Be the Judge!

I see, and hear, a lot of criticisms regarding those brethren who are genuinely seeking to practice their faith in a manner which is closer to Scripture. Some of the criticism is out of genuine concern, many from an arrogant sense of , “we know better than that. We’ve moved on since those days”.

Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) is often dismissed as a radical rebel, nothing more than a philosopher who had a bit of knowledge about Scripture, and some rather strange ideas.

I cannot help but think that he had some sound insight into what God wants for those who claim to be disciples/followers of Jesus Christ. For example think about the following two quotes:

 

“The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world?”

“It is well known that Christ consistently used the expression follower. He never asks for admirers, worshippers, or adherents. No, he calls disciples. It is not adherents of a teaching but followers of a life Christ is looking for.

Christ understood that being a disciple was in innermost and deepest harmony with what he said about himself. Christ claimed to be the way and the truth and the life (Jn. 14:6). For this reason, he could never be satisfied with adherents who accepted his teaching – especially with those who in their lives ignored it or let things take their usual course. His whole life on earth, from beginning to end, was destined solely to have followers and to make admirers impossible.

Christ came into the world with the purpose of saving, not instructing it. At the same time – as is implied in his saving work – he came to be the pattern, to leave footprints for the person who would join him, who would become a follower. This is why Christ was born and lived and died in lowliness. It is absolutely impossible for anyone to sneak away from the Pattern with excuse and evasion on the basis that It, after all, possessed earthly and worldly advantages that he did not have. In that sense, to admire Christ is the false invention of a later age, aided by the presumption of loftiness. No, there is absolutely nothing to admire in Jesus, unless you want to admire poverty, misery, and contempt.

What then, is the difference between an admirer and a follower? A follower is or strives to be like what he admires. An admirer, however, keeps himself personally detached. He fails to see that what is admired involves a claim upon him, and thus he fails to be or strive to be what he admires."

What do you think? Reasonable thoughts, or those of an eccentric?

WHAT BRINGS GLORY TO GOD?

As I read the blog scene today, I see much clear thinking dealing with the failures of Christendom, especially in the area of ecclesiology. As much as I applaud the writing of some in this area, I also have concerns regarding what appears to be a focus on one aspect,whilst overlooking others. The one aspect, which a group focuses on seems to vary. One group will focus on social action, another will focus on one or more of the "one anothers" of Scripture, others seem to have a fixation on a "warm and fuzzy feeling" kind of love.

Eric Carpenter wrote a good article entitled No Guarantee, in which he argues that the purpose of gathering “is the edification of the body in Christ to the glory of God”.

Whilst not disagreeing with Eric, I would ask the question,”Is it not the purpose of the Christian to glorify God in every aspect of his/her life?”

I was rather pleased to read Dave Black, as he entered an opinion on the matter when he says,

I do not disagree with this perspective. But it seems to me that the emphasis in Reformed circles on the glory of God is rather nebulous. In my opinion, this definition is neither missiologically broad enough nor theologically deep enough. As I understand Scripture, the church is to carry out the Missio Dei of the Triune God at both the micro (individual salvation) and macro (societal) levels, with a view to redemption, reconciliation, and social transformation. I recognize that many Christians today are starving for genuine koinonia and deeper relationships within the Body of Christ. Yet Jesus Christ defines His followers as those whom He has sent forth into the world. Thus, while it is good and proper to unpack the theological and ecclesiological significance of such texts as 1 Cor. 14:26, which speak of mutual edification as a goal whenever the church gathers, I think it is neither scriptural nor helpful to reduce our definition of "church" to the gathering. The ecclesiological challenge must drive us closer and closer to our original mission, not further away from it. An outward focus is critical, not optional.

That last small sentence encapsulates my concern about much of what I have observed regarding the newer expressions of gathering Christians, which have become very singular in their focus, often becoming insular mutual admiration societies, which pat themselves on the back for being so “Biblical”. Maybe I'm wrong, but what I see happening is simply a smaller expression of what has been going on for decades, and no different to denominations wearing their denomination labels and distinctions as badges of honor, and declaring themselves “Biblical” for doing so.

Dave Black further says,

The Book of Acts consistently emphasizes "missional hermeneutics," and is clear that the Gospel is the Holy Spirit's instrument for the formation of faithful witnessing communities that enjoy corporate life both together and scattered in the world. This same Spirit now works through believers to enable them to be Christ's witnesses in Jerusalem, in Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. To be sure, "church" is broader than the missional church. But the focus of God is the world, not the church. Thus, while calls for mutual edification are valid (and sorely needed), it does not help to make the overcorrection of emphasizing corporate discipleship at the expense of Trinitarian mission. The only way Christ is presently incarnated to a lost world is through believers as they carry on His presence, His Word, and His works to a new generation. We are no longer citizens of this world but Christ's ambassadors, sent to this world from another kingdom, operating in His authority and power. If we're rightly connected to the Head in this way, it would be hard to imagine making the focus of the church the gathering rather than the going

.

It seems to me that if we are to be truly Biblical, whilst dealing with the very real problems of our ecclesiology, and its implications for the local assembly, we need to remember that we individual believers, are the only interface many have with the things of God.

So,in the light of what I've emphasised in Dave's last paragraph, I would ask another question, “Are we not stewards of God’s great grace, and will not God be equally glorified as we tell these people, in our Jerusalem, of His amazing grace in Jesus Christ, and on into Samaria, and to the end of the earth?”

SELF PROMOTION

As I write the occasional bog, and read those of others, I’m becoming more, and more, aware of the need to avoid self-promotion of any kind.

When I read a blog which chronicles the exploits performed in the Name of Christ by the writer, I sometimes have a real sense of unease about what is going on.

Marlena Graves, a guest blogger on Her-menuetics, the Christianity Today womens’ blog, wrote an article entitled , “Is Self-PromotionSinful?”, in which she refers to J.D.Salinger’s book The Catcher in The Rye.

In her article she refers to  Salinger’s “efforts to spurn fame and self-promotion because they can lead to phoniness, something Salinger abhorred.”

As her article continues, Graves speaks of her own thoughts when writing, 

"Am I doing this only to build a bigger platform? Is this just self-promotion? Sometimes, “You have to have an audience built up before you write a book” gets translated into, “Throw yourself down from this high point of the temple" (do something spectacular to get attention) (Matt. 4:5-6) or, “No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world” (John 7:4). Some readers might accuse me of scraping my conscience or of being oversensitive; on the other hand, some may think that I’m using this very post to promote myself."

She goes on to quote Salinger saying something  about this in “Catcher in the Rye”. When protagonist Holden Caulfield’s sister, Phoebe, asks him why he doesn’t become a lawyer like their father, he says:

[T]hey’re all right if they go around saving innocent guys’ lives . . . but you don’t do that kind of stuff if you’re a lawyer. All you do is make a lot of dough and play golf and play bridge and buy cars and drink Martinis and look like a hot-shot. . . . Even if you did go around saving guys’ lives and all, how would you know if you did it because you really wanted to save guys’ lives, or because . . . you really wanted to . . . be a terrific lawyer with everyone slapping you on the back. . . . How would you know you weren’t being a phony? The trouble is, you wouldn’t. (p. 172) 

This fictitious character is right. That bothers me when I write, right at this moment. It bothers me when I make subjective judgments about the writings of another, because I don’t know the other person and their thinking, to legitimately make the judgments I am inclined to make. As much as there may be some truth in what we say we need to be careful how we critique a particular post, or article, with which we disagree, without taking into account what the author has revealed he/she thinks in their other writing.

I wonder if this is what Spurgeon had in mind when he said, “Self-love is, no doubt, the usual foundation of human jealousy...the fear lest another should by any means supplant us.”

 

MANDY IS SEEING HIM FACE TO FACE

In a recent post I asked for prayer for Mandy and Johnny. Thank you for praying.

After a short rally, Mandy has succumbed to the cancer that had ravaged her body.

The elder who cares for the congregation, of which, prior to our retirement, we were a part, reports that Johnny is absolutely surrounded by his loving family. Please continue to pray for this sensitive, loving man.

I am most privileged to have had the joy of introducing Mandy to her Savior so long ago.

Jonathan Edwards speaking at the funeral of David Brainard, said that David was now enjoying "the ineffable delights he has in heaven, in the enjoyment of his Father ".

Mandy is now doing the same.

AN ENCOURAGING MORNING

I'm usually going through some of my favorite blogs by 5.30AM, and then read emails.

This morning? What an encouraging morning!

I must share the joy I received! In no particular order of preference: 

Firstly an old curmudgeon like me, Paul Burleson  who warmed me up on this second morning of winter, then Alan Knox "A criterion, a treasure, an assumption, and a broken heart". He features four blogs which are a must read, the third one, written by Eric Carpenter is a regular for me.

Then there was the icing on the cake as I read Dave Black  at Wednesday, June 1,10:42 AM, writing what is so very important for followers of Christ to understand. The cherry on top of this was Becky Black's morning reflections.

Trust you are blessed as I am!

I'M SO SAD!

Today, I’m very sad and prayerful.

It’s twenty-six years ago since I became the pastor of a very small, very fragmented church. Only one of the seven deacons (yes, you’re right! According to the deacons,“Because the Biblical number for deacons is seven) was a member of the denomination because of conviction. Six of the deacons, middle aged and more, had migrated from five other denominations, each was convinced that their previous practices were the correct ones, and argued the point, loudly! The odd one out, Johnny, a sound follower of Christ, member by conviction, and a young man, was a rose amongst the thorns. A bright light in a dark place!

The church had a membership of eighteen and averaged about 25-30 at the Sunday service.

I can hear you chuckling from here! Seven deacons amongst eighteen members?

Without describing any of the outcomes of this I can say that, for the first eight months, I had more headaches (not literal) than ever before in my life.

They were unhappy times!

Then! Something wonderful happened!

Johnny had a young lady, Mandy, whom he had been keeping company with for a couple of years, and I had the opportunity to get to know them and to share the gospel with her.

She came to know Christ in a life changing way, but was hurt by the unloving way she observed the deacon’s behaving. There were comments from whence she had come, and objection to her happy boisterous character and jolly laughter.

Later, I had the joy of standing before Johnny and Mandy as they made their marriage vows.

Twenty-five years on, they have two beautiful daughters, who were raised as children of followers of Christ should be. Both young ladies are now school teachers.

About two years ago we received news that Mandy had breast cancer. The lumps were removed. The surgeons thought they had it all. Then, devastation, a mastectomy was in order, then six months of chemo-therapy. Another mastectomy. More chemo.

After several months it appeared that she was clear, with the usual, “Well know for sure in five years”.

A short time elapsed and lumps began to appear in other parts of her body. More operations. More chemo. Radiation.

A little over twenty-four hours ago, the elder who cares for these dear folk now, rang me. I could hear the tears in his voice as he haltingly told me that Johnny had been called to be with Mandy!

My heart is breaking for this family, who put themselves last to server others, ever since I first knew them.

In their early fifties, Johnny and Mandy have so much more they could offer., and I cannot help but have fleeting thoughts of, ”Lord, why them and not this old, worn out feller?”

Although my body won’t allow me to travel the 180 miles to visit with them, to sit with them, pray with them, hug them and love them, I’m very confident that the Family my wife and I left behind will do so, and very well!

UPDATE:

As of the 2nd June, no news of change.

AUTHORITY: OF CHRIST OR PATRIARCH?

The beginning of Matthew is important in any discussion regarding patriarchy, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham”. (Mat.1:1)

The first verse names the three foundational patriarchs “of the geneology of Christ”:

Abraham the father of Isaac, was first of the Hebrew patriarchs and a figure revered by the three great monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam :

The Bible declares that he lived approximately 175 years. Wife was Sarah. Sons were Ismael and Isaac . According to the bible Abraham and Sarah were 99 or 100 years old when Isaac was born.

Isaac Isaac the father of Jacob :

As the Bible says, he lived 180 years! Wife Rebecca. Sons Esau and Jacob. He was later told he would be called Israel.

Jacob the father of Judah:

Wives Leah and Rachel. Twelve sons and one daughter.  The Bible tells us he lived 147 years.

His name is given to all of his descendents and the land that God stipulated they should inhabit. Jacob’s having two wives means that there are four matriarchs between the  three patriarchs.

A patriarch is "the male head, ruler, or progenitor of a family, tribe, or people."

Jacob, who earned the name Israel when he wrestled with an Angel, is the patriarch, the descendants of whose twelve sons became the twelve tribes of Israel.

God’s design for these three patriarchs, through their lineage with Abraham, was that they were to establish nations under His rule, “Then Abram fell on his face. And God said to him, “Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations.”(Gen.17:3-4).

Something else stands out as Matthew goes on. He establishes that from this line of three patriarchs, King David is a part of this same bloodline, which in fourteen generations establishes that Jesus Christ is whom he declared in the first verse as “.. the son of David” , whose life he chronicles.

Are all the males patriarchs? No. It seems not.  As far as I can see there are only two verses in the New Testament that refer to men as patriarchs, other than the three men mentioned above. In the Septuagent the term is used only five times.

Patriarch, the word, means “father rule”, or “patriarchy”, and is an elemental part of an hegemonic hierarchy, of which the New Testament knows nothing.

The use of the word, according to dictionaries, such as The Oxford , The Merriam-Webster, and the The Macmillan say among other things, that “patriarchy” means:

”a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is reckoned through the male line.

a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.” (Oxford)  or,

 “ 1: a social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power

2: a society or institution organized according to the principles or practices of patriarchy”(Webster) or,

“a society, system, or organization in which men have all or most of the power and influence (Macmillan)

As those claiming to be Christian, we have to take into consideration what people understand when we use words, such as patriarchy, which are commonly understood to imply "Power" or "control". We cannot simply take a word we like and apply it to a New Testament concept.

From a Christian point of view such words apply to the Godhead alone.  Christians have only one Head, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the true representation of God the Father, and whose sole authority is exercised though His written word revealed to us by the Holy Spirit.

If we want to use the “archy” language, we could use the term "Christarchy", where all submit to the authority of the Lord Jesus Christs.

What a difference we would see if we understood that. Servant leaders, whether of households or congregations, and even governments, would lead, and set the example of one who submits to the authority of Jesus Christ, as is declared in the Scriptures and applied to their lives by the Holy Spirit.

Yet the very opposite is true as Dave Black says, “Christ’s claim to our total allegiance is one we seek to avoid at all costs”(ChristianArchy, x), and we avoid it by espousing the idea that, for example, a father must exercise some kind of power and authority which allows him to command how others (wife and family) behave and function.

We, fathers, avoid any hint of what the world sees as weakness, but what Christ taught was formidable strength; humble servitude, in weakness!

John Chrysostom, one of the early church fathers was spot on, when he said,

“For as long as we are lambs we conquer; even when a thousand wolves stand about, we overcome and are victors. But if we act like wolves we are conquered, for then the aid of the Good Shepherd departs from us, for He does not foster wolves but sheep.”

“…He does not foster wolves but sheep.”

In my idealistic moments, I imagine what it would be like if people who dare to call Jesus as Lord, really submitted themselves to His headship. This One whom we profess as Lord, as our “archy”, would be seen as the only authority in charge, and everyone else, husbands and wives were submissive to each other, negating any need to claim to be equal, or having authority over another.

I imagine what it would be like to live in a climate of no imposed hierarchies or command structures, no power struggles among men and women, rich and poor, young and old, with each one serving the other. I think that's what Jesus modeled for those who were His followers.

Paul was used of God, in his Epistle to the Ephesian congregation, to declare His direction for a marital relationship.

It was to be as Jesus modeled as He submitted himself totally to the will of His Father. With Christ as their model, husbands are not charged to exercise authority over their wives, but are charged to imitate Christ’s headship over themselves. Such headship demands that they imitate Christ’s obedience to God. As the husband models Christ’s obedience to the Father, so the wives are to follow.

Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church. It is he who is the Savior of the body. Indeed, just as the church is submissive to Christ, so wives must be submissive to their husbands in everything.(5:22-24)

Whether we redefine the word to suit our personal preferences or not, the word “patriarchy” indicates power and  authority over another.

If wives are called to submit to their husbands in the same way the church submits to Christ, then it cannot have anything to do with patriarchy.

Dave Black speaks of ,”…any other Christian “reformist” movement (patriarchy, agrarianism, age integration,etc.) The trouble is that such moralizing can be done sheerly in the flesh. We can get so caught up in the idea of raising modern knights or returning to the land or asserting male headship when oftentimes all that is actually happening is that our little archy is becoming more and more impressed by it’s own importance as a revolutionary cause.” (Christian Archy p.14)

I cannot agree more, especially when Dave says on page 14, “The Enemy of the church always seeks to turn it aside from the cross in order to make it follow its own way”.  Remember the church is men and women.

The thought that Christ would command submission to His headship is erroneous to say the least. If  there is any compulsion at all for Christ’s redeemed to obey him, it is solely through love and thanksgiving alone, as an act of worship.

The love of Christ controls us, for we are convinced of this: that one person died for all people; therefore, all people have died. He died for all people, so that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for the one who died and rose for them. (2 Corinthians 5:14-15).

When calling wives to submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ, then they are called to respond to their husband’s modeling of Christ’s love and self-sacrifice. They are  to submit to such amazing love, not to the authority of the husband.

 By the way, Paul says nothing about the husband’s “rule”. The headship Paul refers to is the authority to serve God by serving others, which leads to God’s blessing on the relationship.

Christ’s own submission to the Father was spelled out in His parable as He rose from supper.

Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was returning to God,got up from the table, removed his outer robe, and took a towel and fastened it around his waist.Then he poured some water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to dry them with the towel that was tied around his waist. (John 13:4-5)

There could be no missing what Jesus explicitly taught on that occasion, unless we purposefully, and willfully choose another explanation. The Christ’s washing of feet revealed the quality of his Lordship, and set the example for those who follow him, who were to emulate this kind of authority, a humiliating servant role, which entailed, authority to wash feet, authority to sacrifice themselves to demonstrate God’s grace to others.

It’s very difficult for the Adamic human mind to grasp that servant-hood has “authority”.

Consider Jesus, who had the God-given authority to sacrifice himself for His people as an act of amazing love.

Amazing love! How can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
Amazing love! How can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

When someone receives Christ as Savior and Lord, we  submit to His authority.

That is exactly the kind of headship a Christian wife is called to submit herself to. Not that of a patriarch, but that of a husband who is called to love her with the same Holy Sprit endued attitude as Christ revealed in His love for His church.

She is called to follow him and his example as he follows Christ. It is not easy, as Peter showed when Jesus wanted to wash his feet. It’s what Paul knew was a necessary part of God’s transforming grace, when he told the Romans,  “I therefore urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercies, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices that are holy and pleasing to God, for this is the reasonable way for you to worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but continually be transformed by the renewing of your minds so that you may be able to determine what God's will is—what is proper, pleasing, and perfect.” (Rom.12:-2)

As a wife responds to the example of her husband, she lays aside her will as her husband has laid aside his, so they serve Christ as one, as a picture of  the gospel (Ephesians 5:32).

Husbands and wives, one or both, who care more about imposing their own authority or desire than submitting to the headship and example of Christ, not only personally  act like a drunken person, but they cause those to stumble for whom they are supposed to set the example, each other, their children, and their brethren.

When a husband incorrectly understands his role as head of the family, as that of  a patriarch, one called to rule and uses that as an excuse to dominate, he stumbles like a drunken man. A wife, who  takes advantage of her husband’s servant-hood does likewise.

Nowhere does the Bible show us that God is interested in improving a Christian husband’s authority and rule. Likewise He is not interested in helping a Christian couple rule their family as equals.

God is interested in restoring His rule. 

As a couple grow in Christian marriage, husbands  cease to live in a mindset of patriarchy, and becomes faithful stewards demonstrating the reality of the Lordship of the One who said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them and their superiors act like tyrants over them. That's not the way it should be among you. Instead, whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave. That's the way it is with the Son of Man. He did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many people”.(Matt.20:25-28)

In a Biblical marriage such as this, a husband will inspire his wife and children to “follow me, as I follow Christ”. This is not patriarchy past, present or future!

As Dave Black says in his book, “We must have the courage to say flatly that human archys are nothing less than the contemporary resurrection of the pharisaic ethic”. (p.31)

Let Vernard Eller conclude, as he writes in ChristianAnarchy, “..that worldly arkys are of the "all" that "in Adam" dies and are no part of the "all" that "in Christ" is made alive (1 Cor. 15:22). Consequently, worldly arkys must die (and we must die to them) in order that the Arky of God (his kingdom) might be made alive in us (and us in it).”

Important Addendum:

I have, in the last few minutes discovered a good article on Wade Burlesons blog, in which he refers to a book by Jon Zens for which Wade has written the  Forward.
  
The book is entitled: "No Will Of My Own: How Patriarchy Smothers Female Dignity & Personhood "