc., have become more and more antagonistic over the past several months. Whether the question has to do with CRT/Intersectionality, COVID restrictions, or with issues related to the role of women in the ministry of the church, Christians on both sides of these issues have been quick to vilify and condemn those with whom they are not in perfect agreement. This trend has resulted in an atmosphere online that is hateful, ugly, and disheartening.

Now, what we must affirm is that discussion, debate, and even disagreement are essential to the theological enterprise. The Scriptures affirm that “Iron sharpens iron, and one person sharpens another.” (Proverbs 27.17) It is through the fires of irenic debate that clarity is achieved, understanding is sharpened, and unity is hammered out. We can see this on vivid display in the Bible in the Book of Acts. In chapter 15, at the Jerusalem Council, the early church leaders met to consider the question of the Gentiles inclusion into the people of God. After hearing both sides of the discussion and airing out differences in reasoning and perspective, truth won the day and a foundation for unity was forged. It is a beautiful picture of the way that theological discussion and debate are beneficial to the church. However, in light of the current climate of anger and animosity, what we need most are clear Biblical principles for theological discourse, and in the space remaining I would like to recommend a few possibilities.

Of course, the Scriptures are replete with principles for how Christians should and should not speak to one another, and while an exhaustive examination of these principles would be beyond the scope of this medium, there is one that it is particularly helpful in the current discussion. In the Letter from James, we find an explicit warning about the power and danger of the tongue (and by extension our typing fingers). Quote:

And the tongue is a fire. The tongue, a world of unrighteousness, is placed among our members. It stains the whole body, sets the course of life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell. … It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With the tongue we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in God’s likeness. Blessing and cursing come out of the same mouth. My brothers and sisters, these things should not be this way. 

~James 3.6-10

We must agree with James, “These things should not be this way.” Luckily, James has also provided us with a clear prescription for how these things should be, as he writes in chapter 1, verse 19, “My dear brothers and sisters, understand this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger, for human anger does not accomplish God’s righteousness.” Quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger. If we would merely apply these three principles to our theological discourse, I believe that we could go a long way in helping to stem the tidal wave a anger and bitterness that has absolutely overwhelmed our theological conversations.

Quick to listen. Being quick to listen means listening to our theological opponents first and foremost for the purpose of clarity and understanding. Listening while only thinking of how to counter the point is not listening at all. This also means listening to the whole sermon, or even more than one sermon, reading the whole book or the entire article, not merely responding to one sentence or one segment. It means giving priority to the context in which statements are given, and giving those statements the benefit of the the doubt, assuming that the speaker is genuinely trying to be biblically faithful, Gospel affirming, and Christ honoring. Quick to listen also means seeking out the best proponents of a given position, reading the best scholarship on the issue, interacting with the best evidence and the most robust arguments.

Slow to speak. Being slow to speak means thinking carefully about our response, discerning whether our motive is to build up our opponent or to tear them down. It means refusing to label our opponents with identities meant to disparage rather than clarify. It means being careful not to caricature, misconstrue, or misrepresent the position of our opponents, not bearing false witness by assigning to them motives and agendas that they do not in fact support. Slow to speak also means humbly admitting our ignorance on some issues, acknowledging that we are not all-knowing on every theological issue or question that is raised. It means that we engage each other always out of a position of love, respect, and unity rather than out of anger and animosity.

Slow to anger. Being slow to anger means being slow to outrage, slow to alarm. It means understanding that every theological disagreement does not rise to the level of heresy or false teaching, that our opponents have not departed from the truth once for all delivered to the saints just because they do not see the issue the way that we do. It means discerning the relative importance of the issue at hand, understanding whether a disagreement is a first tier, second tier, or third tier question. It means refusing to malign the sincerity of our opponents faith over issues that are not orthodoxy defining. Slow to anger means refusing hold our opponents in contempt, refusing to criticize, refusing to castigate, refusing to condemn.

Of course, I am already anticipating the push back. You are probably thinking, “Wait a pretty little minute! We are instructed to call out error, to rebuke false teaching, to stand boldly for the truth.” More on this in my next post. However, at this juncture, I would say in response, “yes, the Scriptures do call us to this,” but the manner in which we address our theological disagreements speaks volumes about the Gospel that we profess. When we treat each other as adversaries to be defeated rather than brothers and sisters to be loved, then we betray the very faith we argue so adamantly for. And when the watching world sees nothing but a reflection of itself in us, then we sacrifice all our credibility in calling them to repent and believe in the Savior that we love. As the Apostle Paul would say, “May it never be!”

This post was also posted at SBCvoices, here.

2 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Ecclesiology, Ministry, Practical Theology

02/18/2021

On Common Objections to the Observation of Lent

By Phillip Powers

Well, as they say, it is that time of year again. No, I am not talking about tax season; I am talking about the season in the traditional Christian calendar which is set aside for the purpose of self-reflection, examination, confession, and repentance. I am talking about that time of the year when we are asked to set aside the creature comforts that we are so dependent on and to cultivate that pure and singular dependence upon Christ through His Spirit. It is that time of year when Christians from all around the world from many varied theological and cultural backgrounds are invited to set their gaze on the cross of our Lord Jesus and the price that He paid for our sin, even as they begin to anticipate that victorious day when we will celebrate His resurrection from the dead. I am talking about the season of Lent. (For more on this season and its usefulness in the Christian life, see my post here.)

However, in most non-liturgical, low-church traditions, especially down here in the good ole’ Bible belt, the idea of observing the season of Lent is most often met with hostility and a host of objections as to why Christians should not observe this ancient practice. In this post, I would like to consider just a few of these, so that we may perhaps have a clearer understanding as to the benefits and the dangers of observing the season of Lent.

One of the primary objections that is most often given against the practice of Lent, as well as any other practice that might remotely be considered liturgical, is that it comes to us from the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church. There is a deep seated antipathy, an unstated but ever present aversion to any and all things Roman Catholic, that lives just under the surface in many Protestant denominations, and this is much to our shame. (This may be a symptom of a wider problem, i.e. the hubris of denominational tribalism that treats all those outside of our own tradition with skepticism and disdain.) Now, I will be the first to admit that there are many facets of Roman Catholic theology that I find troublesome and concerning, many aspects of their belief and practice that are hard to square with the teaching of the Bible, but we do ourselves a great disservice when we dismiss their contributions to the Christian faith altogether.

After all, the Roman Catholic Church was the only church for the first 1500 years of Christian history, and though they might have gone astray along the way, they actually got many things right. From their centuries long faithfulness comes classic formulations of doctrines like the trinity, the hypostatic union, etc., and for these we must be ever grateful. But not only in matters of doctrinal orthodoxy, but in the details of faithful orthopraxy, their contributions must be considered, and not merely dismissed. They have given us a rich and beautiful liturgical tradition which we would do well to consider in our own attempts to be faithful worshippers of Christ. Practices like the lectionary and the calendar are just some of the contributions that come to us from that tradition. I believe the season of Lent to be one of these contributions from which our faith and practice could benefit deeply. In other words, we don’t have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

A second objection that is somewhat connected with the first has do with the purpose of the season of Lent. In some traditions, Lent is presented as a way of “earning” God’s forgiveness, as a meritorious act by which we might deserve God’s grace, even as a kind of penance. In this light, the observance of Lent is made to be a mandatory practice for all of those who call themselves Christians. Clearly, this flies in the face of the clear teaching of the Bible. Our sins were once and for all completely forgiven when we placed our faith in Christ. This is what it means to be justified. There are no actions that we can take to earn or deserve more grace from God, because He has already poured out grace upon grace to us through the person and work of Jesus Christ. We are not required to do any works of penance for our sins, because the once and for all punishment for our sins fell on the shoulders of Jesus Christ as He was nailed to the cross to die. The payment for sin has been made in full; nothing more is necessary.

However, the repentance that God requires is more than a one time event; on the contrary, it is the lifelong discipline of a follower of Christ as we turn from our sin daily. This is the first of Martin Luther’s 95 Theses, that “When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.” Repentance is a habit, and setting aside a season for intentional reflection and cultivation of that habit can be quite beneficial in the life of the Christian. Especially as we prepare ourselves for the festivities of Holy Week, which culminate in the events of Good Friday and Easter Sunday, this season can aid us in our sanctification by exposing our sin and then reminding us anew of the wonder of the atoning work of our Savior and the victory that we have over sin through His resurrection. So, while the season of Lent should not be observed as a means to earning God’s grace, it can help us to understand and appreciate the grace that we have already received in new and fresh ways.

A final objection that is often raised in this conversation is that the practice of Lent is nowhere explicitly commanded in Holy Scripture. And if I am being honest, this is the strongest objection to be considered, because we all want to be biblical in the practice and expression of our faith. This is often expressed as a formulation of the regulative principle for worship (RPW), which states, “The acceptable way of worshiping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.” (2nd London Baptist Confession, 1689) Anyone who believes that the Bible is the inspired inerrant Word of the one true and living God must affirm this as being true. And so, if lent is nowhere commanded in Holy Scripture, then why would we concern ourselves with observing it. Aren’t the Scriptures sufficient for all matters of faith and practice?

We are required to answer this question in the affirmative. (2 Timothy 3.16-17) YES, the Scriptures are sufficient. But just because something is not expressly commanded in Scripture does not mean that it is not beneficial for our faith and practice. There are many things we do in the practice of our faith, both personally and corporately, that are not directly commanded in Scripture. For example, the Scriptures do not command us to have Vacation Bible Schools during the summer, but almost every church I know and have been a part of has a VBS. The point is simply that no one follows the RPW absolutely; in fact, to do so would be impossible. The Scriptures give us general guidelines, and we are called to use our Holy Spirit guided Biblically informed wisdom in the specific applications of those guidelines. (cf. Romans 12.1-2) In the case of Lent, the Bible clearly emphasizes the importance and priority of repentance, and it is up to us, with the help of Scripture and tradition, to cultivate repentance in our lives.

In the final analysis, we must conclude that the decision to observe the season of Lent, whether that observance is personal or corporate, it must remain at the level of Christian freedom. For those who have come out of liturgically rigorous traditions bordering on the legalistic, where observing Lent was a matter of obligation, then I would advise against it. Instead, I would encourage you to relish in the finished work of Christ. However, for others, and I would surmise that this is most of my readers, observing Lent can be an opportunity to cultivate the spiritual discipline of repentance, to intentionally reflect on the condition of our souls, to identify those unacknowledged and unadmitted sins, and to turn again toward Christ in faithful obedience. We are hardly in danger of taking our repentance too seriously, and the season of Lent can help us appreciate anew the reality and significance of sin and its ongoing power in our lives, even as we anticipate the day when we will finally be set free from its very presence. And oh, how we long for that day! Even so, Lord Jesus, come quickly!

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Church History, Spiritual Formation, Worship & Liturgy

02/16/2021

On A Healthy Church Member … Gathers

By Phillip Powers

Text
24 And let us consider one another in order to provoke love and good works, 25 not neglecting to gather together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging each other, and all the more as you see the day approaching.

~Hebrews 10.24-25

Title: A Healthy Church Member … Gathers
Series: A Healthy Church Member
Church: South Caraway Baptist Church, Jonesboro, AR
Date: January 31, 2021

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Bible Exposition, Biblical Theology, Ecclesiology, Ministry, Sermons, Worship & Liturgy

02/10/2021

On “Able to Teach” as a Qualification for Elders

By Phillip Powers

If you have ever browsed pastoral job descriptions, then you know that for most churches Jesus himself wouldn’t measure up to their desired qualifications. After all, he was a single thirty something with almost no pastoral experience. But I digress. What you have probably also noticed is that almost every one of these descriptions makes some reference to the qualifications for elders mentioned in 1 Timothy 3.1-7 and/or Titus 1.6-9. In these passages, Paul lays out the character virtues that should be true of those who serve the church in the role of pastor/elder.

And this is the point that must be emphasized, that each and every one of these qualifications reflect a man’s character and not his achievements, skills, or experience. As God once told the prophet Samuel, “Humans do not see what the Lord sees, for humans see what is visible, but the Lord sees the heart.” (1 Samuel 16.7) Paul wants Timothy and Titus to understand this principle, that what matters in Christian service are the virtues of Christ-like character, godliness that flows outward from a heart that has been transformed by the Spirit. These are what make a person qualified to lead others down the path of Christian discipleship. As the old adage states, “it is impossible to lead someone down a path that you have never traveled yourself.” And so it is for those who would lead Christ’s church.

However, one of these qualifications seems to stand out from the rest, and that is where elders are called to be “able to teach.” (1 Timothy 3.2) Of course, a quick reading of the Pastoral Epistles makes it very clear that teaching/preaching is one of the primary duties of those who serve the church as pastors/elders. Time and again, Paul exhorts his young protégés, Timothy and Titus, to “ Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; rebuke, correct, and encourage with great patience and teaching.” (2 Timothy 4.2) The importance of teaching/preaching in the ministry of a pastor/elder almost seems to trump all other concerns, and understandably so, because “All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3.16-17)

Therefore, it would seem that an ability to teach is a primary qualification for those men who aspire to the noble work of pastoral/elder ministry. The problem, though, is that an ability to teach is more of a skill than it is a quality of godly character. It is almost out of place for Paul to include the skill of teaching ability in a list of what is otherwise qualities of Christ-like character. More than that though, in actual practice, we have come to the point where we exalt a man’s rhetorical ability over and above all other concerns when it comes to evaluating pastoral candidates. We have created a celebrity culture in the church where mega-church pastors who have remarkable speaking and teaching ability have become the standard against which all other pastors are measured. Style, personality, and delivery become the criterion by which we judge a pastor/elder. And so, in most cases, pastoral candidates are invited to preach in view of a call, and after a single hearing, the church is asked to vote on that candidate for pastor, a decision which more often than not boils down to mere stylistic preference.

If Paul prioritizes qualities of character over achievements, skills, and experience, then how can a congregation expect to evaluate a man’s character after only a few hours of interaction. This system is flawed, but that is a topic for another post. My concern in this post is to consider anew what the Apostle Paul meant by the phrase “able to teach.” Now, this three word phrase in English renders a single word in the Greek text, διδακτικός/didaktikos, and this word only occurs twice in the New Testament, here in 1 Timothy 3.2 and also in 2 Timothy 2.24. So, we have scant evidence within the New Testament to which we might appeal for a better understanding of this word. However, we do have a similar word that may shed some light on our text, and that is the word διδακτός/didaktos. This adjective describes someone who is taught or instructed (c.f. John 6.45, 1 Corinthians 2.13, 1 Thessalonians 4.9). So, what we have in our text is simply this same adjective with the ending -(t)ikos. This Greek suffix carries the meaning of “concerned with” and “having characteristics of.” In light of this evidence, we may conclude that the meaning of the word in question carries the idea of something like “having the characteristics of someone who has been taught.” In other words, someone who is teachable.

And in the context of both 1 Timothy 3.2 and 2 Timothy 2.24, the meaning “teachable” would seem to fit squarely with the argument that Paul is making. An elder/pastor “must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, self-controlled, sensible, respectable, hospitable, [teachable].” (1 Timothy 3.2) Likewise, he “must be gentle to everyone, [teachable], and patient.” (2 Timothy 2.24). This reading simply fits better with the contextual and linguistic evidence. The bottom line is that teaching/preaching ability is a skill that can be learned and honed over time. In fact, I would suggest that it is something that even the most prolific preachers continually work on, as they constantly seek to be better communicators of God’s truth. But being teachable is the fruit of God’s spirit working within to make us more like Christ. It is a reflection of godly humility that recognizes that we do not have all the answers, a reflection of the heart that understands there is always more to learn in the School of Christ.

Of course, we must hasten to add that the one directly affects the other, that is to say that being teachable is necessary in the work of preaching and teaching effectively, because the pastor/elder that assumes that he knows it all has already fallen headlong into the pride of human self-sufficiency. But godly pastor/elders understand that they have no sufficiency in themselves, nothing of value to offer; rather, they only speak as those who have been taught of God by the Spirit through the Word, and this is what makes their teaching and preaching effective, namely that it comes from God and not from themselves. This is in keeping with the example of our Lord Jesus who said, “For I have not spoken on my own, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a command to say everything I have said. I know that his command is eternal life. So the things that I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me.” (John 12.49-50)

This, I believe, is what Paul intended when he called pastor/elders to be “able to teach”, namely that they speak only as they have heard from the inspired Word of the one true and living God, that they eschew the temptations of originality, creativity, and novelty in the pulpit, that they accurately and faithfully deliver what was once for all delivered to the saints. As the Apostle Paul puts it,

When I came to you, brothers and sisters, announcing the mystery of God to you, I did not come with brilliance of speech or wisdom. I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. My speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not be based on human wisdom but on God’s power.

1 Corinthians 2.1-5

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Bible Exposition, Biblical Theology, Ecclesiology, Ministry

01/19/2021

On the Practice of Holiness (1 Timothy 3.14-4.10)

By Phillip Powers

Text
14 I write these things to you, hoping to come to you soon. 15 But if I should be delayed, I have written so that you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. 16 And most certainly, the mystery of godliness is great:

He was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated in the Spirit,
seen by angels,
preached among the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.

4 Now the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will depart from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons, 2 through the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared. 3 They forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods that God created to be received with gratitude by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 since it is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer.

6 If you point these things out to the brothers and sisters, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, nourished by the words of the faith and the good teaching that you have followed. 7 But have nothing to do with pointless and silly myths. Rather, train yourself in godliness. 8 For the training of the body has limited benefit, but godliness is beneficial in every way, since it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. 9 This saying is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance. 10 For this reason we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

Title: On the Practice of Holiness
Series: All I Want for Christmas
Church: South Caraway Baptist Church, Jonesboro, AR
Date: December 27, 2020

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , | posted in Bible Exposition, Biblical Theology, Sermons, Spiritual Formation

10/23/2020

On Spirit Led Preaching and the Heresy of Donatism

By Phillip Powers
Painting of Augustine of Hippo arguing with a man before an audience
Charles-André van Loo’s 18th-century Augustine arguing with Donatists

I once was told by a well meaning deacon in a church that I previously pastored that my preaching was not “spirit led”. Now, in the interest of transparency, at that time, for the AM services I was ordering my preaching schedule by the traditional Christian calendar and selecting my texts from the Revised Common Lectionary. For my reasoning on this, see my posts here and here. And for the PM services, I was preaching expositionally verse-by-verse through the Minor Prophets. My purpose in this post is not to defend myself against the criticism; it was perhaps well intended. Rather, I would like to examine the underlying presupposition that informs such a critique.

In many rural Bible-Belt churches, it is usually assumed that being “spirit led” is synonymous with spontaneity, that the preacher who is “led by the Spirit” receives a direct word from the Lord to be preached to the church every week. To put it another way, it is the spiritual perception of the preacher that informs and empowers the preaching task rather than the systematic study of Holy Scripture. In its most egregious expression, I have seen many a preacher step into the pulpit and cast his prepared sermon aside, explaining that God had given him another sermon just a few moments before during the song service.

The problem with this kind of perspective on preaching is that it locates the efficacy of preaching in the preacher, in his spirituality, in his perceptivity and attunement to the voice of the Spirit. It removes the power of preaching from the inspired Word of God and puts it in the experience of the “so-called” man of God. As the Apostle Paul would say, “May it never be!”

Of course, this is not a new question in the life of the church; after all, there is nothing new under the sun (Eccl 1.9). This same issue had to be addressed in the early church, and at that time it was called Donatism, so named after Donatus Magnus, who was consecrated as Bishop of Carthage in 313 AD. Beginning in 303 AD, the Emperor Diocletian issued a series of edicts rescinding the legal rights of Christians in the Roman Empire and demanding that they comply with traditional pagan worship practices. This time period is now known as the “Great Persecution”, because this was the last and most severe persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire before Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, essentially legalizing Christianity.

However, during that ten year period of persecution, rather than become martyrs, some Christian priests capitulated to the persecution and surrendered their copies of Holy Scripture as a token repudiation of their faith. These traditores, as they were later called, were eventually reinstated to their ministerial service, but the validity of their continued ministry was questioned by Donatus and his followers. In other words, the Donatists argued that the administration of the sacraments by traditores was invalidated by their previous moral compromise. This position became known as ex opere operantis, which is Latin for “from the work of the worker”, meaning that the validity of the ministry depended on the worthiness of the bishop performing it.

It was the great theologian Augustine, Bishop of Hippo from 396-430 AD, that was the most vocal opponent of the Donatists. In his seven volume work On Baptism, Against the Donatists, he argued for the counter position ex opere operato, which is Latin for “from the work worked”, meaning that the validity of the ministry rests not in the one who performs it but in the finished work of Christ and is guaranteed by the promise of God. In other words, the efficacy of God’s grace is not dependent upon the human vessel offering it but on the power of God to affect change in the one who receives it. This position eventually won the day, and the Donatists were subsequently condemned by the church as heretics.

Coming back to our original question as to the efficacy and power of preaching, the assumption that this is based on the spirituality of the preacher is not unlike the heresy of the Donatists. It puts the power in the man instead of putting it where it belongs, which is in the Spirit inspired Word of God. As the Apostle Paul reminds us, “All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness.” (2 Tim 3.16), and as God promises through the prophet Isaiah, “my word that comes from my mouth will not return to me empty, but it will accomplish what I please and will prosper in what I send it to do.” (Isa 55.11)

So, instead of placing the blame on our pastors for ineffective and powerless preaching, maybe we should turn the question back on ourselves and ask if we are open to receiving what the Spirit has already said in His Word. As long as the Word of God is being faithfully and accurately proclaimed, then the responsibility falls to the hearers to respond accordingly. Therefore, let us pray that the Spirit will give us the eyes to see, the ears to hear, and the heart to receive what He is saying to the church through His inspired Word!

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Biblical Theology, Church History, Ministry, Worship & Liturgy

Tim Challies

Slow To Write

"let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger."

lovegavehope

Just another WordPress.com site

Jared Cornutt

Pastor | Speaker | Writer

Denny Burk

A commentary on theology, politics, and culture

G3 Ministries

Events + Resources for the Local Church

Biblical Reasoning

Biblical and Systematic Theology According to the Scriptures

RetroChristianity

Reclaiming the Forgotten Faith

SBC Voices

Southern Baptist News & Opinion

Lucid Theology

Thoughts on words, books, theology, and life.

Baptist21

A pastor-led voice for Baptists in the 21st century

Center For Baptist Renewal

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers

The Pastor's Well - Pastor Well

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers

Welcome

Articles - AlbertMohler.com

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers

The Gospel Coalition

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers