The Unjust Steward

Luke 16:1-9 ESVUK: "He also said to the disciples, “There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was wasting his possessions. And he called him and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Turn in the account of your management, for you can no longer be manager.’ And the manager said to himself, ‘What shall I do, since my master is taking the management away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. I have decided what to do, so that when I am removed from management, people may receive me into their houses.’ So, summoning his master's debtors one by one, he said to the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ He said, ‘A hundred measures of oil.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.’ Then he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ He said, ‘A hundred measures of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’ The master commended the dishonest manager for his shrewdness. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light. And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings."

This has always puzzled me, but at last I think I have the key to it. The important part in understanding this is in grasping what is not written--what the context of the parable is. In Luke 15:2 the Pharisees were grumbling about the tax collectors and sinners being dirty losers; in response Jesus gives three parables about searching and seeking that which is lost, the third of which is the most powerful. In that one the older brother (representing the Pharisee who was lost while nearest to God) looked down upon his brother for being poor, foolish, and generally unworthy. This parable follows on the heels of it. It's short too.

"What is this I hear about you?" says the owner, who heard that the chief steward was being unfaithful. (Notice he had no idea of the corruption of the manager, he's just thinking the guy is sloppy or lazy, not evil.) The man then pulls a fast one on his master, who was so stunned that all he could do is marvel, and commend him for his shrewdness.

This is simple advice. The Pharisees are like the dishonest man, corrupted, since money corrupts, and people who have it are rotten, and more importantly they are actually cheating God out of what is due Him. What's Jesus message? Start using your money better. Stop looking down on the poor. Look guys, you don't even have to stop being evil, just start doing better. You look down on those sinners because they are poor and destitute, but you yourselves are worse off because you're using the money you have badly. It's better to be those people who have nothing than to be you who have something are are blowing it. Be like the unjust Steward and make the most of your time and treasure.
"If then you have not been faithful in the unrighteous wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches?"

Of course we know how that went.

"The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him."

Luke 13:1-2 ESV: "There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way?"

This is very interesting to me because there's an unrecorded question here in v1 that goes something like, "Jesus why did they die there?" Or perhaps, "Did God not care about the honor of His house that He would let them die there?" And Jesus answers what is really behind their question, I suspect, by cutting the heart of the matter and reading their minds. But it's not what I would have expected at all.
The Romans weren't known for their wild and unrestrained barbarism. That would be the Assyrians. Those guys would come in in their red capes, pile up the skulls of the infants they had slaughtered, and turn them into thrones to sit on. Those were the Ghengas Khan level bad guys. But the Romans? Not so much. If they came after you once they had conquered and pacified you it's generally because you deserved it. These Galilean men did something wicked to provoke Rome, like murder or thievery, and thought they could hide in the temple where the Romans were not supposed to go, and God surprised them here by dealing out justice.
Then Jesus asks a question, "And you think they were worse sinners?"
To which I would have answered "Yes of course they were! Look Jesus, as evil killers, they got what was coming to them. That's what happens when you sin like that."

But look what He says next, "No."
Oomph. Everything I thought was just upended, and then the worst part comes,  "I tell you, unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."
And just like that Jesus levels the ground. It doesn't matter if you have committed fewer sins than your neighbor, if you die and go to hell, it's cold comfort. In the greatest sense, all men are not more or less sinners than each other. The presence of hell is so horrid that it erases all the real differences.  Repent.

Seeker Sensitive, Biblically Unfaithful

"Go into all the world, making disciples of all men..." Jesus said. Which means we are meant to go. Get out into it, leave this place. The disciples understood well enough when they took the message to Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and out into the world. So much so that the gospel went ahead of even Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, into Rome.

This is the mandate for Christians, we are to be seekers of people, like our heavenly Father, going out after them, pursuing them. After all, is the Holy Spirit not the most passionate seeker of men? We are to get out there, where they are at, in their homes, gardens, and places of employment with our message just as He does.
But the Seeker sensitive movement rather has everyone coming to a church building to hear the word. The congregation isn't going out after the world with the good news, they are luring the non-believers into their lair. That means Church isn't the place that the believers gather anymore to recharge and regroup with passionate devotion to God Almighty, it's the place where non-believers are converted (if they ever actually are) with gentle stories and kind words.

And if that's true (which it is) then it means the Seeker Sensitive Church by nature absolves us of our responsibilities to evangelism. It's an easy chair, and it's too easy. People in them settle into a kind of stupor, content to invite people to their Sunday service, absolved of their duty to the world. Seeker Sensitive paradigm has a lot of problems, as I've said before, but I think this one might be the most pernicious, and the most hidden problem. It makes it so easy to stop being passionate about evangelism that one almost can't help turning the whole effort over to the professional pastors. 

Unbelief, Salvation, Atonement, and God's Glory

Alistair Begg made a comment that got me thinking about the necessity of unlimited atonement in the face of divine election. He pointed out, quite correctly, that it is God who assigns, and consigns, men to hell. (My phrasing). This doesn't minimize the truth that everyone who wants to go to hell does, because hell is a destination freely chosen by men, but it does mean those who choose hell were directed to do so by God's sovereign decree. The reason for this being that if men had the final veto, then man's obduracy would be greater than God's grace. In a sense, man would be sovereign. So God must have condemned them to hell because otherwise He would not be supreme, and His supremacy would not be maximally expressed.

And that fits because we know that God does all things for His glory; His goal is always to maximize the manifestation of His attributes. That's basic Calvinism (or Bible) 101, and it automatically means hell is necessary, because otherwise God could not maximally express His justice and wrath against sin, and it automatically means He sends men there. But it doesn't automatically mean limited atonement is true. "Wait," you say, "if God doing all things for His glory means there must be a hell, and it necessitates it be peopled in specific cases, then shouldn't it also mean Jesus paid only for the sins of those who would be saved?" You would think so, but it doesn't. Just the opposite actually.

For if no atonement was made for the non-elect, then they are in the same boat as the fallen angels-- they aren't going to heaven, and they can't, no matter what they do. No forgiveness is waiting for them because no forgiveness is possible. I'll say it again, God cannot possibly, under any circumstances, or hypothetical considerations, forgive them, because an invincible amount of sin is keeping them from Him. God is literally unable, not merely unwilling to save them. And does that situation maximally express His glory? Absolutely not. His great patience and loving kindness is best seen when every barrier to salvation has been torn down and He beckons sinners earnestly, having paid the price already. His glory is best seen in that there is nothing He has left undone, no hurdle remains to be jumped on His part.

So just as the obduracy of men in the first case means they must not be the ones in the drivers seat or God would be less glorious, so too does it mean the only barrier to their salvation is their own obduracy, lest His glory be lessened. The Calvinist who has their first principles in order must then realize that in some way both things are true, and that the Scriptures wholeheartedly affirms both things together. "For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all."
It is appropriate given that apparent contradiction that Paul's next words are what they are.

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."

David and Jonathan

1 Samuel 18:1-4: "And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle."

The point, as I've always been told, is that David loved Jonathan and Jonathan loved David, because they were both manly men. And that's good. Men need to love each other more. Men need to bond into deep relationships with other men.
...Thank you focus on the family, for always giving me the wrong answer.

I visited a friend in Phoenix this last week, and at last, after many years, I believe I understand this section of Scripture. First let me say that if it didn't use the word love I would hesitate to myself, because it's so different than the eros of a marriage, or even the philo of a friend or brother. It's something beyond both that that finds itself in the service of God. It's a helpful clarity for agape, although it's something more specific than that. There are, I think, two things that makes it special, three which makes it unique.
1) David and Jonathan saw that the other was completely, 100%, souled out for God. They had given themselves fully and without hesitation, body, soul, mind, to Him.
2) Both had similar experiences in trusting God for combat. Both Israelites, both about the same age.
3) Both saw that the blessing and favor of God was upon the other.

As I have thought about my own case I decided a confluence of these three things contributed to it. A similar religious history in the churches of Christ, at a similar age and stage of life in having a number of young kids, a similarly named wife, similar enjoyments like chess, reading, running, martial arts, a similarly good mind. The secondary areas of life match fairly closely, but the key piece was seeing the similar all encompassing burning passion for doctrine, and hearing the work that goes on at the church he has been called to pastor which validates it. I thought, 'this man has given himself totally to God without hesitation. I admire, rejoice in, and would see more.'
For that I see in him what I perhaps could have been, had God called me to being a pastor. There is something in seeing yourself with different eyes that causes joy to jump over the barriers and knock you to the ground. The result of which is when you spend time with them it goes too fast, and you come away greatly encouraged. It's not a jealous feeling, nor a brilliant one, nor a bright feeling, but rather feels more like a deep, swift, clear, straight river. It's not physical, touching, or sweet like a marriage can be. It's a little like going into battle and having your life in their hands, but it's more reflective, more focused than that. It's combat but at the same time like you're going on the jungle boat tour at Disneyland while big band music plays. It's not that you overlook their faults, which you immediately offer advice for, and it's not that you're polite and acquiesce to their propositions, no, you're still abusive in humor, still fully yourself, it's just that you are compelled to rejoice at seeing or considering them. Friend is too crude a word, and brother isn't specific enough. Knit-Soul is an odd an expression for the feeling, but it so unique that I suppose it gets closer than anything else. I feel it now. I wish I could describe it.

Teacher Training at FBC

So as a teacher at FBC, I’ve been invited to the teacher training seminar. Nothing unusual in that, we’ve been doing these things for awhile now, but I took a closer look and things have indeed changed.

Please consider this my personal invitation and recommendation to attend the Teacher Training event on Saturday, June 28 from 9 am to 4 pm in Rm E201 (lunch will be provided).

With the completion of the modular project and the arrival of a new Senior Pastor who is passionate about discipleship, FBC faces an unprecedented opportunity to reach our community. This is going to take workers for the harvest (teachers and leaders who are dedicated, passionate and united in their efforts). This kind of unity requires common experience, language and purpose, which is the goal of the day.

This event will be led by David Brown. David is one of our own. He and his wife Liz have been a part of FBC for the last 5 years, and he comes to us with 10 years of teaching experience as a professor at the University of San Francisco and more than 8 years of experience in Christian teacher training and development. In addition, his personal Biblical research in the area of spiritual maturity and stages of spiritual growth is extensive. This will be an informative, inspiriting and challenging seminar based on Disciple-Making Teachers, by Josh Hunt and Dr. Larry Mays. We will consider the integration of what we have already gleaned from the stages of maturity found in the book MOVE and the Biblical mandate to make disciples with proven principles that will influence individuals to take the next step in their relationship with Jesus.

So please say yes, and join us as we continue to prepare to launch a year focused on equipping adults for discipleship, spiritual growth and next steps toward maturity.

There is more to this than it first appears. It starts with the first underlined sentence which gives the game away. Actually it starts with the second paragraph not being truthful. The modulars are not ready yet, but that’s okay. The new senior pastor is indeed passionate about getting everyone to have a common language and testimony, and that’s less okay, but whatever, it’s still mostly accurate. The killer is the purpose of the all day event as to create a unity of language across FBC, because that language is Willow Creek. In other words, the purpose of the all day training is to get us to think and speak like a Willow Creek mega church staff. And that’s bad.

Continuing on we find out we’re being led by a Mr. David Brown, so far so good, whose leading qualification is a secular university professorship at one of the most insane cities in America. Things just soured a little bit. Now we come to the underlined phrase, we will be using the book Disciple Making teachers. I look up the book on Amazon, and here’s the preview:

… Bill Hybels of Willow Creek Community Church, for example, has led the way with the seeker-driven paradigm, the seven-step strategy, networking, and various other innovative ministry strategies. But when I hear Bill Hybels preach his average weekend seeker message or midweek New Community message, I think to myself, “Willow Creek’s strategy could be dead wrong, and he would still fill the auditorium.

You see, it’s really not about networking or the seven-step strategy or all the rest of those excellent approaches. It is about the fact that Bill Hybels puts it together on stage. When he talks, people listen. I just smile when I hear that Midwestern accent because I know he will probably deliver another great message.

It’s the same with Rick Warren, senior pastor of Saddleback Valley Community Church…

 It goes downhill from there, believe it or not. So the game’s up now, FBC is hosting an all day event where we are going to learn how to do mega church, Willow Creek style. Traditional Bible based teaching has fully gone out now, and what has arrived to take its place is the pale horse of community group facilitating. As it is written, “Come out of her My people, lest you share in her punishment.”

Law first, law second

When God brought Israel out of bondage He could have done anything with them. He could have made them into a nation ruled by warriors like Sparta, presidents like America, tyrants like the surrounding nations, or whatever else we have invented to govern ourselves. He chose a judge. Then, He could have given them anything to have as their national identity, as their single most important thing, and again, He picks law. The first five books are the Law, not the priesthood, not the prophets, the law. And what comes next? The judges. When He wrote the Bible He could have put anything first, but what does He pick? The law, again the law.

God intended that if Israel faithfully read and obeyed the law they would become what they did in Jesus day, a place full of teachers of the law, scribes of the Law, and sects broken up by legal interpretation. Now at first blush people might think that was bad, but it's the non-belief of the pharisee that was the problem, not that he studied the books of Moses too much. What Ezra set in motion was not just the natural consequence of paying attention to the structure of the by design of God, it was a blessing. God gave the law so that men would start thinking in terms of the law. They needed to become law-experts, they must become a nation of judges because it’s the judge who is most familiar with justice. It’s the judge who can see when a substitute can be suitable. The people were given Moses as a judge, not a king, because the law was to teach them that the atonement would be one of law, not mercantile payment. 

In this light it's perfectly understandable. Yes Christ is indeed a King, but that comes after. Christ is a prophet, but not first. It's the law, the law that teaches us that Christ suffered an equivalent penalty, not an exact one, that shows us how He dies as a legal substitute, and how God the Father discharges the debt legally. If we were legal experts we would understand. The first thing is to remember, the law. Atonement through the eyes of the law!

Why Leave Our Current Church?

In light of the recent events unfolding at our church (as chosen by both the leadership and the congregation), we feel compelled to worship elsewhere on Sunday mornings. Our problem coincided with the arrival of Scott, although they were not his fault, nor did he have anything to do with them, but his hiring brought to light the realization that we had been troubled for some time by a number of things that are not going away.

The Executive Summary

The Bible commands us to be in subjection to our elders, but the leadership here doesn’t believe in either the authority or sufficiency of Scripture, and I can’t in good conscience submit to someone who disbelieves in such a fashion. If we stay we will be in violation of the Scriptures, which is a sin, but even if we could stay I still fear we would put our kids at risk for growing up in a doctrinally soft feel good mega church. That's a big order, so let me explain.

The longer Explanation

A little over a year ago The Bridge of Elk Grove (working title, they have not formally changed the name yet) decided to move away from any remaining historic Baptist roots and embrace a mega-church style borrowed from Willow Creek. Surveys became common, classic doctrines and preferences were replaced by the idea that to grow the church we need to find out what people want to hear and give it to them. That is, in order to achieve the leadership’s goal of “moving people closer to Jesus” we need to trade orthodox Christianity for a kind of moral therapeutic deism. The change has come so quickly because the leadership has decided the oldest generation, the one that likes hymns, expects the pastor to be dress in more than a Rick Warren Hawaiian shirt, and attends the 8:30 service is now neither the future, nor the present of the church. Their doctrinal and ecclesiastical preferences are seen as relics of a bygone era, and in ten years will die with them. As a practical matter the leadership realizes it must replace the generous departing old saints with larger numbers of younger givers if it is to survive, and it believes speaking to felt needs is the way to do it. Now while that’s a strong indictment, I will hasten to add that their bad thinking comes from a good heart. It’s not because they hate Christ or would deny fundamental truths like His divinity that they would do this, it’s just that they want to be culturally relevant and engaging, like Bayside of Granite Bay with its 12,000 attendees on a Sunday, and to get there you have to attract people by giving them what they want. Mature doctrines are divisive and keep churches under a certain number; feelings are unifying and allow a church to grow as big as possible.

This explains why we started preaching from the Story book for a year (the Story, if you’ll remember, takes away the boring sections of the NIV text and replaces them with Lucado’s personal thoughts). It’s why we invited John Jackson and David Harris to the pulpit on a number of Sundays so they could tell us their feel good, empty calorie stories and jokes while our executive pastor assured us that “Doubting is good, it’s healthy, and everyone does it.” It’s why we changed our new believer curriculum to Experiencing God by Blackaby. It’s why we opened the “helps center” bookcase and manned it with volunteers, so that if anyone had a problem, we could cry with them and tell them God isn’t mad, and hand them a life resource. It’s why we re-upped our partnership with World Vision, an organization run by a member of the PCA—because what really matters is not beliefs, but the fact that we are out here to “do something” for God, like stop bullying or bring social justice to the community. We went big on our coffee ministry. We replaced the sermons with musicals or dramas on occasion, because who wants to be lectured when you can experience an interactive presentation of the gospel? We partnered with William Jessup University to use our campus (their philosophy is that a minister is better served with an MBA than a M.Div). We changed our purpose from glorifying God and making people disciples of Christ to “moving people toward Jesus.” We changed our name from First Baptist Church, because people don’t like such antiquated titles anymore. It’s why we started to, and why we continue to do Willow Creek REVEAL surveys. It’s why we were told, “I don’t care if you don’t like it, God is on the move here.” It's why we brought in David Harris, emergent preacher in the style of Brian McLauren for eight weeks.

 The result of which has been a downward spiral for real spiritual maturity. A year ago we had something in the neighborhood of 5,000 visitors, and 600 something people who identified themselves as “mature or Christ centered believers,” while this year we had near 8,000 visitors and 400 something people who identified as mature. Most people don’t take their kids to service with them. The vast majority don’t do anything more than attend one service. And out of this we have selected new elders, which is why one of them exhorted us during a men’s group to “preach the gospel, use words if we have to.” 

Now this methodology, and the decisions that have come from it, was something we were willing to overlook while we didn’t have a senior pastor, so long as when we did hire someone, he would be a man of God who would repudiate the silliness. It didn’t matter to us if the elder board didn’t believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, as long as the senior pastor who drove the vision would. Is this sloppy thinking on our part? Shouldn’t we have recognized that the church already is a seeker sensitive mega-church? Shouldn’t we have realized that the elders had consolidated power in the absence of a senior pastor and things weren’t going back to the way it was before? Perhaps.

But it’s into this background that Scott Hansen comes, and his appearance was from the beginning problematic for us. He literally walked away from his church without telling them, and the reason for moving doing so was, “God called him, and he needed to be faithful,” which is either soft headed thinking, a violation of the third commandment, or more likely, just a non-answer. When asked how he would win the millennial generation he said, “through the use of technology.” When giving the alter call he summarized salvation as “God votes for you, Satan votes against, and you cast the deciding vote.” He told us we needed to become more seeker sensitive, that we needed to learn to speak the language of the world around us, if we wanted to win souls to Christ. Before he writes his sermon he asks himself, “What is the congregation struggling with, and what do they need to hear this week?” His sermon on John 3 was how we can reach men like Nicodemus by making them comfortable. And the leadership loved him. His style blended swimmingly with theirs because he worked through the same set of first principles they did. We decided it was extremely unlikely he would even attempt to swim against the mega-church current. I’m not saying he’s not orthodox, because he is. Nor am I saying he won’t make the Bible a part of his sermons, because he will. The Bridge Elk Grove might well experience great numerical growth under his watch, but fundamentally he agrees with the current leadership regarding both the sufficiency and the authority of Scriptures and that’s unacceptable.

I don’t expect our decision to be popular, or, for that matter, to have any of our friends agree with it. At the members meeting there was a tremendous backlash against the elders when they tried to change our constitution to give themselves more power and the postmodern growth philosophy full reign, but the few remaining dissenters are outmaneuvered. They’re holding onto hope in thinking Scott is going to be on their side, on the side of tradition, but he’s not, he’s pro-contextualization. But even if we are ostracized from our friends due to their anger (which I hope isn’t the case) the fact remains that the driving philosophy behind all of these decisions is expressly forbidden by the Scriptures, and represents a denial of other key doctrines of salvation. The church has now fully committed to growing using a method other than fidelity to the Bible. It grieves me to leave but the simple truth is I don’t want to attend Bayside of Granite Bay. I don’t like Saddleback Church. I don’t want to fill out surveys during a Willow Creek service. I want my hymns and my children to hear the full gospel message, the word of God unpacked faithfully every week. Not what someone else thinks they should hear, what God has chosen to say. Insofar as I am able, I must be faithful to Scripture. I know there are still churches out there that operate by faith in the foolishness of God, even if The Bridge of Elk Grove isn’t going to be one of them. So we must go in search of higher ground, lest we be swept away by the storm.

My Lament

Return to Part One: What is the Willow Creek Model
or Part Two: The Blight Cometh 

It’s one thing to point out the clinical problems that come with having your church blighted, it’s quite another to live through it. Reading Exodus 23:2 is easy (Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment) but standing up to society is decidedly hard. Watching my large church, to whom I entrust the souls of myself and my kids, turn into a Willow Creek church has been beyond exceedingly difficult. I mean, not just hard but really, really hard, sleepless nights of doubting myself, debating myself, and kicking myself in abundance hard. Because I’ve been alone in it. 

Mentioning my concerns to others only results in them looking at me like I have two heads, “Why do you care so much? Why do you make such a big deal about nothing? This place is great! The preaching is awesome! Don’t you see the work we’re doing for the kingdom?” And I do see it, and it’s not all without question bad. But my heart has sunk very low when I have seen my friends blighted into skipping church altogether in order to go to run races, attend ballgames.

The staff are no relief, in fact they are worse off than the blighted members since they are fully vested in the executive pastor (because otherwise they lose their jobs). I don’t judge them, they need to feed their children the same as I, and this is how they earn their bread, rather, I love them. They are wonderful people. But since I can neither condemn them for succumbing to the blight, nor admit it’s acceptable, I am left alone. And the blight whispers to me as well. “It’s not too late to go back. Go inside and believe it, put to death that part of you that is crying out.” I want it to be true that it’s harmless and acceptable, that if I lay down and sleep it wouldn’t corrode my soul. But I can’t, because two things have kept me half awake during the spell, like Puddleglum the marsh wiggle in the depths of the earth: AWANA and Alistair. The leaders at AWANA invited me to teach the junior kids for a year and they were very happy with my Scripture centric approach that challenged them to pursue the glory of God. I pulled no punches and taught them as adults, and was just sure the things I was saying would get me booted because it was the complete opposite of Sunday mornings, but it never happened. That encouraged me. The other thing was Truth for Life. The biblical preaching I get there has fed me enough to keep me from passing out.

So I sit alone by the river, unable to sing King Alphas song, groaning as the heavy wheels of providence turn over me. His sovereign hand has sorely pursued His servant to keep him from resting, and the pleas go unheard. The upraised hands are not seen, rather, He has increased my affliction, and multiplied to me sorrows. Well can I say with the Scriptures, it is not good for man to be alone. I cry with the Psalmist, have mercy upon me, O LORD; for I am weak: O LORD, heal me; for my bones are vexed. My soul is also sore vexed: but thou, O LORD, how long?  And again, How long wilt thou forget me, O LORD? Forever? Oh, we see not our signs! There is no longer any prophet! neither is there among us any that knoweth. Alas that these evil days have come upon me.

But as Doug Wilson says, I hear in the hard snowy highlands the bagpipes of God’s sovereignty demanding I count it as joy, which comes with the morning. And even as some of the blighted poets have said, I take comfort in that “God loves me and has a wonderful plan for my life.”

Faithful to only Half the Truth isn't full faithfulness

What’s the name of the error when the pastor opens the Bible and preaches through it, but strains everything through a grid and won’t let anything outside his focus get through? What’s it called when that grid is something as wholesome as evangelism? What’s wrong with the preacher taking John 3 and making it into practical tips about how we can reach people like Nicodemus, and closes with an alter call, urging people to cast themselves wholly on the mercies of Christ? On the one hand points must be awarded to such a man for having enough faithfulness to actually open up the Book and use it. On the other, points must be deducted because reducing the Scriptures to such simplistic terms is positively criminal. The closest term I could think of was “half-truth” but that doesn’t have the right fit to it.

Now don’t misunderstand, I don’t mean to say in this case that the gospel is distorted beyond recognition, I mean it’s shrunk to such an extent that it no longer nourishes anyone but babies. The preacher prayerfully considers that his audience is full of non-believers, and carefully distills the essence of the message, throwing out the non-essential elements until it’s a tasty milkshake ready to go. This is praiseworthy insofar as he’s cutting right to the chase and showing the non-believer their need of Christ, yet at the same time it’s destructive in that it brings the people right into the condemnation of Scripture: “You should be teachers by now! You have need of milk and not of strong meat!”

Imagine my surprise as I was considering this very question when I heard what Spurgeon said in his sermon “Preach the Gospel.” 

To preach the gospel is to state every doctrine contained in God's Word, and to give every truth its proper prominence. Men may preach a part of the gospel; they may only preach one single doctrine of it; and I would not say that a man did not preach the gospel at all if he did but maintain the doctrine of justification by faith—"By grace are ye saved through faith." I should put him down for a gospel minister, but not for one who preached the whole gospel. No man can be said to preach the whole gospel of God if he leaves it out, knowingly and intentionally, one single truth of the blessed God.

 Why, that’s it! That’s it exactly. And lo, Spurgeon goes on to hit the nail right on the head again:

In conversation, a week or two ago, with an eminent professor, he said to me, "Sir, we know that we ought not to preach the doctrine of election, because it is not calculated to convert sinners." "But," said I to him, "who is the man that dares to find fault with the truth of God? You admit with me that it is a truth, and yet you say it must not be preached. I dare not have said that thing. I should reckon it supreme arrogance to have ventured to say that a doctrine ought not to be preached when the all-wise God has seen fit to reveal it. Besides, is the whole gospel intended to convert sinners? There are some truths which God blesses to the conversion of sinners; but are there not other portions which were intended for the comfort of the saint? And ought not these to be a subject of gospel ministry as well as the others? And shall I look at one and disregard the other?

Marvelous. And to which I add the Scriptures themselves, (from Hosea 13:13)

 “He is an unwise son, for he should not stay long where children are born.”

Analogy of Faith

Quite by accident my sister gave this one to me.

She's having a boy (her first) and we're having a girl (our last). She called and asked if we could give her our old baby boy clothes that we have been storing since we won't need them anymore.
"Sure," we said, "that wouldn't be a problem."
But what if the ultrasound technician was wrong? They've been known to make mistakes before. What if we give her everything like she's asking and we've nothing left, and it turns out to be a boy for us too? Are we really willing to commit to a course where there's no going back?

That's Christian faith. Faith is reaching a point where there's no going back. It's not just saying 'yes,' it's mailing all the old clothes away. It's not assent, it's a total dependency on the word being true, and living accordingly.