Faith Seeking Understanding

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: Accountability, Christlikeness, Disagreement, Discourse, Discussion, Ethics, False Teaching, Heresy, Local Church, Ministry, Orthodoxy, Phillip Powers, Rebuke, Repentance, Theology | 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: Anger, Animosity, Community, Debate, Disagreement, Discourse, Discussion, Division, Phillip Powers, Quick to Listen, Slow to Anger, Slow to Speak, The Letter of James, Theology | 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: Christian Calendar, Christian Life, Common Objections, Forgiveness, Holy Scripture, Legalism, Lent, Liturgy, Phillip Powers, Regulative Principle, Repentance, Roman Catholicism, Spiritual Disciplines, Spiritual Formation, Sufficiency, Tradition | posted in Church History, Spiritual Formation, Worship & Liturgy

02/16/2021

On A Healthy Church Member … Gathers

By Phillip Powers

Text
²⁴And let us consider one another in order to provoke love and good works, ²⁵not 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: A Healthy Church Member, Brothers & Sisters in Christ, Church Family, Church Membership, Church Services, Discipleship, Gathering, Hebrews, Phillip Powers, Sermon, South Caraway Baptist Church, Worship | 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: 1 Timothy, Apostle Paul, Elder Candididacy, Elders, Pastor Search, Pastoral Ministry, Pastors, Phillip Powers, Preaching, Qualification for Pastors, Teaching | 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
¹⁴I write these things to you, hoping to come to you soon. ¹⁵But 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. ¹⁶And 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, ²through the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared. ³They forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods that God created to be received with gratitude by those who believe and know the truth. ⁴For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, ⁵since it is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer.

⁶If 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. ⁷But have nothing to do with pointless and silly myths. Rather, train yourself in godliness. ⁸For 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. ⁹This saying is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance. ¹⁰For 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: All I want for Christmas, Christmas, Do's and Don'ts, First Timothy, Gospel, Holiness, Phillip Powers, Spiritual Disciplines, Spiritual Formation, Spirituality | posted in Bible Exposition, Biblical Theology, Sermons, Spiritual Formation

10/23/2020

On Spirit Led Preaching and the Heresy of Donatism

By Phillip Powers

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: Augustine, Church, Donatism, Donatus Magnus, ex opere operantis, ex opere operato, Exposition, Heresy, Holy Spirit, Persecution, Phillip Powers, Preaching, Roman Empire, Sermon, Spirituality, traditores | posted in Biblical Theology, Church History, Ministry, Worship & Liturgy

01/18/2020

On Titus 2.11-15

By Phillip Powers

Text:
¹¹For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, ¹²instructing us to deny godlessness and worldly lusts and to live in a sensible, righteous, and godly way in the present age, ¹³while we wait for the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. ¹⁴He gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to cleanse for himself a people for his own possession, eager to do good works. ¹⁵Proclaim these things; encourage and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

Title: On Titus 2.11-15
Church: Moro Baptist Church, Moro, AR
Date: December 29, 2019

Leave a comment | tags: Christmas, Faith, Glorification, Gospel, Grace, Hope, Incarnation, Jesus Christ, Justification, Phillip Powers, Salvation, Sanctification, Titus, Works | posted in Bible Exposition, Sermons

01/01/2020

On Psalm 119:33-40 (He)

By Phillip Powers

³³Teach me, Lord, the meaning of your statutes,
and I will always keep them.
³⁴Help me understand your instruction,
and I will obey it
and follow it with all my heart.
³⁵Help me stay on the path of your commands,
for I take pleasure in it.
³⁶Turn my heart to your decrees
and not to dishonest profit.
³⁷Turn my eyes
from looking at what is worthless;
give me life in your ways.
³⁸Confirm what you said to your servant,
for it produces reverence for you.
³⁹Turn away the disgrace I dread;
indeed, your judgments are good.
⁴⁰How I long for your precepts!
Give me life through your righteousness.

In the the fifth stanza of Psalm 119 ( ה/he – pronounced “hey”), the psalmist expresses his complete dependency upon God for understanding His Word. And so, he prays to God for illumination. “Teach me, Lord, the meaning of your statues, and I will always keep them. Help me to understand your instruction, and I will obey it and follow it with all my heart.” (Verses 33-34) Illumination is simply that work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer by which He opens our minds to understand and apply the Scriptures. And it is this “spiritual” understanding that distinguishes the believer’s reading of Holy Scripture from the nonbeliever.

The reality is that there are secular scholars (historians, linguists, philosophers) who know the history, language, and theology of the Bible better than the average Christian. Their historical reconstructions are more compelling, their literary analyses are more sophisticated, their exposition perhaps even more accurate. However, they do not believe in the one who said, “and yet they testify about me.” (John 5.39) The difference being that they do not have the indwelling Holy Spirit whose specific job is to lead believers into all truth. Therefore, we must conclude that illumination gives us an understanding that is more than merely intellectual. It goes beyond the literary and the historical to the transformational. It is the Spirit who brings the dead words to life, who renews and revives the weary soul.

And so, we must affirm that illumination is not the imparting of new information, as opposed to that which is largely gained simply by being a good reader. Rather, illumination is the creation of a new capacity to receive the inspired Word of God and to be changed by it. As our psalmist goes on to pray, “Turn my heart to your decrees and not to dishonest profit. Turn my eyes from looking at what is worthless; give me life in your ways.” (Verses 36-37) Our psalmist clearly understands that what he needs is more than a mere intellectual reading of Holy Scripture; what he needs, and what we all need, is that Spirit given illumination leading to transformation. “How I long for your precepts! Give me life through your righteousness.” (Verse 40)

It is somewhat appropriate, I think, that I am writing on this on the day in which many Christians will make a “New Years Resolution” to read the Bible more in 2020, perhaps, by starting some kind of Bible reading plan, e.g. the Bible in one year, etc. And, of course, this is a worthy goal to aim for. But there must be a realization that we are not simply reading for information; we are reading for transformation. This does not mean that every reading will be some kind of mountain top spiritual experience. Some, in fact, will be dull drudgery (re: Leviticus). But faithfulness over time, daily dependence upon the Spirit, humbly praying for eyes to see and ears to hear will slowly result in the transformation of our being into the image of Christ. This is why we call it a spiritual discipline, faithful obedience while relying upon the Spirit.

For further study:
Introduction and Overview
Psalm 119.1-8
Psalm 119.9-16
Psalm 119.17-24
Psalm 119.25-32

6 Comments | tags: Bible Reading, Holy Spirit, Illumination, New Years Resolution, Phillip Powers, Psalm 119, Spiritual Disciplines, Transformation | posted in Bible Exposition, Biblical Theology, Hermeneutics, Psalm 119

12/27/2019

On Psalm 119.25-32 (Daleth)

By Phillip Powers

²⁵My life is down in the dust;
give me life through your word.
²⁶I told you about my life,
and you answered me;
teach me your statutes.
²⁷Help me understand
the meaning of your precepts
so that I can meditate on your wonders.
²⁸I am weary from grief;
strengthen me through your word.
²⁹Keep me from the way of deceit
and graciously give me your instruction.
³⁰I have chosen the way of truth;
I have set your ordinances before me.
³¹I cling to your decrees;
Lord, do not put me to shame.
³²I pursue the way of your commands,
for you broaden my understanding.

Well, after taking a short break for the season of Advent, we are back to working our way through Psalm 119. And so, we come to the fourth stanza (daleth/ד), where our psalmist turns his attention to the turmoil of human existence. “My life is down in the dust; give me life through your word.” (verse 25) “I am weary from grief; strengthen me through your word.” (verse 28) This may not seem like a very positive outlook on life, especially when it is compared with the first three stanzas, but it is a brutally honest confession about the reality of the struggle. We live in a world that is stained, polluted, even controlled by sin, a world that is absolutely hostile to the ways of God and His word. And so it is understandable that those who try to live according to God’s Word will inevitably suffer pain and difficulty, whether directly or indirectly. As the Apostle Paul said, “In fact, all who want to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.” (2 Timothy 3.12)

Pain, heartache, suffering, loss; these are staples of the human experience in this already but not yet phase of God’s kingdom. And the temptation that we all will eventually face is to simply give up, to stop trying, to abandon the ways of God and His Word. Because, on the surface, there doesn’t seem to be a difference between our experience and that of the non-believer. But our psalmist understands that in the midst of this chaos, there is only one place to turn for stability and perspective, namely to God’s Word. “I cling to your decrees; Lord, do not put me to shame. I pursue the way of your commands, for you broaden my understanding.” (Verses 31-32) In fact, our psalmist even prays, “Keep me from the way of deceit and graciously give me your instruction.” (Verse 29) “Help me to understand the meaning of your precepts so that I can meditate on your wonders.” (Verse 27)

And so when we face inexplicable suffering in this life, what can we do? Well, our psalmist gives us two answers. First, we should be honest about our pain. As He says, “I told you about my life, and you answered me; teach me your statutes.” (Verse 26) In prayer, we can be honest with God about the depth of our sufferings, the difficulty of our heartaches; we open them up to Him so that He can comfort us with the gracious compassion of His promises. But not only must we be honest with God, but we must be honest with each other in the body of Christ. We need not suffer alone, as the Scriptures tell us, “Rejoice with those who rejoice; weep with those who weep.” (Romans 12.15) Our psalmist is doing just that in the writing of this Psalm, as it would be shared with the gathered assembly. We must learn to share our deepest and most painful heartaches with the community of God’s people, so that they can be the means of His comfort in our lives.

And secondly, we must resolve anew to stand firm on the ways of God which are given in His word. “I have chosen the way of truth; I have set your ordinances before me.” (Verse 30). The reality is that there will be times when obeying the Word of God will be the absolute last thing we want to do. We may not understand why God has commanded us in this way, or we may simply not feel like keeping it at that given moment. However, this is where faith steps in, because we trust that God is fundamentally good and all of His commands are good, even when we can’t see it. This is what comes across most vividly in this stanza, the psalmist’s faith even in the face of difficulty and doubt. And here again, we simply cannot do this alone. When we are hurting, the temptation is to withdraw and isolate our selves, but this is when we need the support and encouragement of the people of God the most, which is why we are told, “And let us watch out for one another to provoke love and good works, 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)

But our psalmist is clear, that in the midst of the chaos and turmoil and heartache of this world, the only footing, the only foundation, the only security that we have available to us is to be found in the Word of God, because it forces us to set our faith, our hope on something, or I should say someone, other than ourselves, namely the one true and living God.

For further study:
Introduction and Overview
Psalm 119.1-8
Psalm 119.9-16
Psalm 119.17-24

Comments Off on On Psalm 119.25-32 (Daleth) | tags: Community, Daleth, Endurance, Grief, Heartache, Hope, Phillip Powers, Prayer, Psalm 119, Psalms, Sorrow, Strength | posted in Bible Exposition, Psalm 119, Spiritual Formation

Faith Seeking Understanding

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

On Theological Discourse, Disagreement, and Division

On Common Objections to the Observation of Lent

On A Healthy Church Member … Gathers

On “Able to Teach” as a Qualification for Elders

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

On Spirit Led Preaching and the Heresy of Donatism

On Titus 2.11-15

On Psalm 119:33-40 (He)

On Psalm 119.25-32 (Daleth)

Categories

Twitter

Goodreads

Blogs I Follow

Faith Seeking Understanding

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Categories

Twitter

Goodreads

Blogs I Follow