Tag: spirituality

Tim Keller on Underadapting to Culture

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

Tim Keller is one of leading voices in church planting today. He has thought long and hard about how to do gospel ministry in today’s urban contexts, and is the pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church, a thriving ministry in the heart of New York City. Redeemer has helped mentor other church planters in New York and beyond through Redeemer City to City, a ministry which has helped launch over 200 churches in 35 global cities so far.

Keller’s latest book is Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centered Ministry in Your City (Zondervan, 2012) which is a manual for how to think about doing church. His aim is to explain how “theological vision,” as distinct from doctrine or methodology, should drive how we bring the message of the gospel to the communities we are called to serve. Just from reading through the introductory chapter, I know I am going to want to read through this manual in depth—highlighter in hand. Keller uses diagrams and sidebars, and yes, even some footnotes, to present his information in an understandable format. And what he has to say is definitely worth hearing. He talks about the inevitability of contextualizing and chides preachers who don’t intentionally think through how their church must speak to the culture around them.

This post is not going to be a full review. I’ll save that for after I’ve had time to examine this work at length. Instead I want to focus in on an excerpt from the introduction on how the Church should adapt to culture. As a former independent fundamental Baptist (IFB), I read these words with great interest:

We will show [in this book] that to reach people we must appreciate and adapt to their culture, but we must also challenge and confront it. This is based on the biblical teaching that all cultures have God’s grace and natural revelation in them, yet they are also in rebellious idolatry. If we overadapt to a culture, we have accepted the culture’s idols. If, however, we underadapt to a culture, we may have turned our own culture into an idol, an absolute. If we underadapt to a culture, no one will be changed because no one will listen to us; we will be confusing, offensive, or simply unpersuasive. To the degree a ministry is overadapted or underadapted to a culture, it loses life-changing power. (pg. 24, emphasis added)

I think there is a wealth of wisdom in this brief except. I particularly appreciated the section that I bolded. This seems to be the case with most conservative IFB churches I know. By and large, the wider culture looks at them with bewilderment. Their version of Christianity—complete with Stoic worship, an archaic Bible and outdated fashion—is totally foreign to the average citizen in the community. And the churchly phrases and Christian lingo confuse the message even more.

In a later section in the book, Keller talks of Anglo Christians who are “often culturally clueless”:

They don’t see any part of how they express or live the gospel to be “Anglo”—it is just the way things are. They feel that any change in how they preach, worship, or minister is somehow a compromise of the gospel. In this they may be doing what Jesus warns against—elevating the “traditions of men” to the same level as biblical truth (Mark 7:8). This happens when one’s cultural approach to time or emotional expressiveness or way to communicate becomes enshrined as the Christian way to act and live. (pg. 96)

Keller goes on to discuss how our culture shapes our view of individualism and community. He also decries how church planters or missionaries tend to reproduce the cultural methodology of ministries that have impacted them.

If they have been moved by a ministry that has forty-five-minute verse-by-verse expository sermons, a particular kind of singing, or a specific order and length to the services, they reproduce it down to the smallest detail. Without realizing it, they become method driven and program driven rather than theologically driven. They are contextualizing their ministry expression to themselves, not to the people they want to reach. (pg. 97, emphasis added)

Keller’s point should not be ignored. While we must not overadapt to culture and compromise the gospel, we nevertheless have a responsibility to analyze the culture we find ourselves in and seek to communicate in such a way, that the offense that arises in response to our teaching, is an offense directed at the gospel itself, and not our own idiosyncrasies and cultural traditions.

I recommend that pastors and church leaders everywhere pick up a copy of this important book from Tim Keller. The book is carefully written and the principles are clearly explained. Even if you disagree with some of what he has to say, his book will provide an opportunity to systematically walk through all of the issues related to doing ministry in a given culture. If we recognize that some sort of “theological vision” exists and undergirds what we do, then focusing on what that vision is and how it is developed will have lasting impact in how we do church in the twenty-first century.

You can learn more about Center Church at Zondervan’s Engaging Church Blog this week or from CenterChurch.com. You can see a book excerpt or watch a video trailer at Westminster Bookstore’s product page. Pick up a copy of the book at any of the following retailers: Monergism Books, Westminster Bookstore, Christianbook.com, Amazon, Barnes&Noble, or direct from Zondervan.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Zondervan. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Particular Pitfalls of Independent Baptists: Powerless Preaching

~ Bob Hayton

This series of posts focuses on several pitfalls that especially plague Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) churches. These pitfalls are wide enough to catch people of a variety of stripes, but fundamentalist Christians tend to be especially prone to these errors. Having disentangled myself from some of these very errors, I aim to lovingly warn people of the dangers associated with this way of thinking.

In previous posts we looked at legalism and performance-based sanctification. Today we will look at powerless preaching.

This point may be the most ironic of all. If there is any group of churches which pride themselves on old-fashioned, hell-fire and brimstone preaching, it is independent fundamental Baptists. The patron saint of preaching, Billy Sunday, was unfortunately an ordained Presbyterian. But Baptists love him nonetheless. It is Billy Sunday’s dramatic style that so many fundamentalist preachers seek to emulate. Something about jumping up on top of the pulpit, swinging from the rafters and yelling at the top of one’s lungs appeals to a good many people, I guess.

But for all the bluster and all the bravado, the preaching in many fundamentalist pulpits is quite shallow and powerless. Now this kind of preaching can sure keep the church members in line. It can make people squirmish and even have them stocking up on antacid. But does it really facilitate a meaningful change in their life?

It should go without saying that pretty much anyone can get up there and scream at people. Jack Schaap was as big a preacher as they come. He thundered from the pulpit of the largest IFB church in the land, and boy did he sound good. But screaming about the liberals and the cowardly in the congregation does not amount to godliness, and neither does it facilitate growth.

Often this powerless preaching takes the form of a “toe-stomping” sermon—a hard-hitting, guilt-heaping sermon. One of my more colorfully titled posts, and a favorite from my early years of blogging was “Stomping Toes and Stomping Souls: The Moralistic Bent to Fundamentalist Preaching.” That post and the exchange in the comments section is worth reading as you think through the matter of powerless preaching. But in an effort to be crystal clear in my critique here, I want to excerpt most of another post on preaching, where I gave a case study which helps explain the problem in a more direct fashion.

Thesis

Here is my primary point: preaching that majors on heaping guilt on the hearers in an attempt to motivate them to do better is not “powerful.” It is possibly moralistic, and it is likely carnal. This preaching does more harm than good. Unfortunately it is quite common in fundamentalism, although it can be found in many other circles as well.

Case Study

Here is the passage for our case study: Mark 15:32-42. We will focus on Jesus’ admonition in vs. 38: “Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is weak.” You know the story, Jesus’ disciples had fallen asleep when they should have been praying. Jesus admonishes them to watch and pray. And yet when he returns from another prayer session, he finds the disciples asleep again.

Now let me develop 2 approaches to this passage, which might easily be found in a Sunday morning message. In comparing and contrasting these approaches, I hope my point about moralistic sermons will come home.

A Moralistic Approach

This message would major on the commands “watch and pray”. It would highlight the results of either obeying or disobeying the commands. It would imply that most or all of the listeners have failed miserably in this respect. Based on “the flesh is weak”, the message would set up the listeners to expect to have to struggle in this area. The message would end by calling the listeners to do better and pray more. People might be encouraged to come forward and make decisions to rededicate themselves to fervent prayer, or to confess their failures to pray and vow to change.

This kind of message might be labelled “toe-stomping” or “hard hitting”, as the preacher might very well drive his point home forcefully through screaming, theatrical antics, or tear-jerking illustrations. The listeners would leave the message acutely aware of their guilt and mindful of the preacher’s challenge that they watch and pray much better than they have before.

A Christ-Centered Approach

This message would again stress the commands “watch and pray”. Yet it would also give the fuller context of the passage. The disciples did not watch and pray, whereas Jesus did. Jesus would be shown to be absolutely faithful, whereas even heroes of the Christian faith, the disciples, are seen to be very weak and unfaithful. The message would stress that it is important to watch and pray, as a failure to do so leads to temptation, even as illustrated by the desertion of Christ by these very disciples. Yet the message would stress Christ’s kindhearted response to this lack of faithfulness on the disciples’ part. Rather than harshly rebuking them the second time He found them sleeping, he acknowledged their weakness. He had said the “flesh is weak”.

The message would go on to stress that our very weakness, what makes it so difficult to watch and pray, is that for which Christ died. Jesus knows we are weak, and so Jesus prays for us, even when we don’t. The ultimate victory over temptation is won because Jesus overcame the world, not because we have the innate ability to. We can win, when we depend on Christ and the victory He purchased. The message would end with a call to depend on Christ more in the area of prayer. It would encourage people to trust Jesus and His faithfulness, even as it would call on the hearers to excercise more faith in watching and praying more faithfully.

The message might not be very “hard hitting”, but it would be encouraging and uplifting. The preacher may well get excited as he proclaims Christ’s faithfulness and work on our behalf, but he would be unlikely to scream at or belittle the hearers for their lack of faithfulness in prayer. The listeners would leave the message in a thankful and worshipful state of mind, as they ponder how wonderful is Christ’s faithfulness and work on their behalf, weak and sinful though they be. They would determine to love Christ more and desire to be more faithful in their prayer lives.

I hope this case study proves helpful. I hope that preachers will aim to proclaim the glories and faithfulness of Christ more consistently. We need to realize that in every step of our Christian life we need to trust Jesus more fully. He can help us obey, and it is because of Him that we can. Believers need to be reminded of these truths. They need to be pointed to Christ and encouraged to trust in Him more. They don’t need to have guilt heaped upon them without an offer of hope. There is no hope if I have to depend on my own determination to do better. There is plenty of hope, inexhaustible hope, if I am encouraged to lean on the work Jesus has done for me.

Jack Schaap’s Fall & the Future of the IFB Movement: Act 2

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Just seven weeks ago the news broke about Jack Schaap’s fall. The pastor of the largest independent fundamental Baptist Church in the world had been fired under suspicions of sex abuse of a minor. Well today it was announced that he reached a plea agreement with the authorities and has admitted that he “he took a minor over state lines with the intent to engage in sexual activity” (source Northwest Indiana Times). The Chicago Tribune adds that “Schaap admits that he had sex with the girl, the girl was under his care or supervision, and he used a computer to persuade the girl to have sex with him illegally.”

Following on the heels of that news, Ed Stetzer, an author and leader in the Southern Baptist Convention, posted another article on the future of the independent fundamental Baptist (IFB) movement (see his first article, expressing outrage over IFB leaders refusing to call this “sexual abuse”). In his piece he applauds Dr. Paul Chappell (pastor of Lancaster Baptist Church, home of West Coast Baptist College), for his response to the original news of Schaap’s fall. Far too many IFB leaders, in Stetzer’s opinion, were excusing Schaap and refusing to stand up for the reported victim of his sexual abuse.

Stetzer’s piece is worth reading, as is Chappell’s article. I hope that this high profile event does help the IFB movement to rethink its future. Instead of circling the wagons, I hope they rethink their philosophy and ask the hard questions. Something Chappell seems ready to do. And there are signs that other leaders in the IFB movement are also changing in positive ways.

Regardless, IFB leaders need to come to grips with the fact that their movement, whether fairly or not, has become identified with sexual abuse by predatory pastors in a very public way – and this is how the general public may think of the IFB movement going forward. The time for change is now. Now is the time to correct course, admit mistakes, stand up for victims, and take clear steps toward addressing even the hint of improprieties in this regard.

I encourage you to read Stetzer’s piece and join the movement for real reform in the IFB.

Don’t misunderstand me. Please know that there are very many good IFB churches, there are countless scores of faithful believers and sincere pastors. Ditching the movement, and maligning everyone in it is wrong. But so is acting like the problems of other IFB churches don’t say something is wrong with the wider IFB movement. It doesn’t matter where you think you are in the IFB movement, you must realize and admit this error and take pains to expunge it. Falling back on your “independency” will only allow the problem to grow and may blind you to some deep problems that aid and abet the spread of insular thinking and a mindset which facilitates abuse of all kinds.

Reformation Gems 3: William Greenhill on the Conversion of the Jews and Ezekiel’s Temple

~ Bob Hayton

Reformation Gems are excerpts from selections contained in the Reformation Commentary on Scripture, a new commentary series from IVP which gathers the best Reformation-era comments on the text together all in one set. The volumes in this commentary series resurrect long-forgotten voices from the Reformation age and in so doing they recover the piety and vivacity of that era. I hope that by sharing some excerpts from this series, I will edify my readers and promote this important commentary series.
 _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _ 

Today’s selection comes from the Reformation Commentary on Scripture: Volume XII (Ezekiel, Daniel). In perusing the comments on Ezekiel, I was surprised to see quite a bit about the prophesied conversion of the Jews and their return to the Promised Land. Most of the comments in that vein came from William Greenhill or Matthew Meade (one of his fellow non-conformist ministers). While many today herald the formation of the modern nation of Israel in 1948 as evidence that God has kept this promise, most still hold to a future conversion of Jewish people to Christianity. Many Reformed theologians, amillennialists and the like, understand the return to the land to be fulfilled already historically, and ultimately that it points to Christ and the greater inheritance that His Church experiences. In this vein, see my “Understanding the Land Promise” series. But I found it insightful to see this same question wrestled with in the 1600s soon after the Reformation by Greenhill, Matthew Meade and others.

Here are some excerpts from Greenhill’s comments, as well as evidence that he wouldn’t quite fit the mold of a standard dispensationalist, when it comes to his thoughts on other aspects of Ezekiel’s prophecy. He takes a literal view of the land in some passages, and in others, he sees a spiritual fulfillment:

Literal interpretation of a future “conversion of the Jews” and “return to the land.”

Ezekiel 37:21-22
…The conversion of the Jews we may with warrant expect and pray for. God has promised to gather the children of Israel and to bring them to David their king, that is, Christ…. Seeing God has promised to do it, we may believe and pray for the same. (pg. 185)

Ezekiel 37:26-27
Some look on this promise of David to be king over the Jews as accomplished in the reign of Christ the Messiah when here on earth because he gave out his commands then and required obedience to them…. Others are of a different judgment and believe that this great promise made here to the two houses of Judah and Israel remains yet to be performed: (1) Because the two houses are not yet united into one…. (2) Because the Jews do not own Christ; neither one house nor the other do it; neither Judah nor Israel acknowledged Christ to be the Messiah…. (3) The Jews have been, and are still, under many kings and shepherds…. (4) They shall then walk in the ways of Christ, not the ways of Moses….

From Ezekiel 37:26-27 I shall only give you this observation that there are great and precious promises that concern the Jews, yet unperformed. The everlasting covenant of peace, Christ being their king and temple, with many others, the Jews expect the fulfilling of. And so may we, for God is faithful and will make good his word. (pg. 187)

Ezekiel 39:25-29
God hid his face seventy years from them in Babylon; and since their crucifying of Christ, he has hid it from them sixteen hundred years. But he has a time to let them see his face again, and never more to hide it from them. They shall have his favor, his counsel, his help and protection. They shall not be under severe judgments but enjoy sweet mercies. (pg. 193)

Spiritual interpretation of Ezekiel’s temple.

Ezekiel 41:1-7
“Of the signification of this temple.” Some make the court belonging to it to represent the world and the temple to represent heaven. It may be considered whether the porch does not point out the common professor of the faith, the temple, the true saints, who are temples of the Spirit, and the holy of holies, the saints in glory, the condition of those made perfect. The true representation of this temple, I take it, is the body of our Lord Jesus Christ; both his body natural and his body mystical, namely, the church. (pg. 207)

Ezekiel 45:1-6
Having laid down the platform and measures of the temple, he comes now to the division and measuring of the land, wherein things are dark, difficult and deep, not to be attempted by human strength but by the help of Christ’s Spirit, which makes dark things, light, difficult things easy and sounds the greatest depths.

…There was a distinction of the land of Canaan in Moses’ and Joshua’s days (Num 34, 35; Josh 13, 21). But this division differs much from the same, and when the Jews returned from Babylon, there was no such division made of the land. Had it been, Ezra or Nehemiah would have made mention of it. This division, therefore, is not to be understood literally but spiritually, and the completing of it to be looked for in the church of Christ, not in the Jewish state or temple. Here, then, seems to be a spiritual lotting, and bringing people out of Judaism and heathenism into the kingdom of Christ and fellowship of the gospel…. The work of grace, and bringing of people into the church, is free; nothing in people, or from people, procures it. (pg. 220)

Ezekiel 47:13-23
Having given you the literal sense of the words… now let us see what may be the spiritual sense of them. Indeed, according to the letter, they were not fulfilled after the return from Babylon, but mystically under the gospel they were.

1. Then here is held out to us the great extent and largeness of the church under Christ and the gospel. The land mentioned signifies the church’s state; and the bordering of it out, north, east, south, west, the extent of it into all parts. The Christian church is larger than the Jewish, that was shut up in one nation; now it reaches to all nations (Mt 28:19), neither Asia, Africa, Europe or America is excluded (Mt 24:14; Lk 24:47; Rev 15:4). The church under the gospel is universal and invisible.

2. Those who are subjects or members of this church are not hypocrites but Israelites. Those who were not Israelites, and true Israelites, were not to be in this church…. true Israelites, such as Nathaniel was (Jn 1:47); of Jews inwardly, such as are circumcised in heart and spirit (Rom 2:29); of such as are enrolled in heaven (Heb 12:23); of sealed ones (Rev 7), and these stood with the Lamb on Mount Zion (Rev 14:1). These made up the church and body of Christ. (pg. 227-228)

About the Reformation-era author: William Greenhill (1591-1671). English nonconformist clergyman. Greenhill attended and worked at Magdalen College. He ministered in the diocese of Norwich but soon left for London, where he preached at Stepney. Greenhill was a member of the Westminster Assembly of Divines and was appointed the parliament chaplain by the children of Charles I. Oliver Cromwell included him among the preachers who helped draw up the Savoy Declaration. Greenhill was evicted from his post following the Restoration, after which he pastored independently. Among Greenhill’s most significant contributions to church history was his Exposition of the Prophet of Ezekiel. (pg. 434-435)

Learn more about this commentary series at the Reformation Commentary page at IVPress.com, or check out this sampler (PDF). You can pick up a copy of Reformation Commentary on Scripture: Volume XII (Ezekiel, Daniel) at any of the following online retailers: Westminster Bookstore, Monergism Books, Christianbook.com, Amazon, Barnes&Noble or direct from IVP. You may want to consider becoming a member with IVP and getting the entire series on a subscription discount of more than 40% per volume.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by IVP. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

On Approaching Revelation Literally

~ Bob Hayton

I’ve been thinking about the relative merits of approaching the book of Revelation with the aim of taking all the visions and judgments literally as opposed to symbolicly. Rev. 1:1 does say that John has a message for us to know, but it says more than this. This message was “signified” to John (this is the alternate reading in the footnote of the NASB, the main text has “communicated”). The word for “signified” is semaino, which means to “communicate by symbols.” So John in effect is answering our question: he is telling us his book communicates via symbolism.

For more help on the question of how to approach Revelation I turned to Invitation to Biblical Interpretation by Andreas J. Köstenberger and Richard D. Patterson for help. Their book is endorsed by a wide assortment of conservative evangelical scholars and is the best work on hermeneutics I’ve ever read. (Read my reiew here.) I found their comments on this question insightful.

What could be wrong with interpreting apocalyptic literature such as Revelation literally? The main problem with such an approach is that it inadequately considers that the literary genre of a given text establishes the rules for how it should be interpreted. Meaning is intrinsically bound up with genre.119 It follows that genre provides a context assigned by the author to communicate meaning. We have already shown that the genre of Revelation is prophetic-apocalyptic. The apocalyptic genre, by definition, is highly symbolic and not intended to be interpreted in a literal manner. For this reason, a rigid literal interpretation or literalism may actually obscure the author’s intended meaning rather than expose it. Kevin Vanhoozer correctly poses a distinction between the literal sense and literalism.120 If the interpreter is concerned with authorial intention, the literal sense must not be reduced merely to letters, langue, or locutions. Vanhoozer contends that “literalistic reading is less than fully ‘literal’–that it is insufficiently and only ‘thinly’ literal–insofar as it ignores the role of authorial intentions and communicative acts.”121 What Vanhoozer means by this is that the literal–but not the “literalistic”–sense is what the author intended to convey by a given text; this, in turn, is especially true for figurative and symbolic language. In other words, if Revelation is prophetic-apocalyptic in nature, ascribing literalism to its numbers, proper nouns, and other images may actually prevent a proper understanding of John’s intended meaning.122 A more profitable hermeneutical approach is to reverse the interpretive order by placing the symbolic in the foreground while shifting the literal into the background. Thus, rather than positing the dictum “When the literal makes sense, seek no other sense,” we suggest that a better maxim in interpreting apocalyptic is “Start out with the assumption that a given statement or image is figurative rather than literal.”

G.K. Beale makes a strong case for the primacy of the symbolic over straight one-to-one literal correspondence.123 He argues that semaino in Revelation 1:1 conveys the idea of “communication by symbols,”124 noting that the normal usage of semaino in Scripture implies some type of “symbolic communication.”125 Since Revelation is a symbolic means of communication, the literal approach for interpreting the “plain sense” of the image may actually distort the intended meaning of the text. Beale maintains, “Of course, some parts are not symbolic, but the essence of the book is figurative. Where there is lack of clarity about whether something is symbolic, the scales of judgement should be tilted in the direction of a nonliteral analysis.”126 For reasons such as these, the symbolic plane should be considered primary while care should be taken not to reduce the meaning of symbols to something exclusively spiritual.

(pg. 550-551)

Footnotes
119 Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation, 236.
120 Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text?, 310.
121 Ibid, 311.
122 Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 90.
123 Beale, Book of Revelation, 50-55.
124 Ibid, 52.
125 Ibid, 51. See the discussion of the allusion to Daniel 2:28-30 (LXX) in Revelation 1:1.
126 Ibid, 52.

The authors go on in their book to explain how Revelation itself, through John’s extensive use of the Old Testament (quoting and alluding to OT Scripture, as well as making use of well known OT symbols), helps us when it comes to discerning when and where symbolism exists and how to interpret it.

For my part, knowing that the author intended his book to “communicate by symbols” (Rev. 1:1) as an apocalyptic book, requires me to take this into account as I approach this great book.