Extemporaneous Ramblings

I am convinced that one of the primary responsibilities of the local assembly is the pro-active, ongoing equipping of all believers for individual bible study, and further that this responsibility is not being addressed throughout the evangelical church. Numerous conversations with other believers, both new and more mature, indicates that I am not alone in these conclusions and that church leadership and programs are seriously off the rails, out of touch and in denial on this issue.

I have briefly examined three approaches: deductive, inductive and supported enhanced reading. Let us summarize the discussion and take a stab at some conclusions.

Virtually all congregational activity is of necessity in the deductive mode. It can be and is used to good result in many cases to edify believers, assuming the presentation is Gospel and Christ centered and delivered with little embellishment (possibly a large assumption admittedly). In terms of equipping the Saints in their developing relationship with the Lord, however, this is insufficient, and this equipping should clearly be an overriding church priority.

Next we have Inductive Bible study. Much Bible study training in church related groups, bible schools and independent organizations such as Precepts, has centered upon various implementations of these methods, which are designed to support independence and to work directly from the text. Though somewhat involved in some formats they are historically quite effective in going directly to the text of Scripture and empowering the individual to divide the Word. If there would be a weakness in this approach it would only be in the volume of technique imposed and the possibility that this might stifle revelation in some learners. Nonetheless, this approach is a proven and widely supported.

The final approach considered was a modified form of simple bible reading. The suggestion here is that close reading of the text be supported through the use of quality background cultural, genre and contextual commentaries, and teamed if possible with subsequent group comparative analysis. This design supports pre-reading of Scriptural background documentation, close reading of the text with the work of the Spirit in mind, and subsequent sharing of thoughts within the group. The goal is too allow room for revelation while still compensating for time and cultural factors in an organized fashion.
So what is best (or worst)?

The worst approach would be to continue in the growing deductive-only, authoritative leadership model format. This does not effectively equip the members of the body for independent growth or challenges in or out of the church. Good intents notwithstanding, it encourages dependency upon the church as a ministerium, which will in the end weaken that same body. The deductive paradigm is perfect within the framework of doctrinal and theological teaching, and plain expository preaching, but not exclusively in the equipping of the individual to divide the word.

On a related note, the ubiquitous small group Bible study framework, as implemented in most churches, does not effectively address this issue. It is quite effective in providing demographic based fellowship, but is does address the present issue. In fact, it can mask the issue in allowing leadership to assume that it is being addressed. The reality is that it is not and denial will not change that.

A correct approach would appear to be the implementation of inductive or supported enhanced reading approaches. I do not think that either approach need be implemented exclusively, but they need to be put in place universally as a primary church priority. Variations of the two methods will suit different people and the availability of teachers for each method will effect delivery. In the initial stages when more people need to be brought on-board, availability of both approaches would be optimal.

Just as important as the availability of training is a buy-in to this need by church leadership. Simple acknowledge and consideration is not enough. In many cases this requires acknowledgment of a weakness and a challenging change in direction of vision. As such it may be the single largest hurdle faced by those who would benefit from it but have little real input to assembly direction. For the real equipping of the local body to study the
Word, that work must become a very high priority. This supported must be pro-actively on all fronts, particularly from the pulpit and secondarily with the budget.

So, what about any financial cost?

Compared to most program activities, implementation of this should be low in cost. Book and Bible costs are traditionally born by the participants. Instructors are either volunteer or of minimal cost on the organizational level. So cost is not a legitimate excuse. If the concept is accepted as a priority, then minimal program money is always available.

So there we have it. The need is real and pressing for all levels of people - adults, youth and even children. The people of God must be exhorted and supported in their ability to divide the Word for themselves as a first priority. This is the direct responsibility of the local church. Without this, the local church is implicitly denying the significance of having the Word freely in our hands and of the Reformation that allowed that to be the case. Local leadership must acknowledge this need and pro-actively address it.

Action, not just talk.

Contrary to what might be feared organizationally, developing a majority of individuals and groups who are able to divide the Word for themselves can only strengthen and build the local body for what is to undoubtedly come. This is the only type of relevance that matters.

A third approach that should be considered is one used formally by some smaller denominational and independent assemblies, as well as by many believers in private study (again let us remember that we are not addressing casual devotional reading here). I have termed this enhanced bible reading, though it does not have a name per se, and those who practice it would definitely shun a label.

What is involved here is bible study encompassing simple group or individual bible reading, with sharing of insights as moved by the Spirit. There is little or no deductive or inductive methodology. The Scripture is read and interpreted directly with no intermediate hermeneutic process. That is, instead of the usual exegesis -> theological formulation -> interpretive/application paradigm, the reading of the text here leads to immediate interpretation in the present. Past to present is a direct jump. This presumes that direct interpretation can be drawn directly from the text, irrespective of the translation (though in most cases the translation used would likely be KJV or NKJV) or any historical-grammatical considerations.

The underlying assumption is that interpretation and application are Spirit driven and revelatory in nature. As such, though the reader does the interpretation, it is assumed that the Spirit is driving it. With a group, the work of the Spirit is the combined revelation of the group through the reading and sharing process. Additionally, in some cases the use of commentaries and such occurs to add additional information after the fact, but this is minimal and not consistent.
With, as previously discussed, a growing church dependence upon a new ministerium of Pastors (which is historically why this reading methodology emerged in the later 19th century) on one side, and with today’s emerging church and its pursuit of experiential faith on the other side, there would seem to be much to recommend this more fundamental and faith driven approach. I would agree, especially since I consider the work of the Spirit to be largely undervalued today.

Having said that, however, there are problems that can not be overlooked.

Though I think that in other methodologies the essential and overarching work of the Spirit is often either overlooked or underplayed, to assume that no other assistance or work on the part of the reader is needed to divide the Word correctly is fraught with danger. In the case of the basic Gospel the perspicuity of Scripture is unquestionable, but much other important material does not easily or automatically make the transition from the Scriptural writer’s pen to our modern linguistic and conceptual understanding unaided. To assume that revelation alone will bridge that divide, without additional effort or assistance, is a recipe for error or even heresy. The Scriptures are both infallible and inerrant in their autographa. However as active readers of translations we are most certainly not. Further, it must be born in mind that nearly all historical heresies were the result of unintentional error based upon Scripture.

It would seem that plain reading has value but only within limits. It is unable to facilitate correctly dividing the Word on a consistent basis. But more significantly, it brings the danger of miss-reading and miss-interpretation without the safeguards of methodical study, even when the accountability of group work is factored in. This can lead to inappropriate doctrine and inaccurate theology over time.

I must stress that this is not a blanket condemnation of this approach. It is more of a caveat. Enhanced reading in a devotional setting is greatly encouraging and opens a necessary venue for the acknowledgment of the Spirit, something that is glaringly missing in many assemblies.

That said, can this method be modified to yield a better probably outcome?

I would suggest that it can. Collaborative enhanced reading combined with some of the tools of inductive study, such as a good background/cultural commentary and a guide to literary genre, might yield the best of both methods. This could honour the plain meaning and revelatory nature of the text while providing support for the differences imposed by centuries of time.

I have found that though the formal inductive methods seems to have much to offer, the techniques can be excessive, somewhat unworkable and seemingly stifling to personal revelation. Though many do not find it so, this has proven to be a common comment. The result for many is that it is not used consistently, and an unused method is no method.

Within this in mind, enhanced reading combined with limited inductive support tools, may offer an effective combination. In fact, I have just recently discovered that some seminary classes now even present some form of this combination under the title of inductive study. For our purposes, though, I will call it Supported Enhanced Reading.

As we have seen, deductive bible study is in essence passive. Despite the participation of the individual, the primary points are supplied by an outside authority and the conclusion is one way or the other guided, often authoritatively. The Scriptural study is in support of the predetermined points to be addressed, not to facilitate fresh discovery of those points directly from Scripture.

On the opposite side we have Inductive methodologies. In this case, irrespective of the actual inductive method used, the purpose is essentially to come to the Scripture and discover the original meaning, timeless principle and present application, in that order, for oneself. This is accomplished individually and is up close and personal with the Scriptures, so to speak.

For a Biblical perspective let us recall John 1:1 where it states “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”. We are reminded here that the Word is the Lord. It does not just represent the Lord, nor is it just part of the Lord. It is the Lord. That being so, when we are up close and personal with the Word, we are likewise with the Lord.

If that isn’t a reason to rejoice, I don’t know what is. But it should also be a very sobering thought and a clear indication of how important this matter of individual bible study, and by implication the equipping for it, actually is.

Our relationship is not with external sources which exposit the Word for us, but with Him who is the Word. Since our relationship is not arms length, neither should our study be. It is with Him (The Word) directly. So our work with Him and with the Word are at the root synonymous in nature. All other sources, however important, informative and explanatory they may be, are second hand! Therefor we must equip for the direct interaction first and foremost.

With this in mind, it seems to me that a primary responsibility of the local church as an equipping body is to instruct and encourage deductive methodology in all forms. This is not an endorsement of one particular inductive form but the recognition of the absolute need.

Let me again stress that the use of this approach does not remove the need or value of outside exposition, commentary and other helps to understanding. These are vital and we are certainly called as part of the community of Saints to take heed of the work of our Church fathers, mentors, Pastors and others. However, the first level of responsibility in the post Reformation believer is to their relationship with the Lord directly. And since the Word is the Lord, to the appropriation of that Word for ourselves.

Recall 2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” The dividing of the Word is first an individual responsibility in our relationship with the Lord, even if there is collaboration afterwards as there should be. It can not be wholly received from without.

The skills to divide the Word and determine its implications are deductive skills that must be acquired through training, collaboration and practice, and facilitation. In my view this makes a clear case for the pro-active teaching, encouragement and support of this activity as a primary responsibility of the local church.

Let us first consider the Deductive approach.Looked at objectively, most church activities and gatherings which examine the Scriptures are based upon deductive approaches. By this I mean that even great expository preaching (again, I must comment, a growing rarity in the face of the emergence of ‘relevant’ preaching), small group ‘bible study guide’ based ministry, Sunday school curricula, and so on, can be observed to be deductive in approach. All have a point to make and use deductive methods to make it. This approach is by far the most efficient at disseminating understanding and doctrine in limited time since a knowledgeable source provides reliable information in a predigested form, at an appropriate level. This is also the basic structure of most formal educational frameworks.

In the church setting, however, this is often the only participatory Bible study that most participants will experience. With that in mind, what is the result? The result is an assembly of believers that, though possibly well versed or even articulate in selected verses and theologies, are almost completely dependent upon some more knowledgeable, authoritative source for the ideas which support their beliefs. Their ability to think through or articulate that underlying support structure is very limited. This renders them not only largely unable to defend their beliefs at any depth, but more significantly, at least somewhat shaky in their own hearts about those beliefs. One must ask if this was what intended in our receiving the Scriptures? Moreover, to be more pointed in the our question, was the Reformation and the placing of the Bible directly into the hands of God’s people accomplished only to yield a future where those people look primarily to a new magisterium for edification rather not to the Bible directly? I think not.
Even more ominous is the question - What is to happen to this flock in the tribulations to come? When false prophets and doctrines abound, preached in the name of the Lord, with a false magisterium in place, how will these discern the truth for themselves? Though the sovereign surety of salvation is not in question, the roughness of the ride definitely is.

With these considerations in mind it must be concluded that only deductive study, even the best of it, is not sufficient to equip God’s people for fully actualized faith and practice. Recalling also that the Confessions of the Protestant church (in all their variations) consider the Scriptures fully sufficient in all matters of faith and practice, the personal equipping of each Saint to receive that instruction is of paramount importance.

Let me close this section on the deductive approach with a comment on the need for expository preaching. Some of the above discussion might lead one to think that I may not consider it vital. In the words of the Apostle Paul “May it never be!” (Romans 2:6a).

Good, solid, bible based, unvarnished, unadorned, undramatized, unmodernized expository preaching is an ABSOLUTE necessity for the edification of the faithful. It enhances (note, enhances not replaces) the personal understanding of Scripture, supports correct doctrine and much, much more. It is also sadly rare, and growing more so, as the church considers it insufficient for today (but that is another article for another time).

Let us muse about modes of Bible reading and more particularly, study. What is sufficient to facilitate the fruits of being ‘in the Word’?

There would appear to be three approaches: Deductive study, Inductive study and modified plain reading. Just to be clear, we are not talking about devotional or casual scripture reading, though that certainly is important in its own right. We are examining how the believer can effectively and individually approach personal study - understanding and assimilating God’s Word for himself or herself.

Let us start by mentioning that in some branches of the faith this activity is in effect considered ill advised, improper, not possible, or worse. If we look at the Roman Catholic traditions (flowing from the pre-Reformation church and developed to present day), and possibly the Eastern Orthodox church, each of these huge groups do not consider study and understanding of the whole Bible by the individual to be reasonable or desirable, though for very different reasons. In the former case we have an authoritative magisterium based approach that led to the Reformation, while in the latter the emphasis is more apophatic, centered upon individually meeting God experientially, through worship (bear in mind here that I am not an expert in either area).

Post Reformation Protestant traditions, particularly Evangelical ones, place a high value upon individual Bible study and the meeting of God through His Word as given to us personally. If we are to experience this, and to be equipped for a Biblically based life, how is this to be facilitated?

Scripture states, speaking of the Bereans in Acts 17:11 “Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” So here we have a model which lauds the ongoing study of Scripture, both individually and within community. Not only that, but surely we would want to be as the Bereans, as opposed to the Thessalonians.

Clearly we believe that we are called to study the Bible individually and in assembly.

A few months ago I wrote a number of pieces concerning the lack of foundational biblical and theological literacy in the average evangelical assembly, and the apparent lack of interest in this issue (real interest, not the usual talk) in the leadership. After reading a number of other people on the same subject, particularly an article by Dr. George Guthrie (Mind the Gap) of Union University, I have revised and narrowed my focus somewhat. Dr. Guthrie’s paper brought me to realize how widespread this problem actually is throughout the Baptist and evangelical church.

Though I continue to believe, among other things, that there is a fundamental need for basic, organized theology, catechism and similar instruction as a primary focus of congregational life, and that this supersedes many other program activities, the most pressing issue overall is the almost complete lack of systematic training in Bible Study methodology.

I would venture to guess that your average church member or attendee, including both new and old believers, has never been offered a course of study in bible reading methodology and study skills.

Wait a minute, you say. Your church has small groups that do bible studies, Sunday school that examines bible issues, and some level of expository preaching (though that gets more rare by the minute, replaced by emergent social psychology).

The answer is that none of these addresses the foundational and essential issue in most cases. They are all deductive in nature, do not effectively equip the individual to undertake effective personal bible study, and are often largely passive. As such, they do not help the believer to know how to study the Bible. They mostly examine small portions of Scripture with a predetermined outcome in sight. Though this can be valuable in its own right, it is not what is needed to equip the individual to divide the Word for themselves.

Most people are simply told to ‘Read your Bible’. In most cases that is tantamount to asking them to read the Greek New Testament and look up what they don’t understand. Admittedly that may be an exaggeration, but you get the point. The Bible is not a simple book for the most part, and they have no skills with which to approach it. The result is more often than not some combination of quiet discouragement, little or sporadic individual Bible study, and poor understanding of the implications of what is actually read. In other words, poor understand, little closeness to the Word, possibly flawed theology, and complete dependence upon others for information.

Furthermore, the existence of ministry programs such as small groups, though they serve other important fellowship functions, allows leadership to skirt the issue of instilling real, individual Bible study skills in the congregation. The result is individual biblical illiteracy. Even the congregants themselves are unlikely to see this clearly in many cases, or are not likely to admit it. After all, who is going to admit that their bible study skills are not great? Equipping the people of God for effective, individual bible study, however, is a fundamental responsibility of the church leadership, which is shirked at their peril.

What is the result of this? Not only is the result a congregation that is largely and silently unable to rightly divide the Word of God for themselves and form solid personal biblical opinions to be applied in life, but we slowly and insidiously move toward a pre-Reformation situation in which authoritative Bible study and personal theology is vested in a new magisterium of the Pastors. This is most certainly not what the Reformers had in mind!

If you don’t believe that this is happening, just observe quietly how much of the church theology defers to Pastoral opinion and how little actual biblical or theological discussion takes place.

So what is the answer or the start towards an answer?

Here is a suggested but not exhaustive list of actions:

1. More public reading of Scripture in the congregation
2. Solid instruction in individual bible study methodology fro all members
3. Particular emphasis on deductive bible study skill development in the youth and new believers
4. Straightforward expository preaching, with notes and minimal dramatic enhancement
5. Small groups focused on deductive skills and foundational theology

There, that’s a start at least!

That said, the slide away from biblical literacy being an actual priority (assuming of course that it once was one) has been developing for some time, so it is likely to be an uphill trip to revival. Moreover, though church leadership (with some notable exceptions) do discuss these issues they are historically unlikely to move on them pro-actively and persistently at the expense of other more socially relevant programs. Getting beyond mere recognition of the problem and onto the active agenda is a significant part a battle in itself.

We have to start somewhere, though, and a new emphasis on encouraging all of us to learn, share and practice basic inductive bible study methodologies can do other than enhance all other aspects of faith and practice.

A message that I heard recently started me ruminating (about foundational issues, as usual). This is good in that maybe there is some discussion merited here, but not so good in what I think I was hearing. It was a mixed bag so to speak, and I took a while to decide to write about it.

The message was an interpretation of Romans 14. It proposed that there was confusion within the church over what constituted essential and non-essential matters of faith and necessary practice, and that this results in divisiveness (read that as non-inclusiveness in this case) both within the body and in terms of attracting people to the church when the two categories are miss-applied. The unstated subtext of the message appeared to be church growth and it side-stepped the related and larger issue of ecumenical error.

The message sampled a few widely divergent attributes from various denominations, pointing out that these were often construed within those circles as indicative of and necessary for real Christian spirituality.

What sort of attributes? Here are some examples (there were a few more):
All denominations - dressing up or not for church
Reformed Presbyterians - no instrumentation and singing of psalms only.
Anglicans (also Roman Catholics) and others - the use of strict liturgy
CRC - use of catechism to teach doctrine and theology
Pentecostals - spiritual gifts in present times and exuberant worship

I think that you get the idea. Let me also point out that I did not make up these examples, and that the list likely contained some inaccuracies. Nonetheless, these are what were presented, and as you will see, although not completely without merit, I found some of the implications disturbing.

The message proposed that all of these attributes were optional and not essentials to the faith. Further, it declared that as non-essentials they were divisive within congregational life when viewed as anything other than surface preference, best applied only to one’s self. By implication it was also implied that these should not properly form the basis for Christian discernment.

Some years ago an wise Christian brother said to me that denominations were just expressions of preference with the body. I like that in some ways since it stresses the reality that although there are preferential differences we (true believers) are all one body in the Lord. Thus our preferential differences as evangelical believers should not separate us divisively. They are “items for family discussion”, so to speak. That works well as long as we are discussing truly preferential, and not foundational, matters. And therein lies the rub…

In the present case it seemed to go well beyond that, which concerns me. The conclusion of this particular message was that ALL attributes other than the Gospel (as expressed in a line or two) are non-essential. Everything else was deemed personal, and potential divisive. That may sound very inclusive in the surface (and that was indeed the subtext being delivered in this case, for other reasons), but it is also, I believe, very dangerous.

Certainly I can agree that some items are truly preferential. I may like to wear a suit to church and you may like to wear jeans. You may be more comfortable in the framework of liturgy, while I might prefer a more free spirited exchange. I may think the drums in the worship band are okay, but you are only really comfortable with the old hymns. Those are, as mentioned above, family discussion items. However, I clearly draw the line when it comes to the Bible, theology or doctrine being judged superfluous and potentially divisive.

If the ONLY criteria for inclusion is the simple Gospel, and every other attribute and tool is to be cast in the light of optional and unnecessary, then what of Biblical development and understanding?

Let us take the example of catechism. I am not a ‘rules’ fanatic and I do not actively use a catechism (though I likely should), but new or young believers often need tools for understanding the faith beyond initial belief statements. Without that they will not mature. Catechisms and similar simplifications help with that process. They are in fact in many cases essential to the processes. In the message in question, even The Word itself was not included in the stated essentials list. Since the Word is the Lord, this gives me very serious pause.

My concern here (thought I can not seem to state it as clearly as I would like) is that foundational Bible and related edification were being cast in the same optional, non-essential light as Sunday go-to-meeting clothes, all in the interest of seeker friendly warm fuzzies. The lynch pins of developing maturity were cast in a light of divisiveness. Nothing was considered solid beyond the simple Gospel. It is a clear case the baby going out with the bath water in the name of inclusiveness.

Surely this is error. We are, of course, called first to the Gospel. But henceforth we are called to development in the Word. For that to happen, tools including the Bible and supporting material are needed. Those are not divisive beyond dividing us rightly from the world.

So what do I think are the essentials? Well, as a preliminary list I would included the Gospel, Bible, plus basic Christian theology and doctrine expressed through tools such as a catechism. Overall, the tools to understand the reality of Christian life. Even when these may differ between groups, they are nonetheless critical and definitely not unessential.

In writing this I realize that the real underlying issue is not the one stated. It is the one alluded to by the desired inclusiveness of the seeker friendly approach. That issue is - church growth are what cost? The requirement to be inclusive and seeker friendly, thereby stimulating growth and wide appeal, can result in the casting off of the very support framework that assists believers to mature. This is clearly happening today, and the push of church leadership for growth, albeit with an eye to conversions, seems to include extreme blinders as to the long term cost. Therein is grave danger of a completely emotion and experience based assembly. This may on the surface appear dynamic and my indeed grow dramatically, but below the surface it is developing without any real foundation.

One can only cry out - Beware!

Well, here we are, believers in the body of Christ, conscious that our eternal value is based solely upon the work of Christ, originally, now and always, yet living in the world of flesh from day to day.

We are surrounded by a world governed by the paradigms of fleshly value, conditioned and encouraged on every front that success is to be found in taking pride in ourselves.

Even within the church, much of the focus is on worldly matters, albeit with a superficial nod towards the Lord. Activities are created and evaluated with business models. Congregational success is evaluated related to resources and programs. Preaching is too often based upon the secular to provide the relevance which the Word of God is deemed to lack. Certainly many good and worthwhile accomplishments are put forth in support of the community and family, but, and it is a crucial but, Christ and Him crucified is on the far back burner. Similarly off the radar are foundational knowledge of Scripture and it’s meaning beyond worldly or sociological examples. One would think at times that a current movie clip or pop song was the answer instead of Scripture. Sound silly? If so, then you haven’t been watching closely…

In stark contrast, we have the Apostle Paul in Galatians 6:14 placing the sole justification for his value, the work of our Lord, squarely in our face through his example. We may read it and possibly gloss over it, but in the conviction of the Spirit there is no escaping the reality of Paul’s defacto challenge to our normal paradigm of living and our congregational priorities. In the writing of the New Testament, I believe that this eternal challenge to borderline apostasy was part of the intent. Judging from the situation we see about us, the inspiring Spirit appears to have had one eye on the future. Paul was archetypal in so many ways, and this particular way is probably even more applicable now than in early church times (a speculative assumption admittedly).

So, what to do (makes me think of the Mad Hatter for some reason)…

One popular interpretation of this quandary from the more recent past times (last few hundred years give or take) was to assume that the requirement was was to take an ascetic approach to piety. This generally included negative paradigms of denial, with more being deemed better. Though tempting on the surface, this is a trivialization of the task of living in the world, and would seem to stand in denial of other Scriptural proscriptions to live joyously in our salvation. The doctrine of outward asceticism is both dated and inappropriate. At the same time, however, we are not called to revel and wallow in the world of the flesh in any way the contravenes the tenants of the New Convent, as outlined variously by our Lord through the New Testament.

So, back to what to do…

A comment on the previous post supplied a great list of things that are swirling about us as modern priorities in church life. Taking a negative approach, these might be a good start at listing what not to do. At the risk of being accused of being too simplistic for our modern times (guilty as charged!), I would somewhat boldly suggest that we take Paul at face value. Our cause for celebration is not the assembly or congregation, not the family, not good works, not even the fruits of the Spirit. Our cause for celebration and gathering is is solely our status in Christ and His accomplishments.

We celebrate (aka worship) Him in all aspects, and His work in our lives. By extension, since the Word is Him, we read, proclaim, study, discuss and celebrate it as well. We proclaim these things in and to the world, ignoring the perception of foolishness. We support these activities variously as we can. And we do not make any attempt to improve the message. Scripture states that it is the vehicle for understanding and evangelism. It does not state that is has an expiry date or needs updating or embellishing. In fact, such matters are implied to be very dangerous and in places ascribed to be marks of the apostasy to come.

Does this imply old, dry, droning lectures. To borrow from and paraphrase Paul, “May it never be”. That is a function of presentation, not content. However, it does mean proclamation of the Word, not movie or sound bite clips for sociological relevance or increased entertainment.

The Word and the celebration of Christ is made relevant to those who will be saved by the Spirit, not by men.

There you have it. There are probably better ways to spell it out, but it is simply Christ, His word and His work, and that alone. Let us celebrate those things in following Him, casting aside the rest as the true foolishness.

In an article from a daily devotional publication for teens (Soul Journey, ISBN 1-57293-132-9), a recent article cited six human characteristics or activities from Proverbs 6 that are unacceptable to the Lord. These were inflated ego, lying, murder, evil scheming, rushing into evil, lying in court and trouble making. The point made in the article was that these attributes or activities are opposite to the Lord’s nature and what he loves, and that an examination of how our loves and hates line up with the Lord’s is important.

Valuable food for thought, but for me the passage brought to mind a couple of other Scriptures where Paul explicitly describes his own stance, and by implication what ours should be.

“But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” Galatians 6:14, and “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.” Galatians 2:20.

First, let me added the obvious provision that I am only speaking of believers in this discussion, since those of the world consider such matters ‘foolishness’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).

It stuck me that the unacceptable behaviours and attitudes laid out in Proverbs 6 could only occur in a believer to the degree to which the stance described by Paul in Galatians was either not the case (making them tarns among the wheat possibly) or was slipping towards worldly influences.

The world in which we live, are conditioned, and make our way, by and large teaches precisely the opposite. We are to put ourselves forward, show our talents, skills and accomplishment, and take as much pride as possible in these things throughout the process. Though false humility is common, the old adage of “blow you own horn since no-one else is likely to blow it for you” would seem more the phrase of the day today, albeit covertly.

Does this imply that there is no satisfaction to be taken, even obviously, in a job well and truly done? Not at all. But there is a great gulf between satisfaction in accomplishment and achievement, and worldly pride. And in a world overwhelmingly concerned with and largely rewarding of appearance, worldly pride is what is most often rewarded over genuine accomplishment.

That having been said, Paul stands clearly in the shadow of the Cross, boasting solely in the accomplishment of the One (and the process) that has saved Him. The difference here would appear to be one of attitude towards the world. If one has or seeks their place ‘in the world’, and views themselves as living ‘in the world’, then a worldly view of self and a desire to both be acknowledged by and seek pride in that world are natural and virtually unavoidable. Even when actually avoided, the battle is continuous and unrelenting.

On the other hand, if one does not belong to the world, but to Heaven solely through Christ crucified, then what is there of merit to boast of in the world or in ones place or activities therein? The only individual merit is in being a citizen of Heaven though still on earth. As such, since one had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact of their election to Heaven (Ephesians 1:4), all merit belongs to the provider of that destiny, Jesus Christ, and within that to the Holy Spirit and the process of Salvation.

So, grasping the fact of one’s election, devoid of personal merit both before or after the fact, must trivialize the world and its machinations. That which transports us into Heavenly eternity with our Lord is all that is of merit, and since He is the provider of that process at all junctures, boasting in Him alone is the only option (and joy, I should add).

Thus, Paul has stated for us, in direct and simple terms, the only road for those in the body of believers who are yet in the world. Though Satan and his minions (largely unacknowledged in the world today but nonetheless active) provide endless circumstance and support for the importance of the world, and specifically for the significance of individual pride, self esteem and self reliance in that world, Paul has stated the only real basis for personal value. That value is in the shadow of Christ and His accomplishments, shining the light of importance and significance on Him alone.

Soli Deo Gloria

Does this mean that, as a corollary, our lives in the flesh are to be devoid of satisfaction, accomplishment or worldly reward or enjoyment?. I do not think so. It is a matter of attitude and posture within the world, and not the circumstances that the Lord may permit, that is of importance. How that is possible is another discussion…

Solus Christus

Light them up…

To see the complete Torch Gallery click HERE.

Light up the night…

More torch light…

Nothing is difference in the potential path into eternity before the unbeliever and the unbeliever, nor the absence of any foreknowledge by the believer when presenting the Gospel, alters the believer’s requirement to evangelize. The absolute certainty of eternal separation from God and righteous judgment that awaits the unsaved, combined with the inability to fail in their part of a process that is controlled by the Lord and not the presenter, should fuel the believer’s resolve.

We can not know who was marked by the Father before the beginning of time to be among the Lord’s people (Ephesians 1:4). We can only know that that result is already a given for the Lord and that he has charged us to preach his message as part of the process. Our mandate does not include second guessing that process. Our mandate as believers only includes simple obedience. Further, Scripture states that the Gospel must be heard by many throughout the world, elect and unelect alike, that the Glory and power of God are demonstrated in all nations (Mark 13:10). It is interesting to note that this does not included every person, but that is another issue. All believers are charged to proclaim the Gospel universally, regardless of the outcome they might observer in any individual recipient. The outcome in any recipient is in the Lord’s hands alone, already decided and awaiting only the action of the Spirit, not ours in any way. This brings great freedom in presenting the message.

“For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God.” (italics added) 1 Peter 4:6. Many in both camps must hear the Good News in demonstration of God’s sovereignty. Again, the outcome is a completely separate issue from the preaching of the Gospel by the believer. Believers are charged to act universally, in blind faith and trust, leaving everything subsequent to that to the Lord.

On a one to one basis, what of the way the Gospel is presented? Does it really matter? I propose that it does.

Even though the Lord can and does use all presentations effectively, articulate or rough, accurate or inaccurate, within his preordained intent, from the believer’s viewpoint is it nonetheless important to present the Gospel completely and accurately. As forthright messengers that must mean a presentation that is without knowing misrepresentation. Specifically, and taking into consideration that one can only present something to the degree of one’s own understanding, presenting the Gospel in a way that implies that God will provide salvation to all or without cost or condition would not reflect the specifications of Scripture, and would not be honest. Even more, if the Message is presented in a manner that implies that the Lord’s plan for salvation definitely applies to a particular unbeliever, when we can not know if they are among the elect, is unacceptable because it willfully misrepresents the Scriptural specifications of the Message. Such a misrepresentation does not reflect upon the recipient (aside from possibly acting as a temporary stumbling block), since their path has already been preordained by the Lord and they are the passive agent in the exchange in this regard. But a Gospel presentation with a universal guarantee or applicability attached to it is not the truth, and reflects upon the presenter.

What the big deal? Let’s look at an example for clarity.

On the assumption that one can not know whether a believer is among the elect and therefor whether they will embrace the Gospel, one can not honestly say to any unbeliever that Christ died for their sins. The Atonement is particular, applying to an individual only if they are one who accepts the Lord. They are only able to do that if they are already marked as His and subsequently touched by the Spirit, neither of which has anything to do with, or can be know by, the evangelist. Specifically, if they do not accept the Lord, and remain among the unsaved, then the presentation would be a lie. Further, to give any encouragement that they might be somehow covered implicitly and saved while not accepting Christ does them a serious disservice and possible harm.

Consequently, stating that “Christ died for your sins” or similar, unequivocally, likely misrepresents the truth and the Gospel in many cases (unless you are a Universalist, but we won’t go there). It potentially misleads that person. This is clearly unacceptable for a believer. And beyond that, it is completely unnecessary.

One clergyman commented that this sticking point made the presentation of the Gospel inconvenient. He wanted to be able to say to everyone that Christ died for them, making the Gospel as welcoming as possible. Well, what can one answer to that? Inconvenient maybe, but reality. To paraphrase another Bible teacher “That’s what the Book says. Get over it!”. The Gospel must stand in presentation as itself, in truth. Willfully massaging the Gospel into misrepresentation for ease of presentation is not part of the mandate. Harsh? I don’t think so. Just a dose of reality. And silly when it is so trivial to present the message truthfully and accurately without alienating the recipient.

So what is one to do? The answer is actually very, very simple.

Christ died for sinners. That is absolute truth. He died for the specific sinners who accept and embrace Him as Lord. Again, simple and true. If the unbeliever will truly embrace Christ as Lord, repent of and seek forgiveness for their sins and surrender their life to Him, thereby accepting the Gospel message, then His Atonement was indeed for them. A presentation from that perspective is completely accurate, yet does not misrepresent the situation of the individual who will not accept. Specifically it does not in any way encourage them that they are among those for whom Christ sacrificed or that they might somehow slip through irregardless. This approach is no more difficult, no more obscure, not excluding in any overt way that puts one off, and it states the truth. What could be simpler?

But I hear a voice from the back saying that possibly the listener won’t find this presentation welcoming enough and might not accept it. The answer is simple. The reaction to the message in the recipient is the Lord’s domain. It has nothing to do with you.

Just semantics? Superficially it might seem so, as with all matters of language, but what is represented is not trivial. As such, it is significant.

How to accomplish this is the next question. There are many ways, but I would simply ask why one would not use the only indisputable, divinely inspired tool that the Lord left us, and in fact suggested for this purpose - Scripture. “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17. With Scripture there is no possible misrepresentation, as long as we personally stay out of the way. It is the tool of choice according to Scripture itself It was clearly designed for the Spirits use is this regard and can not fail in the Spirit’s hands. If the Spirit does not move, then movement in the recipient is not appropriate at that time, irrespective of the presenter. That is the simple solution, but there are also other approaches that represent that Gospel accurately.

Though we have been discussion a small but important piece of the Gospel message, it should be mentioned that any presentation must be of the complete message, particularly the repentance and cost requirements. However, that has been assumed in discussing this narrower issue.

The key is honest and complete presentation of the Gospel, without unnecessary human implications that may make some presenters more comfortable but are not always accurate and may mislead, even possibly acting as a stumbling block for the recipient.

Soli Deo Gloria

Now to the unbeliever, the case which started the initial conversation. Though on the surface of everyday life this situation might appear similar to that of the believer, the reality is completely different. We must also bear in mind (as mentioned in the previous post) that our Lord’s statements and perspective take an eternal viewpoint, whereas we tend to see life situations from the myopic viewpoint of flesh alone (we can’t help it, but it needs to be kept in mind).

The Lord has made no positive commitment for this life, nor given even the slightest hint He has any positive plan, for the unbeliever, beyond possibly bringing them face to face with the Gospel message. Even that is only ‘possibly’ since it is nowhere stated as a given. The unfolding of history will be determined by His plans for salvation, with the unbeliever playing a peripheral role as needed as the primary plan unfolds.

The statements in the verses previously cited (Jeremiah 29:11, Romans 8:28, and 1 Corinthians 10:13) are not applied to the unbeliever anywhere in Scripture. Specifically, there is no offer of any of the associated hope or positive future to those individuals. In fact, the reality painted in Scripture appears to be quite the opposite.

When speaking of sinners, be it individually and corporately, God does not (contrary to the popular and unfortunate PR in many churches today) differentiate between the sin and the sinner in His statement of intended judgment and wrath. He portends wrath against the sinner in the commitment of the sin. That’s wrath unto eternal judgment at the hands of Holy God, folks. Yikes! If that isn’t scary, then what is?

As an aside concerning the behaviour of believers, the Lord never tells us to act pro-actively against the sinner in the sense of punishment or judgment. In fact, we are cautioned to not do so, leaving those actions to the Lord. Our mandate is only to present ourselves as His and share His message. We are certainly not to join with the sinner or participate in their sinful activities in doing so, but neither is their future within our mandate in any sense.

Without the cloak of Christ to shield one from the righteous and deserved wrath of God, and release one from the responsibility for sin before Him, the statements of His inescapable wrath should be terrifying to all who hear them. In spite of this, the unsaved can ignore them  because those truths are part of the ways of God. They are undiscernable and are foolishness to the ears of those in the world. The unsaved simply can not comprehend that reality from their natural mind, and Satan does his best to convince them that their natural view is correct. But none of that alters the reality of judgment to come.

With that in mind, and even granting that in the larger picture the Lord uses all situations for the overall advancement of His Kingdom, what plans are there for the unsaved? First, by stating in Scripture that he will prosper who He will and condemn who He will, the Lord has implied that he has assigned one of two tracks (no others, nor any combination, is every documented in Scripture) - one for salvation and one for righteous judgment and wrath. For the latter, concerning the unsaved who are of the natural world, the result comes down to who they are governed by. According to Ephesians 2:2, they are among the “sons of disobedience”, governed by “the Prince of the power of the air” (that is, Satan). That being so, the plans within which the unsaved exist are those of Satan, drawing them ever further from the Lord while in this world, with hearts ever more hardened against the Lord’s message and ways.

It should be noted as an aside that it is not the Lord that move the unbeliever on along this path actively. Since they were not marked as Christ’s sheep before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4), then the Spirit does not intervene in their path to apply the Atonement to them what was so graciously provided by our Lord . Nothing is done to them by God, but neither is anything done for them. Satan’s plan works out in them while the Lord simply does not intervene in the process of the natural world, and they simply follow their nature in flesh.

This is not to say that they may not participate in good and beneficial act in the world. They often do so, in wonderful acts both large and small. But since “those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:8) and “without faith it is impossible to please Him” (Hebrews 11:16), it is clear that when preformed from the unbeliever’s natural state none of those things can be pleasing or acceptable to God. These good acts can not be positively credited to the unbeliever’s account because the acts are of the world not the spirit and coloured by the basic nature of the fallen world. As such they are sacrificially unacceptable to God in their essence, as are all acts that flow from that state of being. Further, it could be speculated that since the unbeliever is not His, they do not have a Heavenly account to which anything could be credited - that account being a parallel benefit of being among His sheep.

All this is to say that there are indeed plans for the unbeliever, and in the case of addicts those plans may include sobriety. But, and this is the real issue, those plans are not part of the saving plan of the Lord in the case of the unelect. Those who are to remain as belonging to the world are governed by the world. They can not (in fact, will not) depend upon the Grace of our Lord to have created a plan from which they will have faith, nor that there will be a positive eternal outcome.

Let all the Glory be His alone.

Next, what of evangelism in this perspective? The challenge of proclaiming the Good News without misrepresentation…

I was chatting with a brother a day or two ago concerning his work with addicts. This work often involves working with non-believers. We progressed to a discussion of God’s plans for both believers and unbelievers. The perspective towards unbelievers particularly seemed pertinent to this discussion, but our attitude toward ourselves is also quite revealing and would likely benefit from some ongoing introspection.

Let us recall a couple of pieces of Scripture: “For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the LORD, ‘plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope.” Jeremiah 29:11, and “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” Romans 8:28, and finally “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.” 1 Corinthians 10:13. There are other similar verses as well, but you get the drift clearly.

From 1 Corinthians 10:13 we can discern that things may (likely, will) not be all sweetness and light in the path of the believer. There would be no point to verses such as this, concerning challenges, if there were not going to be any challenges of substance.

First, this flies in the face of the “God has a wonderful, happy (usually implying mostly, if not always) and joyous plan for your life” crowd. It is clear that, as His people, we can expect to be challenged, both individually and corporately.

Second, these challenges will always be surmountable for God’s elect. For the believer there is no condition placed upon that in the verse. But here is the rub, so to speak - the extent of the challenge and our capacity to handle it are from the Lord’s point of view, not ours. He definitely did not say that the challenges would be such that we would recognize or be aware of our ability to overcome them, either before or during the process. Further, there was no undertaking in Scripture to share the process with us. This would tend to indicate that from our point of view the challenges may be great indeed, even seemingly insurmountable. We must walk in unconditional faith in His judgment of our capacity, not our own preconception. The pathway is in His leading, not our conception of what we are or are not capable of accomplishing. Fundamentally we are back to the paradigm laid out by the Israelites centuries ago, as they were tasked to follow the pillars of fire and smoke through the desert, relying solely upon the provisioning of the Lord. T’would that we ‘get it’ in less than 40 years!!

Jeremiah 29:11 speaks of hope and a future. This points to the hope of a future in the eternal sense, not that of the world nor even necessarily within our lifetime in flesh. Since the world is the domain of the Prince of the Air and thereby his plans, thriving or prospering (the term used in the NIV translation of this verse) in the world or present life can not be what the Lord alludes to. Not to say that some success in the world might not be in the plan, but the benefits from the Lord’s vantage point are in Heaven. After all, even as the Lord of all creation, He endured the world in light of the Glory that was set before Him (Hebrews 12:2). Our glory in Heaven, though infinitely less than His (we are not Mormons, after all), nonetheless follows His paradigm as His people, and the Glory, hope and future are all in Heaven.

The situation is similar with Romans 8:28, where the “good” is in the eternal, kingdom sense. This is not in any way implied to be coincidental with worldly good, though that could be a side effect.

Overall, we have a situation where the believer, as one owned by the Lord, may face great difficulty in the world, but will always be on the eternal path with and to Him, working in a predestined process (variously in Ephesians 1) of planned and divinely controlled sanctification and purification.

In this is our rest, and our only security. And our Lord has made clear that this is sufficient. Again, his agenda, not ours.

All for His Glory alone.

Next - The Unbeliever…