Pastoral tombstones

Someone started a hash-tag on Twitter called #pastoraltombstones.

If you don't follow me, you may have missed mine own contributions. To wit:

**********   **********   **********   **********   **********
Here lie the moldering ashes of Bob,

Who dressed like a model but preached like a slob

**********   **********   **********   **********   **********
He died as he lived with his right pinkie raised

So gentle and kindly — he lived to be praised;

but now life is done, and God's judgment he'll face

Not liking the price of the crowd's fond embrace

**********   **********   **********   **********   **********
Lament ye the passing of good Pastor Jim,

Whose el'phant was fat, though his judgment was slim

**********   **********   **********   **********   **********
Aye, farewell Johnny, your kind comes but once;

I'm sure we'll all miss your grand textual hunts

**********   **********   **********   **********   **********
His children will miss him

and so will his flock

For Howard has preached

his last churchly crock

**********   **********   **********   **********   **********
Pastor Smithers, a man of considerable charm

Lies dead now, ne'er more to do doctrinal harm

**********   **********   **********   **********   **********
He preached and exhorted and gestured and waved,

But under this Rev'rend not one soul was saved

**********   **********   **********   **********   **********
Old Jim he was nuanced and helpful and deep

So dainty he ne'er slowed the doctrinal creep

**********   **********   **********   **********   **********   

Change: my role, your role — some thoughts

Disclaimer 1: I'm going to allude to the Reformation. I am doing so only because it is one of the clearest instances of needed and effected change in history. I am not even hinting that any of the specifics I have in mind are that momentous. Important in my judgment, yes, or I'd not care about them. But not of that stature.

Disclaimer 2: if you read this and still disagree with me, as far as I'm concerned, we're still friends. It is not a requirement that all my friends agree with me about everything. But I'd sure be grateful if, assuming you start reading from a position of disagreement, you stop and re-think (wait for it) carefully. Then feel free to disagree.

Disclaimer 3: the specifics I mention range in breadth of impact from not-much to much. They're also illustrative.

Disclaimer 4: the proper tone in which to read this is "chatting." Seriously. Thinking aloud. A little frustrated, but far from angry.

---

More than once and about more than one subject I've felt was important, good folks have told me to drop it. Stop complaining. Stop talking about it. Move on.

Fair enough. You can have that opinion. May I analyze it? Sweet.

1. Is what I'm complaining about not real, and that is why you think I should drop it? Am I just wrong? God knows, it happens. But obviously, at this point, I do not see it that way. So you will explain to me why there is really no problem, really nothing to worry about, it's all in my head. Then I can relax and move on to other things.
2. Is what I'm complaining about real, but you think I should stop talking about it? Well then, given that I am concerned, you'll have to allow me to ask you some questions.

• Do you think I should stop because you are going to take it from here? That is, are you going to start commenting on blogs, pointing to the things I've been trying to point to? Are you going to write emails, asking why the concerns I keep raising are not being addressed, and explaining (politely) why they should be addressed? Shall I let it go, because you're taking the baton from me and running with it? Show me the evidence of that, and it would be very persuasive. I would probably be delighted to let it go, knowing that others are engaged and taking up the issue and approaching it from their five hundred angles rather than my just-one.
• Do you think I should stop because, while it is a real concern, you just don't want to hear about it because it irritates you? Well then, I'm sorry. You'll have to remember that you read me in part because I'm not you, since you already know what you think. You read me (presumably) because there's something about how I see things that is helpful and/or amusing to you. You'll have to remember that your right to demand changes in this free service is limited. You'll have to understand that it probably is unrealistic to expect anyone to be right all the time except God, and allow that while it may very well be I who am wrong, it equally may be you. You'll have to ask yourself: if you have the right not to care about what I care about, do I have the same right to care about it? And having expressed your opinion, can you let it go?

Of those two bullet-points, so far the first has never happened.

For instance, just weeks after The World-Tilting Gospel came out, a good and faithful reader emailed me saying he hoped I'd just quit with all this self-promotion! (Poor soul; I'd barely gotten started, so the ensuing weeks and months must have been tough for him.)

Think it through, if you will. I'd spent months and months distilling years and years of study and reflection and preaching and evangelism and care for the church and the lost into coming up with an idea, finding a publisher, and pouring blood, sweat and tears into this manuscript. It had finally seen the light of day.

And now I was supposed to shut the heck up about it, already! Just drop it, willya?

I didn't know how to respond, so, as usual in such cases, I didn't. The only response I could think of was, "Kregel and I will be delighted to hear your superior marketing plan. I'm sure I can speak for them that anyone who has a better idea that he will own and pursue to get the word out about this book is welcome to do so. Then we can both go on to other things!" But that could only have sounded snarky, so I forbore.

Reflect further with me.

This good brother — and really, good brother; I'm not just mouthing that — didn't say "It's a really bad book. God help me, I bought it and I read it, and now I would give anything to have that part of my life back. If I could gouge out my eyes, if I could fry that part of my brain, I would. Best we can hope for is a quick and merciful death to the wretched thing, that you will never ever publish again, and that the world will forget or at least forgive you for writing it." Such an email wouldn't have been happy reading for me, of course, but it would have at least made sense.

This good brother also didn't say, "It's a really good book. I can't for the life of me imagine why other people aren't shouting about it, since they've been begging for books just like this for years. So here's what I have done: I have written Big Name A, Big Name B, Big Name C, and Big Name D, telling them what a terrific book it is and asking them to read it and spread the word. And when I see TWTG-related topics come up on big name blogs, I quote a snip of TWTG and encourage people to read it. I also encourage the blog-owner to read and review it. So thanks for the book, and I'm doing what I can to help you get the word out." Nothing like that. The good brother didn't even say if he'd bought the book or would ever buy it. He just wanted me to shut up about it and get back to providing free product with no strings attached and no investment required.

But it wasn't the last such word about that or similar things. ER2 has brought it up again. These complaints virtually always have these characteristics:

1. The writer doesn't challenge whether I'm seeing it right (one even said "It doesn't matter if you're right").
2. The writer doesn't himself/herself document anything he or she has already done or is now committing to do to address or remedy the problem.
3. The writer finds himself/herself bored/annoyed/peeved with my bringing it up again and again, so that means I should stop, usually telling me it makes me look bad.

This is the sort of criticism that always makes my eyes glaze over, frankly. I mean, aren't there basically three kinds of criticism?

1. You've got the wrong objective. Stop!!
2. You've got the right objective but the wrong method. Here's a better method, and I'm signing up, let's us do this instead.
3. I don't care about your objective, but what you're doing bores me/bothers me/looks bad, so you must stop!

The first one is important and can be discussed rationally.

The second one is respectable and can also be discussed rationally.

But the third? Well, what does that leave me with? Put yourself in my shoes. Assuming that I still care about the objective, and I still think it matters, and I am doing the best I know to initiate change — where does that leave me? Must I drop something I care about, just because you say so, and in the knowledge that you yourself won't do anything about it? Wow. 

So think about the Reformation, simply as an example of a time when change was needed and was effected.

What happened there? There was something terribly wrong, and there was this loose-cannon, obscure, no-name pastoral/academic type who got it stuck in his craw, could not stop thinking about it. It bothered the very life out of him. And he wasn't the sort just to sit and be bothered, or engage in idle chit-chat over scones in the Faculty Lounge.

So he did what he could.

He wrote up 5... 23... 87... 95 things he thought worth arguing about, and he nailed it up for everyone to see. Obnoxious of him, no? The power structure sure thought so.

But then what happened? Here's the part I'm asking you to think about.

If Martin Luther had just nailed up those arguments, people had stood around and agreed, then left it to others to work out... nothing would have happened. The power structure would have had exactly what it wanted (fat, docile, quiet sheep), and nothing would have changed.

If Martin Luther had just nailed up those arguments, and people had said "Okay, you said your piece — now shut up about it," then the power structure would have had exactly what it wanted (fat, docile, quiet sheep), and nothing would have changed.

What did happen? Others took up Luther's cry and forwarded his cause. The RCC power structure found that this egg could not be un-scrambled, because everybody knew, and everybody was demanding action.

So when critics simply say "Yeah, stop, I don't want to hear any more about it," I (A) can and do still love and respect and like them, but (B) can't help thinking "...which is exactly what the power-structure wants people to say, and which will guarantee that change won't happen."

This is just one illustration; others, of other irritating men such as Winston Churchill and Cato the Elder, could be adduced. But I'll hope I've given you something to think about, only trying once again to head off two diversions:

I know this isn't the Reformation. It's just a well-known instance of change.

I know I'm no Luther, Churchill, or Cato...or, for that matter, Kato. They're just well-known change agents.

But I see concerns, and I am doing what I can about them.

Over to you.

Even better than The Race Card{tm}

If you follow the news, you have seen it happen: whenever anyone of the wrong pigmentation disagrees with our president's policies, or those of certain of his associates, he finds himself accused of racism. Just when you think this may be dead or at least exaggerated, it pops up yet again. The hope is to sideline the logic and force of the criticism and put the critic (A) on the defensive and (B) in an insoluble dilemma (i.e. "Prove you're not racist, on 'three': one, two...").

Such trump-cards are not confined to politics, of course. One of the more egregious is played regularly by Leaky Canoneers.

Perhaps you're new to these parts and unfamiliar with the expression. I invented the term "Leaky Canoneer" to denote the person who formally says that he affirms the completeness, inerrancy, and closed nature of the Biblical canon, but who informally gives the lie to that profession. How? By asserting that God

1. ...continues to speak...
2. ...directly...
3. ...and quotably (or at least paraphrasably)...
4. ...to him...
5. ...apart from Scripture.

I've come at this dozens of times from dozens of angles, both here and at Pyro and elsewhere.

Today's sally is brought to you courtesy of James MacDonald. You'll forgive me for letting you do your own research for links and specifics; we at Pyro (but not we alone) have been pretty much on top of the situation, and sometimes ahead of the curve. Two of my favorite Tree Falling in the Forest posts were on the topic (this and this).

But anyway, James MacDonald decided to feature well-known modalist and word-faith preacher T. D. Jakes as a "Christian leader" on his Elephant Room show. A firestorm of very appropriate concern and criticism arose. MacDonald responded alternately by chest-thumping, backtracking, then more chest-thumping. Many wondered how this guy could be associated with The Gospel Coalition while seeming to be relatively unconcerned about, you know, the gospel.

As usual, Phil Johnson put it best: "The collective leadership of TGC are going to have to decide which is more important: the Gospel, or the Coalition."

Well no, it turns out, they won't.

In a solution that solves nothing, James MacDonald has resigned from TGC leadership, as that leadership has acknowledged.  In making this acknowledgement, however, they only compliment the departing brother, and make no direct reference to his hosting a heretic as a Christian leader. So that problem is unsolved.

What does MacDonald himself say? Oh, this and that, about what you might expect. He's making his priorities pretty clear to everyone, I daresay, and I hope the effect is salutary.

My focus is this bit from MacDonald's post:

See that? MacDonald doesn't want his "minor" leadership role to " to give the impression [the TGC leadership] agree with all God has called me to do."

Let me break that down for you who are keeping score at home:

1. God has "called" James MacDonald to do a number of things.
2. The TGC leadership might not agree with all of those things.
3. Therefore, the TGC leadership might not agree with God.

Nice, huh? They do nothing but compliment their departing heretic-promoting brother, and he responds by accusing them of sinning by not agreeing with him. Because that is the rub, right? God "called" James MacDonald to do certain things. Of this MacDonald entertains and allows no doubt. But the TGC leadership might not agree with those things. Those things that God called him to do.

Which means they don't agree with God.

So what is it when you don't agree with God? Right. Sin.

Nice, huh? And slick! You see, this way MacDonald doesn't have to answer any questions! He's completely off the hook! He doesn't have to explain featuring a heretic, his judgment, his priorities — why, now we know his priorities, according to him: he just wants to do what God tells him to do!

And who can blame him for that?

Unfortunately, much of the leadership of TGC probably can't, because at least some of them accept MacDonald's position at least in principle. God just might be mumbling and hinting and suggesting things apart from Scripture. Who can say?

And let's be very clear on this as well. Do you have a verse in your Bible saying, "And I command James MacDonald to give prominent platforms to men who deny the revealed truths of My nature and play fast and loose with Scripture on the whole"? Mine lacks that verse. This can only mean that God "called" James MacDonald directly, apart from Scripture.

So you can't judge it. See? God wasn't talking to you. He wasn't talking to me.

He was just talking to James.

This is that ugly little absolutely necessary corollary of Leaky Canoneering: adherents can play the "God told me" card and instantly get out of all criticism.

Well, not only that, right? Because now we know that James MacDonald isn't someone so desperate to be popular and well-liked that he'll make unwise (at best) associations to promote himself — no, he's a hero, because he and he alone is listening to the voice of God.

And these other guys? Psh. Carnal! Hidebound. Unspiritual, clearly. Because they might not "agree with all God has called [MacDonald] to do."

So, see? You thought it was James MacDonald who was looking kinda bad?

No, sir; no, ma'am.

It's TGC leadership, and anyone else who disagrees with MacDonald. For treating MacDonald with kid gloves, they get thrown under the bus.

And that, friends and neighbors, is "The 'God Told Me' Card."

Nicely-played, too.

Mike Adams on Joel Osteen on John 14:6

In July of last year, I wrote that "I don't really have a feel for Mike Adams," and that is still true. I only mentioned him one other time, around a month later. In the first, I whacked away at some jerky overgeneralizations he made about "bipolar illness"; in the latter, I linked to a good column.

Now reader Al Stout emailed me a link to an Adams column titled John 14:6 for Dummies. The burden of the column is (A) the clear exclusivism of the New Testament in general, and of Jesus in particular; (B) what a horrid botch Joel Osteen made of (what should have been) a simple question from Larry King; and (C) the fact that Osteen's bumble could only be explained as concern for loss of book sales, or concern for loss of church members. That is, if Osteen stood foursquare with Jesus and the apostles, he'd lose popularity.

Of course, I agree with Adams about the clarity of the New Testament on this issue.

As to Osteen, if this is Adams' first notice of him, he's late to the party. As early as February of 2005, I was ringing a bell about Osteen (alerted in part, in fact, by the late Michael Spencer). Since then, there have been many more mentions of Osteen at my place and elsewhere. So if Adams is just arriving, he's more than welcome.

I'm not sure that Adams' two guesses are the only ones, though. They're certainly possible. They're also cheap and easy. Everyone always says that money and desire to be popular explain everything. They do explain a lot, and — who knows? — maybe they also explain everything when it comes to Osteen.

But I'd suggest a possible explanation number 3: maybe Osteen was just ignorant of what the Bible teaches.

If so, I hasten to add, it is a fully culpable ignorance. My point is only that, to get where Osteen has gotten, he didn't need much Bible. He isn't where he is because of his proficiency in teaching the Bible, right? Do you have the impression that Osteen's supporters demand much Bible from him? So maybe ol' Joel just really hasn't had to know much about the Bible.

Think about it just a moment longer before you tell me how wrong I am. Suppose you want to be rich and powerful like Joel Osteen. What might be your list of requirements?

1. Well-known father with a name you can launch from.
2. Decent looks.
3. Dazzling smile.
4. Winsome manner.
5. Giving people what they want. Specifically
6. Ability to give happy, uplifting, motivational talks.

Where's the Bible generally, or the Gospel specificaly, in any of that? You just don't need it to get from here to there. When would Osteen have had to study through, or think through the Biblical Gospel, or Biblical Christology, to get to where he is?

Here's where I'm going with this.

First, a man who cannot enunciate the Gospel nor teach the word is in no Biblical sense a faithful pastor. I made that case in 2005, and don't have much to add. But...

Second, while I blame Osteen for his own failures and defects, I blame professed Christians for him being an issue.

I have beat this drum many times and, by lollipops, I'm about to beat it again. What if Joel Osteen had gotten up X years ago to peddle his goods, and Christians en masse had responded with "So, give us a Biblical definition of the Gospel. Tell us how you've paid your dues in acquiring the tools for cutting the Word straight. Spell out a rigorously Biblical doctrine of Christ and of Scripture and of ecclesiology and of preaching and...."?

Or say, even apart from detailed questions, what if Christians had dropped into his church and then seriously asked, "Is that what the Bible teaches?" — and then hit the Book to find the answer?

What would have happened, in either case? Without repentance, Joel Osteen would never even have achieved blip status. We would not be talking about him today, not among Christians. We would not even know his name.

You all know that I blame individuals who enter the pulpit without having done due diligence in their preparation. Their sins are their sins.

But at the same time, if people did not "call" Osteen sorts, storytellers and motivational speakers to their churches and fill their pews and pay their salaries, there would be fewer of them occupying pulpits that other trained and equipped men could fill. I have in mind men now meeting with a few folks in a rented room at a school or a public building, laboring in obscurity somewhere, but fit for larger works.

Many times I've told the story of the young man I knew 30+ years ago who was on his church's pulpit committee. I'd only been a Christian for maybe four years or something, but when I heard his favored candidate was from Princeton, I suggested a few questions. He literally snorted at me. He really liked this guy, because he had some great ideas for great programs. They called him, I met him, he did not believe in the full authority of Scripture. But that wasn't important to that church, who called him instead of anyone who was Biblically sound.

Multiply that story by thousands, and you have some idea of why we are where we are.

So if you're reading and you're a man in or headed for pastoral ministry, but you have no intention of achieving Gospel or Biblical proficiency, I call on you to stop, repent, do what you should before you do what you shouldn't.

But if you're looking to support a church with your presence, and Biblical soundness in the leadership isn't at the top of your list of "musts" — same call.

Joel Osteen is the blight he is because of Joel Osteen, and because thousands support him. A change in either factor changes the whole equation.

Ronnie (representative "evangelical" churchgoer)

You know it's true.

(h-t reader/friend Pastor John)

Hither and thither 10/16/09

Lots of fun things, lots of irritating things, lots of interesting things. However, I'll be on the road for the latter part of the day, so comments may be delayed... well, until I next get on The Intrawebs. I'd be happy too see a nice passel of comments to moderate.

• Wait wait wait — you mean everything scientists say about what was what a gazillion years ago might not be 100% accurate?  L, IB.
• Onoes! Looks like Kermit, Josiah and I have even more to be thankful for than we knew!
• I love my iPhone, but hate iTunes. Just wiped everything off my iPhone, for the whatever-th time. That in spite of doing a backup just beforehand, and then trying to restore from backup. Grrr.
  
• USA Today writer Tom Krattenmaker makes it very clear: he doesn't object to Christian athletes being Christians. He just objects to their practicing Christianity. Meaning: he objects to Christian athletes being Christians. (HT reader "Laptops and More.")
  
• Don't you just sleep better at night, knowing that the geniuses running public schools are keeping us safe from dangerous, six-year-old Cub Scouts? As one wag noted, at least he's earned his "Suspended from School" belt loop. Here's my concern: in the interim, he's being homeschooled. Will he be able to dumb back down when they re-admit him?
• Whee. Racism is still another accusation that only needs to be made, to cause harm. Not proven.
• I think racism in America is grossly exaggerated. However, every now and then an ugly example rears up to say that neither racism nor stupidity has yet become obsolete.
• Good grief. Question for rock aficionados who are also regular readers: what painfully-obvious name is missing from this list?
• So what does $400 worth of Legos look like? This (with some commentary here):
  

• I don't know if any of you are Sam Storms fans. You might want to listen to this talk, featuring every influential evangelical eschatological perspective... well, except the most influential one. Why listen? It's remarkable to hear Storms say that, if the Apostle John doesn't agree with him, Sam Storms, then John is in error.
• Thinking of taking your kids to Where the Wild Things Are? I'm really not. I wasn't already: it looks dumb, and I didn't love the book, where the insufferably bratty kid's parents end up caving. I was even less tempted when I learned that the author, Maurice Sendak, was an angry, lost, unhappy "gay" with messed-up views about the family (— did I just say the same thing twice?), who really didn't like positive, happy books that might encourage well-behaved kids. Now that I read Sendak telling concerned parents to go to He!!, I'm even less inclined.
  
• Some are shocked that supposed conservative stalwart Dick Armey would throw in with pro-abort Kay Hutchison for the Texas gubernatorial election. I'm not; but then, I have a memory. Armey used to be a good guy, maybe until he got his nose out of joint for not being supported to lead Congress. Hard to say when something cracked, but Armey launched a nasty attack against politically-involved Christians. (See also Dobson's response.) So I'm sad, but not shocked, to see Armey support a pro-abort "earmarks queen" against a pro-family, pro-life candidate.
  
• Our Title of the Week this time is not picked because it's odd, but because it's so good:  It's a 12-day miracle! Praise Obama and pass the Hopium. Columnist breaks it down that the 12 days between 0's inauguration and the nominating deadline left "a mere 288 hours for Obama to have been credentialed as President Peace."
• In a sane world, the Nobel Committee would never again be able to buy a "give-a-rip" from the public. 
• Any chance the benighted clones of the Nobel committee are beginning to realize what a laughing-stock they've made of themselves?

• Update since writing that previous. What was I thinking? Being liberal means never having to say you're pathetic, clueless and embarrassing. Think Jimmy Carter. Or see this.
• To the Title of the Week, maybe I'll add line of the week as an occasional feature. This week's entry is from an article on Arizona's Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is planning another sweep for illegal aliens, though it may irritate the feds. Then we're told, "He said he expects to use a 'new secret weapon,' but declined to say what it is." Really? I'm going out on a limb here, but could that be because it's, you know, secret?
  
• One Baptist church will be having a hot time on Halloween eve. They'll be burning... well, all sorts of things.  Like Bibles (Readers: "Ungh?") — that is, Bibles that aren't the KJV. (Readers: "Sheesh.") And books by "heretics." (Readers: "Oh?") Heretics like Erwin McManus and Robert Schuller and Rob Bell and Benny Hinn. (Readers: "Ahhh.")  And "heretics" like John MacArthur and John Piper and Chuck Swindoll. (Readers: "Huh?!") Oh, and "Satan's music," like "country, rap, rock, pop, heavy metal, western, soft and easy, southern gospel, contemporary Christian, jazz, soul (and) oldies." I guess surf music is OK. Whew! But wait, you haven't heard the punch-line.
• The church's name is — I Kid You Not! — "Amazing Grace Baptist Church." Click.
  
• Everyone's favorite Aussie ex-pat, Rachael Starke, ran a little graphic for folks thinking of moving Down Under. I'm not sure where Aussie Vicki Lowing fits on the chart... but she's got her some interesting priorities.
• So, having already demoralized the military, the transformational president now adds this: he has in mind further to demoralize and distract it by forcing it to enlist broken individuals plagued by sexual perversion which, instead of resisting and seeking deliverance from, they openly embrace and practice. Obama: the bill that keeps getting steeper and steeper and steeper and....
• Say, though, isn't it reassuring that the leader of the free world has finally squared his shoulders and identified an enemy, a threat that calls for his firm, focused, and relentless opposition?  Yes indeedy.
  
• Woo hoo. Turns out I'm going to live forever (interpreting "educated" as "smart"), and Baby Allen will live to be at least 100. 
• Will knuckle-cracking give you arthritis? Maybe not. But it's still obnoxious.
• Then the dessert-tray:

 

"The [New Perspective] view of the first-century Jew...."

Some time back, I read Piper's The Future of Justification, on N. T. Wright's revisioning of the Gospel, Justification, and All That

Early in the book, Piper established some excellent points of caution. Given our several laments (here and at Pyro) over the increasing meaninglessness of a particular term, I thought this worth excerpting and emphasizing:

A second reason why an external first-century idea may distort or silence what the New Testament teaches is that while it may accurately reflect certain first-century documents, nevertheless it may reflect only one among many first-century views. Whether a New Testament writer embraced the particular way of thinking that a scholar has found in the first century is not obvious from the mere existence of that way of thinking.

As an analogy, one may only think about all that flies under the banner “evangelical” in our own day—and hope that no historian in a thousand years will assign any of those meanings to us simply because we bore that label. Therefore, one must be cautious in saying on the basis of one’s interpretation of extra-biblical texts that this is “how first-century Jews understood the world.” Sweeping statements about worldviews in first-century Judaism are precarious (pp. 35-36)

My, that sparks some scary thoughts. Like....

The writer who used the name "Dan Phillips" identified himself as an "evangelical." Research has now revealed that the twenty-first century "evangelical" believed that the Gospel guaranteed health and prosperity, that walking with God necessarily involved a sporadic flow of low-octane semi-revelation, that truth was in the eye of the beholder, that God did not completely know the future nor control the present, that the notion of penal, substitutionary atonement was a form of "cosmic child-abuse," that Mormons and Roman Catholics were Christian brothers, that abortion was a peripheral issue, that knowledge of actual Biblical teachings was optional, that Adam might be a mythical figure like Paul Bunyan,  and that engagement with the culture was more important than pursuit of the eternal. This gives a completely New Perspective on Phillips' writings. For instance, in spite of first-impressions, what he really believed was.....

AIIEEEEEEEE!

Mark Driscoll at the Crystal Cathedral

You can read the text of Driscoll's 8/23/09 sermon here. If I get this right, you have to pay Schuller $15 to own the sermon. So, read it.

Given that it was transcribed by such a massive organization, the amount of misspellings and typos are surprising. But what about the content?

I'll be brief. I know that someone who is "out for Driscoll" could carp over this and that. It isn't the sermon I think I'd preach, offered the same pulpit.

But HSAT, honestly — Driscoll preached Christ. It is not bad at all. Driscoll did not go off on himself, waste time making himself look cute and edgy and "bad-boy." He simply preached Christ: preached Him as God, preached His atoning death and resurrection, preached His exclusivity. It was Jesus, from start to finish.

Driscoll even talked about our sin, and our need for forgiveness. I imagine Driscoll will be faulted for his "God needs to" riff, but I think it is pretty clear that he means "we need God to." I'll leave catching people at bad syllables and conjunctions to the Pharisees. It's a standard no mortal could meet.

And Driscoll's message would have been adorned were he a person of greater overall credibility, unburdened by baggage of his own persistent creation. But he preached Christ from that apostate pulpit, and I rejoice in that (Philippians 1:18). Now let's pray all the more that Driscoll's life adorn the Gospel (v. 27), by his dealing with those shaming issues.

Given where he's preaching, I didn't love Driscoll's closing prayer, which includes a petition that his hearers "be as people with joy and purpose and passion and pleasure and enthusiasm and hope and joy that never ends." But once again, in context, this is prayed for people who have (as he prays) embraced the real Jesus in living faith.

It's a good sermon.

So what do I think I would have preached, sitting here in the safety of my relative anonymity, in a universe where the likelihood of that invitation is far less than the likelihood that Obama will do a 180 and move America back towards its best founding values?

I have a bit of a history with Schuller. Robert Schuller said he learned "possibility thinking" from Norman Vincent Peale, promoter of "positive thinking." Norman Vincent Peale said he learned "positive thinking" from Ernest Holmes. Ernest Holmes founded the non-Christian mind-science cult from which the Lord saved me.

As a Christ-hating non-Christian, I sometimes heard Schuller. He was kind of like us, but mentioned Jesus more than we did. After my conversion, I thought "Now I can get more out of Schuller!" I tuned in... and bleeagh! It was like a mouth full of dead hay. It was awful. This was what I'd just been saved from.

Schuller effectively denies sin, denies the exclusivity of Christ, is at best a functional universalist, and is well out of the pale of Biblical orthodoxy.

So, in preaching Christ's exclusivity, Driscoll did hammer at Schuller's rotten foundation. In preaching Jesus as He is, rather than how He can help you get what you want, he also brought another critical truth to bear.

I think, if I had only one sermon, I'd have preached God's holiness and our sin, and the unsurmountable crisis that poses; and I'd have preached Jesus as God's only way — and our only hope — of dealing with that crisis.

If I had two, I might have done that and what Driscoll did.

Because what Driscoll did preach was good, and nothing's gained by denying it.

UPDATE: the photographer who snapped the top image is Ronald Hodgman.  He has other pictures of the event here.

Dad is a pastor? Hunh; why didn't God think of that?

I mean, it seems like such a great analogy, and full of wonderful thoughts. Dad is a pastor. His family is his little tiny church. Cool!

Everybody's saying it. If I've read that assertion once, I've read or heard it dozens of times. Driscoll just released a book with that in the title, and you can read online for free.

Now, this isn't a bag-on-Driscoll post. It isn't even in any sense an about-Driscoll. post. The idea isn't original with him, and his book may have many great ideas. I'll probably look through it later.

But so many great people give this "Dad is a pastor" line that I'm a bit puzzled that no one has pointed out: the Bible never says anything like that.

Shouldn't that be significant? I mean, if it's such a great idea, how come God didn't come up with it first?

I remember in Pastoral Ministry class, reading the text by Criswell (I think it was this one). He talked about being a prophet, a priest, and a king, and how a pastor was all those things. As I recall, I wrote in my margin something like "Yeah, except that he's none of those things. That would be the Messiah."

Ditto dad-as-pastor. You may make the case that he should lead his family. True! And he should teach them the Word. True! And he should care for and pray for their souls. True! and true!

"Say," remarks some well-meaning sage. "A pastor does those things!" True again.

But the Bible never says the dad is a pastor, is like a pastor, is sort of a pastor. Never once. So it must not be an analogy we need.

And besides, Mom assists dad in many of those same things. Does that make her an associate-pastor?

The ugly side-effect of this popular, made-up notion is that it can encourage arrogant, self-absorbed, loveless isolationists to withdraw from the challenging nitty-gritty of actual church-fellowship. After all, why do they need to go to church? Dad is the pastor, the family is the church. Just stay at home, sing the hymns that The McGillicutty Family likes to sing, pray prayers the length The McGillicutty Family likes to pray, preach on texts and topics that The McGillicutty Family likes to hear, stay away from anything and everything The McGillicutty Family doesn't enjoy, and let The McGillicutty Family fellowship with The McGillicutty Family.

Sinful?

How can it be?!

Dad is the pastor!

Yeah, so... what verse are we on?

Prime example of what I said was the biggest problem facing evangelicalism today.

Driscoll TGC 2009 impressions

Just finished listening to Mark Driscoll's talk at the The Gospel Coalition 2009, and here are my thoughts:

1. He said some good things.
2. Wow. Dude really does think he's a martyr. I mean seriously.
   
3. If I were a young guy, hanging on every word and earnestly purposing to do everything Driscoll was saying... I'd be completely lost at sea. So many of the things he said just tangled back up on themselves. I'd have to have a transcript to illustate extensively. But I remember kind of chuckling when Driscoll was talking about "those people who say 'Thank you God that I'm not like those people!'" Yes, well, indeed; thank God we're not like those people who thank God they're not like those people! Because that would be bad!
4. I honestly wonder whether Driscoll knew how much he contradicted himself, just in the course of the talk. Or is that why he kept saying he did those bad things, too? Or was that a device to make it okay for him to say it? I really don't know.
5. I honestly think, in those young shoes, I'd have ended up with, "Well, I guess I just have to be Mark Driscoll. Because he's the only one who gets right what matters, what doesn't matter, when to 'throw down,' when to 'peace out'... and then say he repents, periodically. And do it some more. But everybody else is wrong! Everyone else is too doctrinal about the wrong things, too undoctrinal about the right things, too strident, too passive, too fixated, too limp...."
   
6. Does Driscoll listen to himself? Does he like what he hears?
7. Meaning no snark whatever, I think I would think, "Wow. Do I really want to sound just like those guys in Comedy Central?" I say "no snark," because maybe he does. I heard somewhere that he learned how to communicate from comedians. Maybe he thinks they're the ones who know how to connect with people, and that's his model. So, IOW, maybe he does want to sound exactly like them. Because he pretty much does.
   
8. Even worse, I really think I'd wonder if I really want to think like those guys on Comedy Central. Because a lot of the things Driscoll said were just cute. Period. Plus nothing. They were laugh-lines. Think about them for two seconds, ask one serious question, they collapse.
9. You can't not see the Driscoll/Johnson/MacArthur interchange in the background. Driscoll means us to, clearly. "Rapist." Yeah, that was subtle, Mark. And he means us to believe that he's really, really, really trying to be a good boy and suffer for Jesus. But I have to say: just not buying. It felt a more like venting, to make himself feel better. One Dan's opinion.
   

• Driscoll talks a lot about repenting and all. Phil Johnson asked him, "Of what, specifically?" Is it a good thing that Driscoll never answered Phil? Specifically?
  
• Driscoll and apologists seem to (try to) make a lot of the fact that John MacArthur didn't pick up the phone and ask Driscoll out to Starbucks or an Ultimate Fight game or something. Even granting that (which I don't) — then why didn't Driscoll do what he thought Phil or MacArthur shouldn't have done? Isn't that Matthew 7:12-y, and 1 Peter 3:9-ish? Piper's a significant voice, but MacArthur isn't? Johnson isn't? Why couldn't Driscoll have picked up the phone and asked MacArthur or Johnson out to... to whatever, if that's the way he thinks it has to be done? Is ignoring the specific pleas and concerns, and playing the martyr, a better way to "make the Gospel win," as he kept saying?
• Where would this discussion be today if Driscoll had just responded as promptly, directly, Christianly, and forthrightly as MacArthur and Johnson had reached out to him?
• ...or if those who "mentor" him had pressed him to do so, and followed through?

I'm left with a bad, sick feeling about the whole thing. I can't see his heart, and I truly, honestly won't guess. He sure gives every sign of a guy who just doesn't get it, who feels attacked and harrassed. Which he is, in all honestly. Driscoll is hated by the same people who would hate you and me, and for the same reason.

But this isn't about that. These are critics Driscoll needs to hear; but he thinks he needs to hunker down, endure, suffer, be a martyr, and fire back from under cover (as I think he did in this talk).

Since I don't know what's going on "backstage," I really wonder what his mentors are doing with him, saying to him. They are men who are mature and godly enough that they ought to be able to calm him down, translate, add any warmth they think is missing, but reaffirm the specifics.

If Driscoll doesn't deal honestly and frontally with good counsel he's gotten... I just don't see a happy future. Not for him, not for folks who look up to him... and I fear repercussions for the good men who've tried to help him.

Nicely put: Doug Wilson on 'evangelical' Obama voters

In a mostly-skippable duo Patrol magazine interview of Hitchens and Wilson, the latter is asked to explain his view that 'evangelical' Obama supporters are struck with a kind of judicial blindness. "Sure," he says, then lets loose.

Wilson observes that it once was the case that certain things simply were known to be true among evangelicals, and needed no defense — such as that one doesn't defend abortion, period. This is no longer true, Wilson notes, as indicated by this phenomenon of "evangelical" support for Obama. Specifically, at about 17:40, he says:

"...Once you start not being able to see the big 'E' on the eye-chart anymore,
then I conclude that you can't see.
...You can't see the most obvious things"

Update: in one of his older posts, Wilson adds this:

Now this next distinction is crucial. The fact that secular conservatives can see it and so express their support for things like pro-life legislation or marriage protection laws does not mean that they are capable of helping us out when it comes to the more complex, systemic and corporate issues we must face. The fact that they can read the big E on God's eyechart for mankind does not mean that they can see the lowest line. As Trinitarian Christian we must affirm that our ethical responsibilities are both individual and corporate, which means that however much we might agree with certain Republican talking points in a campaign (on issues like abortion and sodomy), we also must acknowledge that such appeals are inadequate -- they do not fill out our vision for Christendom at all. They are fine as far as they go, but they don't go very far.

In the case of liberals, it is completely different. They celebrate sodomy, and say that a woman has the right to chop her baby up in little pieces. They cannot read the big E and insist that being asked even to try reading it is an insult to their core values. Now, this being the case, I am not even going to ask them to read the lowest line. My reason for this is that they are clearly blind.

Think of basic issues that are biblically easy -- abortion and sodomy heading the list -- as a qualifying round. Those who fail at this point don't get to move on to the semi-finals. Those who do get to move on, who clear that first round, have not thereby demonstrated that they are going to win anything later on. Liberals want to lose their races to men, and then move on to prove their prowess in running against horses.

Interesting: Robert Schuller ousts his son from the pulpit

Hm. The guy who preaches in a big glass house is throwing rocks.

Background: as I shared over at Pyro, I spent my formative teenish years in a cult called Science of Mind, or Religious Science. I would sometimes listen to Robert Schuller, and kind of like him. He was mostly in line with us, except he said the name "Jesus" more than we would.

After my conversion, I thought I'd watch him again, and expected to get more out of him. Instead, he repulsed me. Christ's Lordship was nowhere to be found, the full Gospel message was absent; he was humoring the lost to Hell. More than ever, he sounded almost identical to the cult from which the Lord had just saved me.

Schuller has said many terrible things, judged from the perspective of the Gospel. His abominable book Self-Esteem: the New Reformation carries many of them. Unlike Christ, Schuller puts man at the center of the universe, with God there to serve, affirm, and accommodate. The Biblical teachings of God's holiness and judgment, of Christ's Lordship, of sin, redemption, and salvation through penal, subtitutionary atonement, have been conspicuously absent or denied. Repentance from sin, as Biblically defined and depicted, is not a Schuller theme.

Now I read that the elder Schuller has removed his son from the pulpit, citing different visions and directions that could damage the ministry. Well, that piqued my curiosity. What difference? I haven't been following the doings at Crystal Cathedral at all. Did the younger Schuller preach even less Biblicaloid notions than Dad could stand? Or, perhaps... the other direction?

I searched mostly in vain. But if the Wikipedia article on Robert A. Schuller is accurate, it may give us a clue. Check this:

...where his father's preaching tends to be heavier on psychological reference and lighter on scriptural reference, Robert A. Schuller's messages rely considerably on scriptural reference, hermeneutics, and apologetics, making the role of "positivism" secondary. This emphasis on scripture as a primary teaching source makes his preaching style considerably different from his father's.

Critics of his father will find Robert A. Schuller's teaching and style more in line with mainstream evangelical thought. Some argue that that he does not preach adequately on the topic of sin and man's fallen nature, while others counter-argue that he does so adequately without overemphasizing them (a common critique from evangelicals and fundamentalists).

It is also argued that, as with many televangelists, including his father, Schuller's message is not throughout truly Christian but tends to be rather secular. Others counterargue that the heavy use of scriptural reference, hermeneutics, and apologetics used by Schuller negate this argument.

So, maybe... too much Gospel?

Golly. Think what would happen if anyone tried to nail up 95 Theses there!

Or even just the first one:

When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said "Repent",
He called for the entire life of believers to be one of
repentance.

Showing respect for Yahweh by... not saying His name?

There are so many things wrong with this article from Christianity Astray that it's difficult to know where to start. So let's do one of my favorite things - a list!

First, the Vatican instructs underlings to remove "Yahweh" from songs and prayers. This is funny all in itself. The Vatican can't do anything about Roman Catholic senators and congressmen who are pro-aborts; but it can tell people to stop saying or singing "Yahweh."

As usual for the Vatican, the rationale is impenetrable. The Vatican intones that it "was held to be unpronounceable and hence was replaced during the reading of sacred Scripture by means of the use of an alternate name: Adonai, which means 'Lord.'" Uh, yeah.

"Was held to be"? By whom? Certainly not by the actual writers of God-breathed Scripture, who employed the name well over 6800 times. No, the prophets and Moses give no sign that believers should do anything other than revere, respect, trust, flee to, and take sacred oaths by that name.

By whom, then? Well, like everything else for Rome - by tradition. So there.

But wait. It gets worse.

Because second, we're then told that

Protestants should be following their lead, said Carol Bechtel, professor of Old Testament at Western Theological Seminary in Holland, Michigan. "It's always left me baffled and perplexed and embarrassed that we sprinkle our hymns with that name," she said. "Whether or not there are Jewish brothers and sisters in earshot, the most obvious reason to avoid using the proper and more personal name of God in the Old Testament is simply respect for God."

Okay, so this lady is "professor" of a book that boldly uses the Name over 6800 times - but she has "always" been "baffled and perplexed and embarrassed that we sprinkle our hymns with that name"? Really? Baffled?

Well, I don't know. I'll just take a stab at it here, a shot in the dark, but - is it maybe because it's all over the Bible? Is that perhaps the explanation?

But she's concerned about "Jewish brothers and sisters"? What does she mean - Jewish Christians? Then they should be well-liberated from the traditions of the elders now, set free with the liberty of the sons of God, their consciences captive to the Word alone. Right?

But if she's concerned about offending unbelieving Jews? How far is she going to go with that concern of hers? God says His name 6800+ times, and she says "Shush!" So... what about this whole "Jesus is Lord" thing, then? That really offends unbelievers. What about "Messiah atoned for sin on the Cross"? Really, really offensive. Shall we drop that, too?

And Bible-believers should follow Rome's lead? I'll retire to Bedlam.

There are more bobbles and semi-bobbles of less significance, but the end-note is: John Witvliet, director of the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship, says, "Some people said using Yahweh emphasized for them the transcendence of God, which you might say is precisely the goal of not saying the term."

Can anyone make any sense of that? And that, from the Calvin institute?

Against it, this:

To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of [Yahweh] (Genesis 4:26)

It is [Yahweh] your God you shall fear. Him you shall serve and by his name you shall swear (Deuteronomy 6:13)

You shall fear the LORD your God. You shall serve him and hold fast to him, and by his name you shall swear (Deuteronomy 10:20)

Pour out your anger on the nations that do not know you, and on the kingdoms that do not call upon your name! (Psalm 79:6)

Then we shall not turn back from you; give us life, and we will call upon your name (Psalm 80:18)

Oh give thanks to [Yahweh]; call upon his name; make known his deeds among the peoples! (Psalm 105:1)

I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of [Yahweh] (Psalm 116:13)

I will offer to you the sacrifice of thanksgiving and call on the name of [Yahweh] (Psalm 116:17)

And you will say in that day: "Give thanks to [Yahweh], call upon his name, make known his deeds among the peoples, proclaim that his name is exalted (Isaiah 12:4)

But none of that has any place in this. It's all "I feel/don't feel," "they will feel," "it has been done"....

I don't know, call me a contrarian. But I think the actual text of the Bible should have some bearing on how we worship of the God who wrote it.

Evangelicals not buying the Dems' "woojie-woojie-woojie?"

Mostly religion-related polls are depressing, for a Bible-believer. So it's nice to see one that is at least a little encouraging.

Apparently not too many churchgoing evangelicals (which should be, but isn't, a tautology) are buying the Dems' duplicitous outreach attempts. Nor are they buying the a moral hierarchy that puts the could-be/maybe/some-think of "global warming" over the immediate realities of jamming "gay" "marriage" down our throats, and of the torture-killings of inconvenient or imperfect babies.

And that's all a good thing.

Now, some more random thoughts prompted by the article:

1. I really wish pundits would stop saying/writing that McCain "is generally reticent about his own faith." First, nobody is really "reticent about his own faith." How you live and speak is your faith. This idea that someone can have a public life without ever referring to Christ or the Word of God, and then suddenly in some candid moment unveil his intensely private but deeply-held convictions — sorry, but baloney. How you speak and live is what you believe (Luke 6:43-45). So, second, I already know enough about McCain's "faith." It is in no way compelling to me. And finally, third, if McCain — who is the worse of the two relevant candidates running for president today, excepting only Barak Obama — were suddenly to claim that Jesus has been his Lord for decades, and the Bible is determinate for all his thoughts, values, decisions, and actions... I'd be insulted. Not appealed-to.
2. BTW, does anyone know when McCain plans to start campaigning?
3. So far, has there ever been a lamer campaign that McCain's?
4. I've said it before, I'll say it again: given what a complete insult Obama is, this election is John McCain's to lose — and, by jingo, he's the man who could do it!
5. The title's "woojie-woojie-woojie" is a reference to a very old cartoon, where (IIRC) a male frog tries to woo a reluctant female frog with the eloquent come-on, "Woojie-woojie-woojie?" She replies, pointedly, "No woojie-woojie-woojie!" And now, you know that.