On Cessationists and Their Ironic Mysticism (Bonus)

One more reason to STOP using this language:

"God chose me for that moment" and "I know that God had called me for such a time as this."





And is it just me, or is there a remarkable hollowness in a "values" movement that looks for inspiration to someone who likes to be judged for how she looks in a bikini?

99 Baroque Masterpieces: $2

From the people who brought you 99 Bach Masterpieces for $3, you can now get the baroque collection for $1.99. The Bach set is $8 now, so the deal won't last forever.

On Cessationists and Their Ironic Mysticism (Part 3)

Some resources:

First of all, the hands-down best public teaching I ever heard on guidance and God's will prior to my present church was a series of seminars taught by Greg Mazak of Bob Jones University. As best I can tell from his comments in the audio it was a singles retreat at the Wilds, probably in the mid-90s. A colleague gave me audio tapes and I'm pretty sure I wore them out. Mazak argued 3 points: 1) Obey the commands of Scripture. 2) Apply the principles of Scripture. 3) Do what you want to do. (If you're obeying the commands and applying the principles, your desires will be shaped to reflect God's priorities and desires.)

Second, the hands-down best public teaching I ever heard on the "call to ministry" I ever heard prior to landing in my present church was an Entrust conference at Covenant Life Church in February, 2009. I blogged on it and made some new friends in the process. Ironically, this teaching from continuationists was less subjective than any I'd ever heard.

Decision Making and the Will of God was by far the most influential book on the topic in my development. This link is to the second edition, which I'm told is condensed, augmented, and more cautiously worded than the first edition. It's essentially the same stuff Mazak taught.

What I like about Bruce Waltke's Finding the Will of God: A Pagan Notion?is that it, well, exposes how the mysticism I've discussed in this series is more pagan than Christian.

I haven't read Guidance and the Voice of Godbut it's the cornerstone text for the Core Seminar at my church, which I've attended and benefited from. By the way, those lessons are available free here.

I haven't read Kevin DeYoung's Just Do Somethingeither, but here's a link to Mike McKinley's review on the 9Marks blog. Follow the Amazon link on this one to see the best book subtitle since Jonathan Edwards.

Should Premillennialists Accuse Non-Premillennialists of Rejecting Literal Interpretation?

In recent weeks I've heard a few assertions that non-premillennialists reject a literal hermeneutic. Here's just one example from a well-known pastor:

Amil has to discount the literal hermeneutical approach to the entire definition of the [Kingdom of God] in the major and minor prophets.

B.B. Warfield, in The Westminster Assembly and Its Work, expounded and defended the biblical basis for the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646). But he also attempted to demonstrate how the Confession merely summarized the theology of the Continental Reformers. Though, as a Baptist, I don't agree with every point of the Confession or Warfield's defense, a paragraph from his discussion of Chapter 1, "Of the Holy Scripture" caught my eye.

In this chapter, Warfield quotes extensively and in broad affirmation of Heinrich Heppe's summary of the theology of the Continental Reformers, Dogmatics of the Evangelical Reformed Church (1861). Heppe argues (see the long quote below) that the literal meaning of Scripture is the one meaning the author intended. Though the author may or may not employ figurative language, the literal meaning is how the author intended that language (whether figurative or normal/non-figurative) to be understood.

In other words, both Premillennialists and non-Premillennialists* may employ a literal hermeneutic. (Individuals in either group may or may not, or at least not consistently.) Though they disagree on the interpretation of numerous texts, their disagreement is not over whether the normal ("literal") sense ought to be our default position. Rather, the disagreement is over certain texts—whether they were intended by the author/Author to be interpreted normally or figuratively.

And that's where the debate ought to take place. Premillennialists ought to argue with non-Premillennialists on how prophetic texts should be interpreted. Premillennialists ought to make the point that when we can point to biblical prophecies that we know have been fulfilled, they've been fulfilled in a "literal"/normal sense. But once and for all we ought to stop suggesting that non-Premillennialists reject a literal hermeneutic. By the standards of Premillennialists, Premillennialists often reject a literal hermeneutic too. By the definition Warfield advances via Heppe, both groups can be literalists. We can and should wrestle exegetically over the debated texts, but we need to avoid the strawmen and the canards.

Here's that long passage in which Warfield quotes Heppe:

The true sense of Scripture, which interpretation has established, can always be only single, and, in general, only the real, literal sense, the sensus literalis, which is either sensus literalis simplex or sensus literalis compositus. The former is to be firmly held as a rule; the latter, on the other hand, is to be recognized wherever Scripture presents anything typically; and only when the sensus literalis would contradict the articuli fidei or the praeceptis caritatis, where therefore Scripture itself demands another interpretation of its words, is the figurative meaning of them, the sensus figuratus, to be sought. Besides this, the allegorical interpretation has its right in the application of the language of Scripture to the manifold relations of life in the accommod. ad usum. (p. 168)

*Warfield was a Postmillennialist, a position now largely out of favor that was different in its interpretations from Amillennialism, but possessing some of the same tendencies to differ with the Premillennial "literal" interpretations.

On Cessationists and Their Ironic Mysticism (Part 2)

In Part 1 I argued that when cessationists use the language of "God told/spoke to/led/called me, they accomplish three undesirable ends: 1) They contradict their cessationist theology; 2) they manipulate congregations unjustifiably; and 3) they introduce extra-biblical (and perhaps constraining) expectations to people who might enter vocational ministry.

Here in Part 2 I want to clarify #1 and push it just a bit further on the language of calling. Obviously, God "calls" people in the New Testament. Jesus called disciples and made them apostles, Paul was called to be an apostle, the elect are called to salvation, and the regenerate are called to spiritual growth. Though it's been a while since I've surveyed the NT usage, I don't recall any other application of "calling," least of all some internal "calling" to pastoral ministry. If you can offer a contrary example, I'd be glad to discuss it.

Please know: I'm not arguing that we should never use an extra-biblical term. "Trinity" is one such term. Rather, I'm arguing that loading an extra-biblical usage on a biblical term seems imprudent and very likely dangerous. This redefinition can shape our understanding of both the biblical usage of the term (salvation/sanctification/apostleship) and the concept to which we apply it (the desire for pastoral ministry).

In Part 3 I'll comment briefly on a few resources.

"Fundamentalists have preserved and defended something less than the whole counsel of God."

Yup, no kidding, but that's only the beginning.

Find this statement and access to the rest of Kevin Bauder's in-progress series updating the history of fundamentalism here.

How Blogging Kills Fear of Man

Bob Bixby writes:

[W]hen chided just this summer by one leader in the Fundamentalist Baptist Fellowship that my blogging did not make me “likable” to a number of the leaders, I responded sincerely, “I don’t want to be liked by them.” It surprises me that anyone would think that I am so dense that I had yet to realize that my blogging was not making me “likable” with certain people within the establishment of what I call denominational group-think.

When the time comes that I call it quits as Bixby has, and I certainly will, I have every certainty that one of the best fruits in my life—even if it's the only one—will be complete and final liberation from the snares of ambition and groupthink that Bibxy has so aptly described and keenly exposed over these years.

On Cessationists and Their Ironic Mysticism (Part 1)

Perhaps like many of you, I've spent many years in a slice of American Christianity that is utterly convinced that revelatory spiritual gifts have ceased, at least in any sense remotely close to what we see described in the New Testament. Though there are some really good reasons to reach that conclusion, the notion that 1 Corinthians 13:10 is referring to the completion of the canon of Scripture is, in my opinion, utterly indefensible.

The strange irony to me, is that in this slice of Christianity that denies ongoing revelation persists a contradictory mystical view of divining God's will. Phrases like "God told/spoke to/led me" are often paired with presumptuous directives and spiritually abusive manipulation from the pulpit. ("I was going to preach X sermon, but a few minutes ago God told me I needed to preach Y instead." [And oh, by the way, Y has pretty much nothing to do with the pretense of a text that I'm about to read to you."]) This sort of thing makes me think of the comment I've heard Dave Doran and Tim Jordan make: One day some of you preachers are going to stand before God and hear him ask you, "Why did you tell people I said that? What made you think that? I never said any such thing."

But spiritual abusiveness isn't the only problem, because the pattern of mystical revelation that's modeled in the pulpit teaches people how to make decisions in their lives outside the church building. The simple fact is that this sort of terminology, used by people in positions where they're perceived to be exercising responsible leadership, can impede discipleship and sanctification.

The popular language of "calling" to ministry can be among this harmful terminology. As missionary martyr Jim Eliot observed:

Our young men are going into the professional fields because they don't 'feel called' to the mission field. We don't need a call; we need a kick in the pants.

How many young men in America attended Bible college never pursued pastoral ministry because they never had the experience their idols described? How many finished seminary and never seriously considered international church planting because they never got the mystical buzz they were taught to expect?

J.D. Greear, no radical knee-jerk cessationist himself, has a nice little two-part series, "The Confusing Language of 'Calling' " at the Resurgence blog (part 1, part 2). I wholeheartedly commend it to you, and I like the way he echoes Eliot's words:

I say this because we have so many people sitting around waiting on a warm, fuzzy, and goose-bump-inducing vision from God before they embark on some ministry. Maybe we've invented the whole language of calling to mask the fact that most Christians don't want to live missionally.

"We have a particular interest in encouraging and helping couples who choose to marry [and adopt] across ethnic lines."

From last week's sermon by Michael Lawrence on Numbers 11-12 at Capitol Hill Baptist Church:

Though the precise identity of Moses' Cushite wife referred to in Numbers 12 can't be determined with certainty . . .

The point is clear. Miriam and Aaron are dissing Moses because he has married someone of a different ethnicity than they are. And more than likely, who he's married is a black African wife. . . . White Christians, in particular, have a long history of racism and of justifying their racism. White Christians, and in particular, the part of the country that I come from—the deep South—have tried to justify using Scripture prohibitions against people marrying someone of a different race—a different ethnicity—than they are. Such justifications—such teaching—is wicked, and has no justification in Scripture. And this is a great text to go to, because as we're going to see later, it is not Miriam who is vindicated. It is Moses. It is Moses who is vindicated

And one of the things I think that means for us as Christians is that we have an interest—we have a serious interest—in making clear that in Christ we are one new humanity, and that the sorts of things that divide the world, like ethnicity, like color of skin, have no place amongst us. We are one in Christ, and whether you're black or white, whether you're Asian or North American, is really beside the point.

Now, I think we have an interest in making that strikingly clear to the culture around us. So I think we have a particular interest in encouraging and helping couples who choose to marry across ethnic lines. I think we have a particular interest in helping and encouraging couples who want to adopt across ethnic lines, because I can think of few other things that demonstrate more profoundly to our racist culture that it is Christ who is our Lord, and not the world—that it is Christ who sets our identity, and not the world.

This portion starts just after 32:00 into the sermon.

Why the Gospel Demands a Reform of Christian School Policies

Back in May national news media drew attention to the story of a young man who was suspended from school and barred from participating in his Christian school's graduation ceremony because he knowingly violated school policy and attended prom with his girlfriend at the public high school she attended.

I'm not interested in re-hashing that conversation, though I do want to be crystal clear on one thing: I'm absolutely convinced that the school had every right to inflict the consequences that it did. I never cease to be appalled at how relativism has so pervaded our culture that common sense is nearly abolished.

But what I really want to do here is call into question the common practice of Christian schools that establish policies that restrict student (and even parental) behavior outside school hours or the school campus. It's not at all uncommon for Christian schools to enforce detailed codes for dress, music, entertainment, dating, and other life issues outside the school day and off school property, even inside private homes.

I'm not arguing that these choices are amoral or unrelated to spiritual maturity. Not in the slightest. (And on the other hand, I'm not affirming that all policies during the school day and on school property are wise or appropriate.)

I am arguing that most of those policies that are enforced outside the school day need to be abolished. Immediately. I'm arguing that they do great damage to children, parents, families and churches, and I'm suggesting four ways these policies do the damage:

1. They undermine parental authority and obligations within the home by taking away parents' rights and even opportunities to disciple their children and teach them discernment on what are sometimes difficult issues.
2. They increase the distinction within the church between the kids who attend the Christian school and those who attend a public school or are home schooled. This creates a culture that's too easily twisted into a functional elitism within the church.
3. They shape the culture of the school's sponsor church because school policies for students easily become unwritten law for all young people, and even all adults, regardless of whether they have children of their own.
4. They shape how both students and adults understand the gospel and what it means to be a faithful disciple of Jesus. It's far too easy for (not irrelevant but) relatively peripheral issues to become the point of emphasis in the lives of individuals and the life of the church. When so much emphasis is placed on enforcing detailed policies, school policies move not only individual believers but even whole churches precariously close to functional legalism—the perception that we merit favor with God by how we live. This isn't a question of whether the policies reflect biblical wisdom, but whether they should be enforced as law.

Think about it this way: How many of you attend a church that makes rules for all its members affecting all these areas? Ok, maybe some of you do or at least you know of a couple, but seriously, not that many. Even the most conservative churches I've had contact with never passed out a rule book to all the members. They never disciplined anyone for listening to rock music (though people did) or going to movies (people did) or going to prom (ok, so I never heard that one before).

So here's my suggestion: Pastors, school administrators, board members, please get rid of the policies external to the school day and campus. Parents, make these suggestions to your school's decision-makers and explain why—for starters, that you WANT to be a more proactive discipler of your children. You want to take more responsibility, not hand it over to a surrogate.

And here's the exception: If the sponsor church would discipline a member of the church for engaging in a given behavior, then it's probably wise to keep that policy in place for all students in your school, whether or not they're a member of the sponsor church. Of course, that opens up the question of whether you discipline for the sin or the refusal to repent of the sin, but in any case, that's a far better place to be having the conversation.

One more thing: This is about the gospel and parental discipleship and authority, not giving kids the freedom to watch movies and listen to rock music. Let's not forget that.