Following God for the Wrong Reasons

Here's a challenge from Pastor E. Dewey Smith:

Lead, Kindly Light

As I struggle with temptations to slip into a pragmatic, man-centered approach to ministry--one which asks questions like:

"How can I convince people to come back to church week after week?"

"How can I get people saved?"

"How can I make people love the Bible?"

"How can I make people grow in the Lord?"

I think of the words of the old hymn, written by a man whose conscience had been smitten upon an awareness of his own self-reliance:

Lead, kindly Light, amid th’encircling gloom, lead Thou me on!

The night is dark, and I am far from home; lead Thou me on!

Keep Thou my feet; I do not ask to see

The distant scene; one step enough for me.

I was not ever thus, nor prayed that Thou shouldst lead me on;

I loved to choose and see my path; but now lead Thou me on!

I loved the garish day, and, spite of fears,

Pride ruled my will. Remember not past years!

So long Thy power hath blest me, sure it still will lead me on.

O’er moor and fen, o’er crag and torrent, till the night is gone,

And with the morn those angel faces smile, which I

Have loved long since, and lost awhile!

Meantime, along the narrow rugged path, Thyself hast trod,

Lead, Savior, lead me home in childlike faith, home to my God.

To rest forever after earthly strife

In the calm light of everlasting life.

Perhaps this hymn strikes home because I am studying 1 Thess. 1:5, and recognizing how it is not my words that are effectual, but the Word of God accompanied by the work of the Holy Spirit. Keep your methods. Keep your schedules and plans and conniving sciences of manipulation. Give me Christ, lifted up in the pages of Scripture. And let Him have His way.

Behold the God-Man!

If you've never read J. C. Philpot (1802-1869), here is a sample to whet your appetite:

"We must never, even in thought, separate the human nature of our adorable Redeemer from his divine. Even when his sacred body lay in the grave, and was thus for a small space of time severed from his pure and holy soul by death and the tomb, there was no separation of the two natures, for his human soul, after he had once become incarnate in the womb of the Virgin, never was parted from his Deity, but went into paradise in indissoluble union with it. It is a fundamental article of our most holy faith that the human nature of the Lord Jesus Christ had no existence independent of his divine. In the Virgin's womb, in the lowly manger, in the lonely wilderness, on the holy mount of transfiguration, in the gloomy garden of Gethsemane, in Pilate's judgment hall, on the cross, and in the tomb, Jesus was still Immanuel, God with us. And so ineffably close and intimate is the conjunction of the human nature with the divine, that the actings of each nature, though separable, cannot and must not be separated from each other. Thus, the human hands of Jesus broke the seven loaves and the fish; but it was God-man who multiplied them so as to feed therewith four thousand men, besides women and children. The human feet of Jesus walked on the sea of Galilee; but it was the Son of God who walked on the waves to the ship. The human lips of Jesus uttered those words which are "spirit and life" (John 6:63), but it was the Son of the living God who spoke them (John 6:69). The human hands and feet of Jesus were nailed to the cross; but the blood shed by them was indeed divine, for all the virtue and validity of Deity were stamped upon it (Acts 20:28)."

- J. C. Philpot, Daily Words for Zion's Wayfarers (Joseph Kreifels).

Living by Lists 2

Listen as Paul Washer articulates the difference between legalism - living by lists - and Christlikeness:

Spurgeon at the Bat

How I wish that we had more men like Spurgeon in charge of our Bible colleges & seminaries: men who do not allow a young buck's profession of a call to ministry to trump objective, Scriptural qualifications. In his Lectures to My Students (vol. 1, Lecture 2) he says:

"We never tried to make a minister, and should fail if we did; we receive none into the College but those who profess to be ministers already. It would be nearer the truth if they called me a parson killer, for a goodly number of beginners have received their quietus from me; and I have the fullest ease of conscience in reflecting upon what I have so done. It has always been a hard task for me to discourage a hopeful young brother who has applied for admission to the College. My heart has always leaned to the kindest side, but duty to the churches has compelled me to judge with severe discrimination."

Daddy or his Toys?

Here is a heart-rending illustration from Christensen's Don't Waste Your Time in Worship:

"A father whose home had been made unspeakably happy with the presence of a little, curly-haired daughter found the tiresome toil of succeeding days tansformed into a labor of love. His earnings were modest, but each homecoming was made a joy, for he knew someone awaited his arrival at home. The first glimpse of the cottage revealed an expectant face at the window--a little nose pressed flat against the glass. One day, he received a modest bonus from his employer. Now he would buy some toys that he had longed, desired, his only child to enjoy. How happy the child was also--in fact, her supper was forgotten and her bedtime delayed. But imagine the father's disappointment upon his arrival the next evening--no baby face at the window. What had happened? Was the baby sick? He ran to the house, threw open the door, then heaved a sigh of relief as he saw her sitting on the dining-room floor, humming a tuneless melody to herself, contentedly playing with her toys, but unmindful that her father had just come home.
"That is just like many men and women today who, occupied with their treasures, forget the Giver of the gifts." (pp. 48-49)

Living by Lists

There is something very . . . convenient . . . about the way legalists define legalism. When I was growing up in a very legalistic church I was told repeatedly that legalism was teaching salvation by works. Recently I came across a book in which legalism was being defended by cherry-picking definitions from more or less obscure sources. Not surprisingly the author of this book is a part of an institution that is known far and wide for maintaining some very bizarre rules governing behavior and appearance. As Chesterton put it, there is something "purely acoustic" in this sort of selective definition.

Here is the definition of legalism that appears in Webster's dictionary:

———————
le•gal•ism \ˈlē-gə-ˌli-zəm\ n
1928
1 : strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code 〈the institutionalized legalism that restricts free choice〉
2 : a legal term or rule
- (Merriam-Webster, Inc. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. Eleventh ed. Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003.)
———————

Dictionary.com has compiled this definition:

le·gal·ism /ˈligəˌlɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lee-guh-liz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, esp. to the letter rather than the spirit.
2. Theology.
a. the doctrine that salvation is gained through good works.
b. the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws.
3. (initial capital letter) (in Chinese philosophy) the principles and practices of a school of political theorists advocating strict legal control over all activities, a system of rewards and punishments uniform for all classes, and an absolute monarchy.
[Origin: 1830–40; legal + -ism]

In one sense, then, the word carries the idea that "salvation is gained through good works"; however that is not the extent--nor, I would argue, the most insidious form--of legalism. And by limiting the definition in this way, legalists have given themselves a free pass for their works-based brand of Christianity, all the while bearing more resemblance to those who called for the crucifixion of the very Christ they profess to serve (and do serve, in their mind).

The far-more-prevalent form of legalism is the more widespread use of the term: "the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws". These are the modern offspring of the Judaizers whose accretions of external observances as an end in themselves prompted the writing of the epistle to the Galatians: those for whom particular appearances and behaviors are guarantors of spirituality; those who have entire lists of expectations in these areas that are founded on inference from the Scripture rather than Scripture Itself. But so long as they can convince us that legalism is restricted to requiring these works before salvation, rather than after, they are allowed to roam freely--snacking on the occasional sheep for sustenance.

Don't dismiss this as frustrated venting. There is a great HIDDEN danger in redefining away real legalism. Paul spells it out in Colossians:

"20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!”
22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?
23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence." Col. 2:20-23, NASB

The last phrase struck me like a thunderbolt. All of these lists, these observances, appear to suffice, but they "are of no value against fleshly indulgence." This strikes close to home for me, as I am still reeling from the news that a missionary pastor whom I respected has been forced to come back from the field in disgrace. So prevalent is the problem that caused his departure from the ministry that I don't have to articulate it--you knew what it was the moment I said he had come back from the field. Why is fundamentalism so fraught with these failings? I would argue that it is because we are living by lists that have supplanted the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. There is far too much evidence mounting up to deny this: as long as we have lists, we don't need the Holy Spirit. We don't have to wrestle with Scripture when our pastor will oblige us with an ex cathedra proclamation as to whether something is right or wrong.

More on this later. But for now, just think about it. Please.

Against the Watered-Down Gospel

An excellent sermon! Give this one a listen!

The Hope of Helpful Resources

This Sunday I'm starting a new Sunday school series, teaching verse-by-verse through the Thessalonian epistles. I'm always on the prowl for new resources to strengthen my understanding (and, thus, exposition) of the Scriptures, so I try to purchase one or two commentaries by authors with whom I am unfamiliar whenever I start a series like this, to see what I'm missing. I had heard of Dr. Mal Couch of Tydale Theological Seminary before, and have his book on dispensational hermeneutics; but The Hope of Christ's Return is the first of his commentaries that I have tried.

The introductory material alone is worth the price of the commentary. Dr. Couch balances in-depth background information with highlights of the doctrinal issues (particularly dispensationalism and eschatology) and why they are important. All of this is done in a clear, straightforward, didactic writing style. I am looking forward to using this commentary in my studies, and will definitely be including Dr. Couch on my list of must-haves for future series. If you haven't already, I heartily recommend that you give his stuff a try.

Spurgeon on Expository Preaching

"A judicious critic would probably complain that many sermons are deficient in solid instruction, Biblical exposition, and Scriptural argument; they are flashy, rather than fleshy; clever, rather than solid; entertaining, rather than impressive. He would point to rhetorical discourses in which doctrine is barely discernible, and brilliant harangues from which no food for the soul could ever be extracted. Having done this, he would probably propose that homilies should flow out of texts, and should consist of a clear explanation and an earnest enforcement of the truths which the texts distinctly teach. Expository preaching he would advocate as the great need of the day, its best protection against rising errors, and its surest means of spiritual edification."
- Commenting and Commentaries, p. v

The Eye-Candy Church

Had a thought hit me this morning: In the New Testament the Church is the Bride of Christ. In American Christianity, the Church is Angelina Jolie--smokin' hot but shallow and flighty. We have gorgeous facades, all the latest in buildings, creature comforts, music (as artificially enhanced as, well, Angelina Jolie). But while she (we're talking about the Church again, now) may look drop-dead gorgeous on the outside, where is the commitment to her Groom? We're so embarrassed by Him that we've tried to pretend we're married to someone else. Our Groom "has no stately form or majesty that we should look upon Him, nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him" (Is. 53:2). So, what do we do? We pull a Brad Pitt mask over Him, to try to cover that unsightly marring; and dress Him in an Armani suit because those blood-stains just won't do in the social circles to which we aspire.

The jesus (little "j") of Joel Osteen, Bobbie Schuller, and Billy Graham (before you get mad, watch this) is a jesus who has been sanitized for worldling consumption. Here's an idea: let's speak of our Groom the way a loving, faithful Bride enraptured by her great Love would, instead of apologizing that He is not socially graceful. Let's present the pierced, bleeding, dying Savior to the world without shame. And while we're at it, we should point out to the scandalized worldling that, "Hey, He was wounded for YOUR transgressions. Those scars are BEAUTIFUL!"

Or, we could just continue our advanced studies in the Gomer School of Marital Fidelity.

Gatorade for the Soul

This is why I love good Southern Gospel quartet singing. They have a way of singing about heaven that can lift me out of the darkest day and fix my eyes on home. Enjoy.

Charlotte Bronte on The Call

I came across a beautiful description of the call to the ministry, in a most unexpected place. In Charlotte Bronte's classic Jane Eyre there is a moment when a parish priest, St. John Rivers, is expressing his passion for missionary work to Jane:

"A year ago, I was myself intensely miserable, because I thought I had made a mistake in entering the ministry: its uniform duties wearied me to death. I burnt for the more active life of the world-for the more exciting toils of a literary career-for the destiny of an artist, author, orator; anything rather than that or a priest: yes, the heart of a politician, of a soldier, of a votary of glory, a lover of renown, a luster after power, beat under my curate’s surplice. I considered: my life was so wretched, it must be changed, or I must die. After a season of darkness and struggling, light broke and relief fell: my cramped existence all at once spread out to a plain without bounds-my powers heard a call from heaven to rise, gather their full strength, spread their wings, and mount beyond ken. God had an errand for me; to bear which afar, to deliver it well, skill and strength, courage and eloquence, the best qualifications of soldier, statesman, and orator, were all needed: for these all centre in the good missionary.
A missionary I resolved to be. From that moment my state of mind changed; the fetters dissolved and dropped from every faculty, leaving nothing of bondage but its galling soreness-which time only can heal."

Been there.