Category: Christian Living

The opening chapel services at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary have stimulated conversation regarding the power of the word of God. Although I was not privileged to hear the sermons of fellow Alabamian David Platt, I have heard him on other occasions. As many of the comments suggest (see www.saidatsouthern.com), much is lost in simply reading the transcripts or even in listening to recorded sermons. Gauging by that commentary, though, it seems that many came away understanding that Dr Platt and others were advocating a ‘radical faith,’ or a faith that was ‘all in.’

During the past week I also read commentary regarding the problem of churches being without pastors and decrying the lack of ‘good preaching’ (see www.gritsgrace.blogspot.com), in some cases because those churches have a litmus test opposing Reformed or Calvinist preachers. I was thinking, then, that in many cases we want ‘just enough’ of Christ not to be deemed pagan. For instance, Arminians want just enough of the effects of sin and just enough of God’s sovereignty to avoid the most serious charges of self-help salvation.

The Spirit recorded for us other examples of this from the life of Jesus. In Matthew 8:1 through 9:8 we are given several examples of ‘just enough’ philosophy. Jesus had just finished the Sermon on the Mount, and this passage records events that confirm the inauguration of the kingdom of God through the lordship of Christ. Jesus here heals the leper, the centurion’s servant, and Peter’s mother-in-law; rejected two would-be disciples; calmed the sea; healed two demoniacs; and healed the paralytic, and then pronounced his forgiveness.

The reaction to Christ’s lordship in these verses is instructive. Those in Christ’s presence seemed to want just enough of his power for physical healing; just enough adventure to avoid being too pedestrian; just enough sovereignty for physical rescue; just enough power over spirits to free enterprise; just enough authority for healing and forgiveness. Yet this attitude leaves us short of a lordship of Christ that demands his control over our bodies, whether in sickness or health. A lordship that calls us to leave those things in life we find comfortable and socially expected. That exhibits his sovereignty not only over the waves, but over our life. That effects reconciliation even when it disrupts commerce. And that demands and exerts the kind of authority that not only heals the body, but forgives sin and reconciles to the Father.

‘Just enough’ of God, then, is not enough.

Joab said, “I will not waste time like this with you.” And he took three javelins in his hand and thrust them into the heart of Absalom while he was still alive in the oak. 2 Samuel 18:14

In this episode from the tumultuous life of David, Absalom has subverted David’s authority as king and conspired to usurp the throne and reign over Israel. David and those loyal to him have left Jerusalem, but David and his men are fighting to capture Absalom and retake Jerusalem.

As David sends out the army to defeat the army of Absalom, David instructs Joab, Abishai and Ittai, “Deal gently for my sake with the young man Absalom.”

Joab had earlier recognized David’s grieving for the banished Absalom and arranged for an anonymous woman to speak wise counsel to him, which convinced David to bring Absalom back from banishment. He also helped Absalom (after Absalom set Joab’s field on fire!) obtain audience with David to complete the reconciliation between the two of them.

In this episode, Joab finds himself the beneficiary – or victim, depending on perspective – of divine providence. In a scene reminiscent of a spaghetti western or Monty Python movie, Absalom gets stuck fast in the branches of a tree and is dangling there by his head when Joab’s man finds him.

Scripture records that Joab’s man reported to Joab, “Behold, I saw Absalom hanging in an oak.” Star Trek’s Mr. Spock could not be more deadpan in reporting such a thing.

Joab, on the other hand, becomes apoplectic, chastising the man for not killing Absalom on the spot. This anonymous man, though, takes Joab to leadership school:

“Even if I felt in my hand the weight of a thousand pieces of silver, I would not reach out my hand against the king’s son, for in our hearing the king commanded you and Abishai and Ittai, ‘For my sake protect the young man Absalom.’ On the other hand, if I had dealt treacherously against his life (and there is nothing hidden from the king), then you yourself would have stood aloof.”

Joab responded, “I will not waste time like this with you.” In other words, “You’re wasting my time, you nameless nobody!”

Not many anonymous foot soldiers in God’s kingdom dare to oppose those in charge, yet this puny peon challenged mighty Joab. The basis of his challenge, however, was not his own pride, nor his will to power, nor a claim to fame, but a steadfast devotion to carrying out the wishes of the king.

He even recognized Joab’s spurious leadership style: had he actually killed Absalom, Joab would have “stood aloof.” In other words, although Joab would have secretly been thrilled over Absalom’s death at the hands of the foot soldier, he would have quickly distanced himself from the soldier and denied any responsibility.

Joab could not be bothered with the impudence of one with so little standing in Israel that Scripture does not even record his name for us. “I will not waste time like this with you.” One can almost hear the disdain Joab had for the man and his advice. Joab also rejected the subject matter: “I will not waste time like this with you.” He thought he knew all he needed with regard to Absalom, David, and apparently, murder. Joab also fell victim to the tyranny of the urgent: “I will not waste time like this with you.” Absalom was not going anywhere. Joab had plenty of time to discuss the matter with the soldier, with other respected men, with David, with God, in order to get it right.

We frequently fail to consider wise counsel. Most often we reject it because it comes from someone who is not like us – someone who is younger, uglier, poorer, less education, not as “important.” We deem the appropriate consideration of that counsel to be “wasting time,” as if we can afford no delay in carrying out schemes that are important to us but are obviously contrary to the will of the king. (Proverbs 1:16 – For their feet run to evil and they hasten to shed blood.)

On the other hand, we frequently fail to take opportunity to speak wise counsel. We do so because we are the younger, uglier, poorer, less education, not as “important.” Or perhaps we fear the rebuke of those to whom we speak, or the breach of “peace” that would ensue, or being accused of not being “loving.”

We do not find ourselves facing decisions of whether to kill the king’s son. Two things, however, remain as true today as in the time of Absalom: boldness in men will speak wise counsel, and wickedness in men takes no time for it.

‘Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing each other, in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, in grace singing in your hearts to the Lord.’ (Colossians 3:16).

‘And I am persuaded, my brethren — I myself also — concerning your, that you yourselves also are full of goodness, having been filled with all knowledge, able also one another to admonish.’ (Romans 15:14).

‘We proclaim him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ.‘ (Colossians 1:28).

Essential to the proclamation of Christ is ‘admonishing’ every man who receives the message. Our role as ambassadors for Christ is not complete without this admonishment. Further, ‘teaching’ — or imparting necessary information to the learner — is distinguished from the admonishment. We know, then, that admonishment is something different from, and in addition to, telling men about Christ.

Paul tells the Romans and the Colossians that it is his expectation for every believer they they also ‘admonish’ one another. It is our duty to each other as ‘ministers’ one to another, as fellow members in the same body, to edify each other and build each other up. This admonishment, then, is not merely the province of the preacher and of the paid staff.

The Greek word for admonish is ‘noutheteo’ from which some derive the term ‘nouthetic counseling.’ The word is alternately translated ‘admonish,’ ‘teach,’ or ‘exhort’ but none of those truly capture the essence of what the term means. According to Jay Adams (The Christian Counselor’s Manual, Competent to Counsel) nouthetic counseling is essentially confronting another believer with what is wrong, with some problem in that believer’s life, and directing him with the authority of Scripture and of the Holy Spirit to change, to his betterment and to the glory of God.

Paul seems to indicate that this admonishment should be intentional and regular, and characterized by knowledge, wisdom, grace and the desire for the betterment of our brother. Instead, we tend to ‘mind our own business’ and leave our brothers to their own devices. We are slaves to the culture’s idea that no one can tell anyone else how to live.

But God tells us otherwise. It is our duty to look after each other, protect each other, admonish each other, to speak the truth in love. By nouthetically counseling our brothers we are displaying the grace of God and participating in presenting each man complete in Christ.

‘And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more with knowledge and discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless until the day of Christ.’ — Philippians 1:9-10

Do we always ‘approve what is excellent’? Obviously not, but do we realize that our approval of the good is an enemy of the excellent, that approval of the mediocre and the bad maligns Christ and his gospel?

Here Paul writes from a Roman prison to the church at Philippi, which he had not visited in ten years. But he had learned of their situation: internal strife, legalism, careless living. And 1:3-11 he tells them three things: 1) the fact of his prayer; 2) the reason for his prayer; 3) the content of his prayer.

He describes their ‘partnership in the gospel’ and that they were ‘partakers of grace’ both in his imprisonment and the defense and confirmation of the gospel. Simply because they had been saved in Christ, they demonstrated the gospel, and their lives served to confirm (or deny) it. So he prays that their love would abound, with knowledge and discernment. But this was not the result he sought. Discerning love was to produce the ability to ‘approve what is excellent.’ In the midst of their trials, sufferings and difficulties they were nevertheless to approve the things that are excellent. Why? Simply to be good choosers? No, but so that they would be pure and blameless before Christ.

When we claim salvation in Christ, we become partners with every other believer in the gospel and in grace. Your friends are now mine; your enemies are now mine; your cause is now mine. Your success and your failure: now all mine. And, mine is yours. How we live — approving the excellent or the not-so-excellent — reflects on each other, on the gospel, and on Christ.

Paul’s example is to pray, with rejoicing, that our fellow believers would ‘approve what is excellent,’ whether in our personal lives, work, family, or especially church.

Among other things, the Old Testament sacrificial system was an object lesson to God’s people and to the nations that God is holy and that the sin of the people had offended that holiness. The animals sacrificed — as the type of what was to come — had to be without blemish. The perpetual shedding of the blood of substitutes served as constant reminder that God was continually holy, the people continually sinful. The promise, then, was for a once-for-all substitutionary sacrifice.

God’s indictment of his people in Malachi for offering polluted sacrifices — those that were lame, defective, sick — was not (primarily) because God needed meat and was getting less than he deserved. The people were due chastisement because their substandard sacrifice profaned the type, and muted the lesson it was intended to convey. If the people could offer blemished sacrifices, perhaps, then, the Messiah could also be blemished.

The severity of our sin and the holiness of our God require that the substitute be without stain. Our sacrifices and offerings (‘present your body a living and holy sacrifice’) must, therefore, also be the best we can muster, not because we satisfy God with our best — after all, our best is not good enough, and God has already been satisfied in Christ — but because even after we have beheld the Lamb who took away the sins of the world we need constant reminder of his holiness, and the perfection of his redemption.

As Jonathan Edwards said, labels are necessary. Even as basic as labeling someone ‘Christian’ or ‘American’ conveys much important meaning without redundant detail or explanation.

But if labels are misused? They are frequently employed to immediately stop discourse — usually when the one using them is losing the debate — as when one is called ‘racist’ or ‘Calvinist.’

What people usually object to when they use these labels is a caricature of the thing, not the thing itself. Most are objecting to a stylized straw man, and easy target for those ignorant of the real issues.

When believers, for instance, object to ‘Calvinism’ because it teaches that people are robots and God created some people just to condemn them, who wouldn’t object? The Democrats accomplish the same thing by claiming Republicans are for dirty air and water.

It is very easy for us to create a caricature of our opponent, or of his position, and then attack that. It is usually much easier, and more successful.

The congregation of a Baptist church became quite exercised when a pool hall across the street applied for a liquor license with the city. Because of the natural — and admittedly stereotypical — incompatibility of Baptists and beer, strategies were devised, the warnings sounded, and the forces mobilized. It was considered a great victory when the city, primarily due to the agitation of the church, denied the liquor license, and the pool hall eventually closed. (It was not reported whether the hall’s patrons had also been dancing and playing cards.)

In 2 Corinthians 5:12-13 the apostle Paul warns the church that it is to judge those on the inside, not those on the outside, because God would handle them. Yet the congregation that expended such energy in excising “evil” from the surrounding community turned a blind eye to the greed, selfishness, anger and unfaithfulness of its own members. To be fair, most congregations are the same in this regard, refusing to exercise discipline and tolerating sin in their midst.

The church, according to Scripture, should judge those inside, not those outside, yet we do precisely the opposite. We judge those outside as if they should know better, and ignore those inside as if they should not.

The world thus sees the church criticizing people who do not know God for drinking, gambling, sexing, spending, killing and all the rest, without offering any hope of reconciliation with God. At the same time, the world sees the church permitting its members to live however they want, without any consequence.

Perhaps Paul challenged the church to exhort its own members to faithful, holy living in order for it to establish a voice with those outside, with those who might long for an example of truly changed and redeemed lives from those who claim the gospel is powerful to change and redeem them.

Besides, given his behavior in Scripture, one suspects that Jesus would have been over at the pool hall ministering, not throwing stones across the street.