Expecting a Paucity of Posts

I probably will not be posting much in the next little while for various reasons.  What posting I do engage in will be more of a sharing of content found elsewhere.  Perhaps in a couple of weeks I may engage this blogging thing again. 

 

Thinking my thoughts, but articulating them much more clearly….AKA my shortest post ever..

Theology and Steak

“If you really understand Reformed theology…….”

A quote from Joshua Harris, senior pastor of Covenant Life Church found at Conservative Reformed Mafia :

“If you really understand Reformed theology, we should all just sit around shaking our heads going, ‘It’s unbelievable. Why would God choose any of us?’ You are so amazed by grace, you’re not picking a fight with anyone - you’re just crying tears of amazement that should lead to a heart for lost people, that God does indeed save, when he doesn’t have to save anybody.”

Bruised reeds and black dogs

I have had this old dog since I was a young child. He has often followed me, sometimes at a distance, sometimes not. I believe it may be from the same litter as Churchill’s dog. Mine, like his, is coal black. I think of it as a big, black Lab, not really a snarling, junkyard dog.

Sometimes, when I would wake up in the morning and look out the bedroom window, I would see him sitting there, looking back at me, quiet and still. Other mornings, he would be nowhere in sight. It is not as if I liked this dog, but sometimes, against my better judgment, I would find myself feeding it, encouraging it. There was one occasion, quite a number of years ago, that I really got tired of this old dog, and I threatened it with a pistol. It eventually ran away for a while and would just stare at me from a distance. I could see him watching me, but he seemed too wary to approach.

I know where this black dog comes from, and I know what kept him around. None of that is a mystery to me. I know the dark, complicated circumstances that birthed this animal. I know that old dog as well as I know myself. As much as this dog has hounded my steps in times past, I cannot help but sometimes think this dog as an old, troubled, and wounded friend. He has helped me see things perhaps from a perspective hidden to others who have not had such a companion.

He more or less keeps his space, now, and I keep mine. I believe he still waits outside the door for me should I need to draw on him for some dark insight, but I do not expect to ever again experience the need for such.

John 11:35
Hebrews 4:15
Psalm 103:14
Isaiah 53:10-11
Isaiah 51:11-12
Isaiah 42:3
Romans 8:18

I have always wanted to use “voodoo eisegesis” in a sentence

Note to reader: Please forgive this under-educated burgeoning armchair theology geek for any egregious misuse of the following terms - exegesis, eisegesis, and hermeneutics. I tend to think of and use them interchangeably at times. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. You have been forewarned!

The discipline of interpreting Biblical texts is a potentially complex subject, and I do not pretend to have anything approaching a comprehensive grasp of the subject, so take my less than informed meanderings for what they are worth; I am no seminarian or scholar. However, one thing I feel somewhat strongly about is something I refer to as a word-count Biblical eisegesis, perhaps a compound term I just invented. Let me give you a few examples of what I believe is a systematic reading of meaning into (eisegesis), rather than out of (exegesis), Biblical texts that I have encountered over the years.

I used to attend a liberal Protestant church. As an aside, I did not know it was liberal in it’s theology at first; I did not have the ability to discern such at the time. That being said and though I reject most aspects of ‘progressive’ theology without reservation, I quite like the minister. He is a very warm and friendly man, well-read, and possesses a keen intellect. I remember listening to him speak one Sunday, and during the sermon he made a few observations regarding a recently released film called The Passion of the Christ. I cannot recall verbatim his comments, but I remember that he found the film distasteful because, among other things, it was focused on the events immediately surrounding the crucifixion of Christ rather than the works of Christ. His critique of the film alluded to the fact that comparatively few words in the Gospels actually refer to the death and resurrection of Christ, but more the Gospel texts seems to focus on the works of Christ. Loosely using this word-count perspective of the Gospel texts, the movie was deemed by him to be, at best, unbalanced. While I understand his perspective, and I am absolutely not inferring any over-all lack of sophistication in his hermeneutics or inferring that word-count drives all his exegesis (or eisegesis), what I believe is revealed in his contrast between the quantity of text referring to the cross verses the quantity of text referring to Christ’s deeds and teaching is the liberal perspective of Jesus as a peaceful, sandal-clad, counter-culture revolutionary known for his wisdom rather than as a death-defeating Redeemer. Word-count was used as a means to illustrate a ‘progressive’ theological end.

On the more conservative side of ecclesia, I see further examples of work-count eisegesis. If I had a dime for every time someone has said something along the lines that Jesus talked more about money than heaven or hell, I would be far better off financially. Usually one hears such proclamations during a tithe-centric sermon on giving and money management. First, I question if the Bible, in general, really speaks more about money than heaven or hell, etc. Too, I have to hold the “Christ speaks about money more than heaven, etc.” statement in tension with those who proclaim that Christ speaks more about hell than grace, mercy, or heaven, etc. The hierarchy of doctrinal import may possibly get quite muddled when one puts too much emphasis on word-count in interpreting Biblical texts. To be consistent with a word-count approach to the Bible, perhaps we should focus more on genealogies than grace.

That all being said, I could easily become guilty of that which I lambaste. For example, I have stated in previous posts that I have been led to embrace what may be described as a Calvinistic, or Reformed, understanding of the doctrine of salvation, of soteriology. I have heard others state that the verses that are interpreted as favoring a Calvinistic perspective out-number those that favor, at least superficially, an Arminian view by a four to one ratio, and I find that statement engaging on a couple of levels, one because it plays to my present presuppositions. Am I engaging an eisegesis of word-count? Actually, I did not get to where I am theologically by a word-count eisegesis, but, if not careful, I could easily find myself using such a methodology to defend my point of view.

While I do not wish to paint with too broad of a brush and infer that all topical sermons, which sometimes engage a word-count eiseges, are always bad all the time and all expositional preaching is always sound all the time, but perhaps expositional preaching does encourage the expositor to be more faithful to the text. Following a text from its natural beginning to its natural end gently encourages one from engaging in eisegesis, the reading of meaning into the text. There is truth to the old maxim that “text without context is a pretext for proof-text.”

Without regard to the quantity of words found in the New Testament texts describing the deeds and wisdom of the Messiah, the text of the Gospels clearly affirms that merely doing the good works of liberal, social gospel Jesus does not open the door of grace. Neither are the instructions on tithing found in the Old Testament, often used to prop up the money management lessons of life-coach Jesus, the key to heaven. Though goods works and good money management are not trifling matters, they are of much import, the bottom line and big picture is this: the words of the inspired and infallible canon of Scripture speaks to our fallen condition, to our total depravity. In speaking to our fallen nature, Christ offers grace. He teaches those who have been saved by repentance and faith in Him to reflect His grace to others, to show grace and mercy even when it may not be returned back to us. He tells his flock that we are to consider others more important than ourselves. He tells his flock to serve one another. When speaking of managing our resources, His tells his flock to give from a generous heart, to give sacrificially. He tells His flock to gently correct others in the flock who engage error. He tells His flock that they must pick up the cross and die to self. He promises his flock the Helper, the Holy Spirit, to guide us and conform us to His image. He promises His flock a cross to carry on earth and eternity in heaven with Him.

On Protecting the Flock…….

Part of a pastors, an under-shepherd’s, responsibility to the flock to to protect it from ravenous wolves. If the under-shepherd does not have the ability to discern between a fellow shepherd and a wolf, then the sheep will suffer. Following is a quote from the blog of a pastor of a rather large and influential church I once attended.

• “I have a philosophy of ministry that I used to not have-here it is, I can learn something valuable from any ministry that God is blessing-period!
  I want to learn from people who do ministry differently than me…and it is amazing to me how stupid and insecure pastors and church leaders are when it comes to this.
  For example-anytime I mention TD Jakes or Joel Osteen on this website we have idiots e-mail in with their “concerns” about issues in regards to their theology or teaching style. (As if the person e-mailing is perfect and has it all figured out!)
  BUT, I’ve said it before and I will say it again…I have an incredible amount of respect for both of those men. God is blessing their ministries in an incredible way…and I know there are tons of things that I could learn from them. Just because you are trying to learn something from someone doesn’t mean that you believe exactly like them!
  (And for those who feel like you can only learn from just like you…please repent to God for being shallow and ridiculous!)
  By the way-I’ve had the privilege of meeting Joel…but haven’t gotten to have lunch with Bishop Jakes yet…if anyone can make that connection I would be much obliged!!! (I’m serious!”

I have some thoughts and questions, mostly rhetorical in nature, on the aforementioned.

• First, as per an earlier post, I am concerned about the ‘deeds, not creeds’ mentality that seems to infect so many churches. Deeds and doctrine go hand in hand. One ignores either at ones peril. The preceding quote seems to be, at least peripherally, an outgrowth of an anti-creedal, or anti-doctrinal, sentiment.

• Second, how does one discern that a ministry is being blessed by God? Is the number of people drawn to a ministry the only litmus test for Divine sanction? Just because a church or ministry is large and may do good works, does that necessarily infer that it is healthy?

• Third, is it appropriate for one to question an under-shepherd’s theology or teaching style? Is theology and teaching style important? Are there biblically sanctioned and biblically prohibited theologies and forms of teaching style and worship? Does the church sometime unwittingly engage strange fire?

• Fourth, how do we approach, as disciples of Christ, those who are in error, be they an under- shepherd or one whom the under-shepherd is charged with protecting? Do we approach an young, immature disciple of Christ who may hold error differently that how we would approach on who teaches, one who shepherds, one who wields great influence over others?

There are surface tensions in scripture about harboring a judgmental attitude verses the call to judge righteously. That being said, the Old and New Testament is absolutely rich with calls to discern, to be on the watch for false teachers. A young minister, one whom I hold in high esteem, once stated in a sermon that it is not always easy to identify the wolves that prey on the flock. They do not wear name-tags that state they are teachers of error. Their books do not come with warning labels as to which chapters are unbiblical. The ministries of those whose message is questioned may sometimes benefit the poor and needy. They may be of benefit to the community. Can we, or should we, ignore error because the good they do? What is the difference between error and heresy? The interesting thing about most wolves is that they are not always wrong in all the teach all the time. They may actually have an edifying word or two at times. Therein lies the need for the gift of discernment.

In speaking to the questions raised in the preceding paragraph, perhaps a word or two is in order specifically concerning T.D Jakes and Joel Osteen, the two men mentioned in the blog quote at the start of this post. There are many who strongly suspect that T.D. Jakes rejects the orthodox understanding of the Trinity. Rather, he seems to adopt a modalist view wherein that God sometimes acts as Father, sometimes acts as Son, and sometimes acts as Holy Spirit, the doctrinal position of the Oneness Pentecostal Church to which Jakes has been affiliated. His recent views seems, to me, at very best, to equivocate a bit on this subject. Is the doctrine of the Trinity important? The Gospel looses coherency without this Biblical doctrine. Historically, the church calls those who reject the fundamental doctrine of the Trinity heretics. Beyond Jake’s beliefs of the Trinitarian nature being called into question, Jake also seems to flirt strongly with the prosperity gospel and preaches a psychology driven human-centric message. More could be said on Jakes, but for the sake of brevity, I will move on the Joel Osteen.

Before I proceed, understand without doubt that I am not questioning Osteen’s (or Jakes), status as a true Christian. It is not my job to make that judgment. However, I strongly and without any reservation whatsoever question Osteen’s and Jake’s overarching message. Also, I have listened to Osteen’s messages as well as read the thoughts of others on Osteen. I have also listened to a bit to Jakes as well as reading what others have to say about him. That all being said, Osteen preaches another Gospel; he preaches an ear tickling human-centric message. He seems to reckon sin to be merely a falling short of our God-given potential. He has, on more than on occasion and on national television, at best waffled, and at worst, denied that Christ is the only way to the Father. The pastor of what may be the largest congregation in the world fails absolutely to present the clear message of the Gospel on national television. He, too, embraces a health, wealth, and prosperity Gospel. His God, his Creator, seems to exist to serve and bless the created rather than the other way around. His is the gospel of Anthony Roberts baptized with an occasional Bible verse. Again, for the sake of brevity (so much more could be said), I will conclude articulating my thoughts on Jakes and Osteen.

The pastor whom I quote at the beginning of this post has on multiple occasions, both on his blog and from the stage of his church, expressed disdain for those who want to ‘go deeper’. Pastors influence. Pastors with a big stage, with a big congregation, with a big budget, exert a substantial influence. There is horrific danger to the church when the under-shepherd points his flock to the wolves and say to his flock, “I want to embrace and learn from the wolves!” Such an attitude implies that heresy is benign. Such a pastor, one who calls those in his flock who have questions about a false teacher idiots, will not ultimately answer to the flock or the wolves but to the Over-Shepherd. With great influence comes great accountability.

\Rant mode off.

Here are a couple of links from IX Marks that may be of interests:

On Joel Osteen

On T.D. Jakes

Another for Joel

On Christian nominalism

Found this post over at Ben Witherington’s blog. Following are a few quick thoughts on the post:

Quote of the Day– $3 dollars worth of God

“It has been said that too many Americans have been innoculated with a slight case of Christianity that is preventing them from getting the real thing. Perhaps this has something to do with how much of God people really want. Here is a quote from Wilbur Rees to make you think:

• “I would like to buy $3 worth of God, please - not enough to
  explode my soul or disturb my sleep, but just enough to equal a cup of
  warm milk or a snooze in the sunshine. I don’t want enough of him to make
  me love a foreigner or pick beets with a migrant worker. I want ecstasy,
  not transformation; I want the warmth of a womb, not a new birth. I want
  a pound of the Eternal in a paper sack. I’d like to buy $3 worth of God,
  please.”

I especially like the line ‘I want the warmth of the womb, not a new birth’. This, I am afraid, is exactly what people want out of their worship and church experiences. Not something that demands them to pick up a cross, make major sacrifices and follow Jesus. Rather, they want something that makes them comfortable with who they already are and how they already are. They want acceptance as they are, not repentance so they can be who they ought to be. Think on these things.”

I find myself thinking quite a bit about the phenomena of nominalism in the church recently, and it is quite a sad and sobering subject; I must confess that I have, over the years, been quite guilty of engaging nominalism in varying degrees. It is also heartbreaking to ponder and observe the ease of entering the on-ramp to the broad gate. Mr. Witherington’s thoughts on being inoculated with a slight case of Christianity resonates with thoughts of mine from a previous post on evangelical methods:

“It as if Jesus is a prescription being dispensed a sick world. It is as if I have a fatal, systemic infection and am given a wonder drug, an antibiotic, and I am being told that all I have to do is take this drug and I will be healed. I may not develop an all encompassing love for this drug; I may love not being sick more than I love the drug. I may become more enamored with and focused on the one who gave me this drug than the drug itself.”

Perhaps the often errant evangelical methods and human-centricity of much of contemporary American Christianity contributes to the volume of traffic on the easy path that terminates with a wide gate. It is an ancient and tragically well-traveled road, though. We have been warned.

• Matthew 7:13 (ESV)
  “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.”

• Matthew 7:22-23 (ESV)
  On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

• Mark 4:1-20 (ESV)
  Again he began to teach beside the sea. And a very large crowd gathered about him, so that he got into a boat and sat in it on the sea, and the whole crowd was beside the sea on the land. And he was teaching them many things in parables, and in his teaching he said to them: “Listen! A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seed fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured it. Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it did not have much soil, and immediately it sprang up, since it had no depth of soil. And when the sun rose, it was scorched, and since it had no root, it withered away. Other seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it, and it yielded no grain. And other seeds fell into good soil and produced grain, growing up and increasing and yielding thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold.” And he said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

Forever secure in His loving grip, I persist.

Secure in His grip!

Found the following at Borrowed Breath:

“Jesus said unto them, ‘If ye seek me, let these go their way.’”
(John 18.8 KJV)

“Mark, my soul, the care which Jesus manifested even in His hour of trial, towards the sheep of His hand! The ruling passion is strong in death. He resigns Himself to the enemy, but He interposes a word of power to set His disciples free…The Good Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep, and pleads that they must therefore go free…The thundercloud has burst over the Cross of Calvary, and the pilgrims of Zion shall never be smitten by the bolts of vengeance. Come, my heart, rejoice in the immunity which thy Redeemer has secured thee, and bless His name all the day, and every day.”

Charles H. Spurgeon
Morning and Evening (March 26)

On ‘meeting felt needs’ evangelism….or…the legacy of Finney

“It is my deep conviction that anybody can be won to Christ if you discover the key to his or her heart, and the most likely place to start looking for that key is within the person’s felt needs.”

Rick Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life

• John 6:44 (ESV)
  No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
• John 6:37(ESV)
  All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out
• Romans 9:16 (ESV)
  So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
• Jeremiah 17:9-10
  “The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is desperately wicked: who can know it? I, the Lord, search the mind, I try the heart, even to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings.”
• Romans 3:11
  “no one understands, no one seeks for God.“
  

….now for something completely different……..

Coming to Stuff White People Like a bit late in the game- a satirical blog about the affluent, educated, young, and white. So far, #75, #62, and #93 are my favorites. Especially #93. I used to be young, but I have never been affluent. As far as me being educated, that is way seriously up for debate. I also used to be #93 until I got convicted, not in a convicted by the RIAA kind of way, but by my conscience. Well, perhaps I am more an ‘expert/elite level white person’ now. You would have to read #93 to know what I am talking about. As a warning-a caveat, a few of the comments that follow the articles can be a bit crude at times.