Leadership advice

I don't know about you, but I have always been interested in who among the churches of Christ attain some level of noteriaty. A few months ago, someone posted a list of our brothers/sisters who were well known in entertainment, sports, business and politics. Most were surprises to me. A couple of weeks ago, one of our brothers was feted in Boston by educators and theologians and others. Bob Randolph, who as served Mass Inst of Tech for many years, was installed as the institute's very first chaplain. You can watch the whole thing here.

While watching it, I was impressed by the remarks by Peter Gomes, a longtime teacher in the Harvard Divinity School. While his remarks are directed to Bob, they make a great fit to our little congregation here in Reno as we study NT teaching/example of elders. Dr Gomes, using the tried and true Baptist preaching method, provides his advice with four "P" words: Practice, Patience, Presence and Persistance. The video above is about 25 minutes. I hope you'll take the time to watch.

Actually, this advice should be heeded by all of us -- men and women alike -- as we strive to provide LIGHT and SALT to our homes and community.

I'll be reporting on my trip to Oregon later.

Love to all, Dan

A Spirituality of Ignorance

I've been lurking a discussion of preaching. Mostly its been recollections of some well-known preachers of the past as well as a couple of current ones. They are critized by some for the lack of Biblical depth. Here is one from InternetMonk that hits this situation head-on (not to be applied directly to the forehead, but to the heart):


Dumb Up, Brother: A Spirituality of Ignorance
September 27th, 2007 by Michael Spencer

Somewhere in the backlogs of this web site I recounted what it was like being on staff at a church full of seminary students. Everyone knew so much that we had real difficulty doing anything- like buying stamps- without endless debate.

Of course, there were advantages to having a lot of smart people in the church. Our liturgy was far ahead of most churches, so on an intellectual and aesthetic level, it was a thing of beauty. We never had problems getting Sunday School teachers. We had problems getting our Sunday School teachers to not use too much Hebrew grammar. And, of course, because we were a rather intelligent bunch, we enjoyed the blessing of not being ignorant.

I’m quite serious. It’s not a good thing to be ignorant, and Christians shouldn’t hold up ignorance itself as any sort as a virtue. As much trouble as it was, I was glad there was always someone around to remind us that economic decisions had connections and repercussions in the real world. I was glad we were made sensitive to racism, sexism, discrimination against the disabled and so forth. I was even glad when some homosexual Christians came by to talk with the pastoral staff about their concerns. They didn’t get what they wanted from us, but it was a conversation that I wasn’t ashamed to participate in.

Now I live in a part of the county where ignorance of every sort is widespread. The dropout rate is almost 30%. Running any kind of school here is a battle. And most of the ministers and Christians in this area are untaught, or at the most, self-taught. Comparatively speaking, pastoral ignorance of various kinds is common.

My friend Walter is a local pastor. He’s never attended Bible school, much less college. He’s not much of a reader. He’s too busy in his bi-vocational ministry just trying to make ends meet and do what his job, family and church need of him to be a scholar. Some of Walter’s sermons are difficult for me to listen to. They are delivered in mountain style and they are, frankly, hard to understand. Mostly, Walter takes a well known character or story and applies some principle from the scripture to the day to day experiences of his congregation.

Mountain people face many difficulties. These include poverty, drugs in the community, unsafe living conditions, lack of economic opportunities, undependable medical care, crime and so on. A mountain pastor is always facing a congregation who, for the most part, are there because if God doesn’t come thorough, life is going to fall apart. Walter’s people believe that he can point them to God’s power and presence. They believe the encouragement of the Lord comes through the “man of God.” They are generally not there to experience a “Christian classroom” with pastor as professor.

Of course, those who are more educated in the doctrines of the Christian faith will tell me that there is much wrong with Walter’s ministry. He needs to know many, many things and preach them faithfully. His congregation will be strengthened by doctrinal soundness in way they won’t be through Biblical stories and their lessons. His ignorance ought to be repaired and his ministry improved. I’ll not argue with that, but I will tell you another Walter story.

One thing I didn’t tell you is that two years ago, I was in the hospital with my dying mom, and I needed a pastor. At the time, I didn’t have one. I guess I could have called any number of the ministers that I know. Actually, having been the minister in the hospital before, I was fairly certain of what would happen, and while I wouldn’t have been ungrateful, it wasn’t that important to me.

Walter happened to be in the hospital that day, visiting members of his congregation and the wider community, as was his habit. He found me, my wife and my dying mom in the ER.
Walter stayed with me all day. He found a doctor who would let my mother stay in our hospital and pass there, instead of flying her to Lexington. He helped me talk to the doctors about the course of treatment mom and I had agreed on. He prayed for me. He was a pastor to me. He was Christ to me.

Never once did Walter attempt a theological justification of the ways of God. He never got out the Bible. (Nothing wrong if he’d chosen to, of course.) He was the Bible for me that day. He put flesh and blood on God and hung out with me. He thought for me when I couldn’t think clearly. He knew my heart and he helped me listen to my heart at a very confusing moment. He treated me with love and dignity that brought joy into one of the worst days of my life.

Walter showed me that day that if you are going to measure life by how it’s lived, and not by how people talk about what they believe, he knows a lot more about God than I do. He’s not read anywhere close to the books that I’ve read and he doesn’t have my vocabulary or degrees. He has the the book that matters, and its author, in him. Compared to Walter’s embodiment of Jesus, I’m stupid.

Those of you planning to write and tell me the other side of the coin can save your ink. I know the other side of the coin. What I’m going to say to anyone listening is that I see little evidence that great learning or correct doctrine produces Christ-like people. It may, and it certainly has a part to play that can’t be eliminated. God has used books in my life to make me more like Him. But a lot of those books have been theologically ignorant and incorrect by the standards of the doctrinally correct and intelligent.

I’ve spent years listening to claims and counter claims about how various theologies, doctrines and denominations can get you the real Jesus if you’ll learn there bit or or join their team. Based on the resulting lives I’ve seen- starting with my own- I’d say we’re all full of “dung” on that one. Christ-possessed individuals exist across the spectrums of denominations, education and sophistication. In fact, I’m starting to suspect God puts his fingerprints all over more people from the wrong side of the tracks than on “our” side just to throw us off. He must enjoy hearing me say someone who does or doesn’t believe theology/doctrine “X” can’t manifest the deep imprint of the fingerprints of Jesus. (Heaven’s Comedy Channel must include hours of stupid things I’ve said.)

Jesus says that God loves to take a Walter and show me real spirituality. He loves for me to realize that I can make an “A” on a theology paper and be useless in a hospital or in the lives of real people. He loves for me to hearing the banging, clanking, crashing uselessness of much of what I’ve valued, and then discover the treasure in what I’ve called trash.

Walter has a life full of Jesus. How did Walter get so full of Jesus? By wanting him there and keeping the doors and windows open for Jesus. Not by learning the outline, the answers and the powerpoint version and stopping there. My version of Jesus often looks a lot like an essay question I’d write. Walter’s Jesus- his rough, unpolished and ignorant version of Jesus- is the real deal, at least when it counts.

Remember that Jesus was a teacher, but he never dismissed class. Life was his classroom, because he refused to isolate truth into compartments. He had no intention of producing a disciple who was an expert in theology but useless in a hospital ER. He had no plan to allow the specializations we use to excuse ourselves from what it really means to be a Christian. Carrying the Cross and Washing Feet weren’t talks. They were your life.

And if you’re smart enough to improve on that, you’re too smart. Dumb up, brother.

The comments that follow (you can read them at Michael's site, just click on the subject at the beginning) are very interesting, including one who was blessed by a CoC elder.

Seeker friendly or God obeying?

There is a growing trend within American churches in general and specifically within Churches of Christ to organize their Sunday gatherings so as to be attractive to outsiders.

It used to be that they were used to beat them severely with hell-fire and damnation. It seemed to work -- superficially. All to often, those who responded to one of the 23 verses of "Just As I Am" were immediately forgotten -- being given little or no discipleship training. Then there was great consternation over their "dropping out" so quickly.

Now, in our postmodern environment, we seek "seekers" so we can make them feel good about entering into a relationship with God/Jesus. Here are the closing paragraphs of an essay, What’s Wrong with Being Seeker-Centered? by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason, one of my favorite sites.

Here is the solution to the church's problem. We have to abandon the seeker model and we have to adopt the Biblical model. Ooh, that sounds so arrogant. You are saying what they are doing is not Biblical? Yes! This is not rocket science. Find me anywhere in the Scriptures where the church gathers as Christians for the purpose of watering down the Gospel message and getting people to come into their church congregation. The church gathered for training and edification of believers, then they went out with the message of sin and salvation so people could get right with God before they could even begin to think about whatever purpose God had for their lives. First things first. That is the consistent model in every single time in the book of Acts where the Gospel is preached.

In all 14 times the Gospel is preached where we have detail of what they said, there is not a single occasion where anyone was invited to have a relationship with God. There is not a single occasion where anyone is told that if they become Christians their life will get better, they will have more purpose, and everything will fall together. There is not a single occasion where the Apostles said that God loves them. The word love appears nowhere in the book of Acts. Now, is the love of God manifest there? Sure. But it is not the central message. It isn’t what leads to salvation. It is not what the Gospel is all about. The love of God is manifest in the efforts that He took to rescue a fallen human race. That’s the measure of His love. But the message is about fallen human beings, about sin and righteousness and judgment, and that Jesus came to restore man to their Savior against whom they have persistently rebelled. That’s the message that saves.

After you read this essay in full, I recommend you brouse other offerings there. No, I don't agree with all there, but it all does make me think.

Dan

Yet another good read

I have finally finished Brand Jesus mentioned in previous posts. I can't recommend it highly enough.

Reaching into the high stack of "to reads," I came out with The Myth of Certainty: The Reflective Christian & the Risk of Commitment , another InternetMonk recommendation.

Here are a few paragraphs that struck home with me (being often guilty as I am):

Too many wounded Christians also indulge in a condescending attitude. There is a sarcastic bite to their use of the phrase "the church" that suggests they bear no responsibility for its failings. Whether through their exposure to secular critics of religion, their greater intelligence, or their broader experience, they have, thankfully, been liberated from the pathetic narrowness which still afflicts others. Adapting the superior attitude they elsewhere condemn, they, like the Pharisee in Christ's parable (Luke 18:11), thank God that they are not like other Christians: narrow, legalistic, unsophisti­cated.

Narrowness, hypocrisy, intolerance aplenty have always been in the church, which is to say the church has always been made up of human beings. But there has always been the Spirit of God, also, moving to work His will in His ways, human failure notwithstanding. One manifestation of that spirit, missing from the standard caricature of the church, is the genuine concern it often feels for the struggling Christian, even if that concern is sometimes shown in heavy-handed ways.

The church often feels like the rescuer trying to talk the would-be suicide victim off the ledge. Nothing could be clearer to the rescuer than that jumping, no matter what the reasons, would be a disastrously wrong decision. Talk about respecting the person's right to choose, or the possibility that he might survive the jump after all, strikes the rescuer as irrelevant, irresponsible, even criminal. The church, in short, often cares about the ultimate fate of the dissenter in a way no one else ever will. Those who would "free" him or her from religious illusion seemingly have very little to offer in place of faith, being not much different from those in the street who shout for the person to jump.

The reflective Christian's relationship to the church, then, is varied and complex. Much of the difficulty that arises stems from an inadequate awareness on both sides of the dual nature of the church as an instrument of God's work and, at the same time, a culturally bound monument to human fallenness.

Many accede to the church's identification of its ways with God's ways. They are presented with an entire package labeled "the Christian faith," which is actually composed of many extra elements—the idiosyncratic traditions of that specific branch of Christendom, particular political and social views, a set of attitudes toward the larger culture, personal preferences and prejudices, and so on.

The Christian in this situation too often adopts the false either-or thinking of the subculture. Some keep their questions and concerns concealed, as likely to condemn themselves for lack of faith as to question whether the concept of faith they have been presented is adequate. Like rape victims who suffer the added trauma of being badgered by a defense lawyer at a trial, many wounded Christians have learned that revealing their thoughts compounds their difficulties, especially in the conservative church.

Others, as they find themselves in ever greater tension with their environment, feel they must either silence a fundamental part of themselves and conform to expectations, or reject the entire package they have been offered and make do without God. They have internalized the often inaccurate equation of their church and subculture with God and His work, and in rejecting one, they mistakenly reject the other.

These people need to understand what Kierkegaard under­stood so well: not only is Christendom not synonymous with a life in Christ, following Christ may well require rejecting parts of Christendom. The church is continually tempted to confuse its mission to spread and embody the "good news" with the need every organization feels to perpetuate and en­hance itself. Karl Earth identified the difference when he said, "Ministration of the word is not administration, however smoothly it may go." 3 The reflective Christian should be sensi­tive to the difference as well, affirming and committing himself or herself to those parts of a Christian subculture which hon­estly attempt to do God's work, while staying free, as much as possible, from the inevitable distortions that abound wher­ever human beings are found.

I constantly have to fight against closed-mindedness. I pride myself as being open-minded then discover how selective that is. There are a few doctrines/beliefs that I resist contrary views. But, then, that's being human (I hope I'm not alone).

Dan

Through A Glass Darkly

by
Kurt Simmons

Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, and charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." (I Cor. 13:8-13)

I Corinthians 13 is among the most famous chapters in the Bible. Its use is so common in wedding announcements and bulletins that it is known even among those that never read the Bible or attend church. The lessons of the chapter concerning the qualities of charity, compassion and love are clear enough. But what about the rest of the chapter? What about those verses referring to the passing away of miraculous gifts and seeing through a "glass darkly" versus "face to face"? To what does this language refer? Some have taken Paul's language of seeing through a "glass darkly" as referring to our lives upon the face of this dark and sinful globe, and that his use of the phrase "face to face" refers to when, in Heaven, we shall see God. Does this interpretation bear scrutiny? Probably not. As we shall see, the better view is that Paul is referring to the Mosaic versus Christian age.

The Two Covenants
If we would understand I Cor. 13:8-13, we must first understand its companion text, II Cor. 3:12-18:

"Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: and not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord."

Even a cursory glance at these verses will reveal their relationship with I Cor. 13:8-13. They were written by the same apostle, to the same church and use the same images. In both texts, Paul refers to a mirror or "glass." In I Cor. 13:12, he says they see through a glass "darkly." In II Cor. 3:18, he says they behold as in a glass with "open face." That Paul is referring to the same things in both texts is almost beyond dispute. Although his language seems furtive, the context shows that Paul is making allusion to the Old and New Testaments.

The Corinthian church was being troubled by false teachers from the Judaizers. The church at Corinth had given these Jews a forum to teach and they were subverting the gospel and seeking to turn the Corinthians away from Paul. (II Cor. 2:17; 10:10,11; 11:4,13-15) The Judaizers were preaching "another Jesus." (I Cor. 11:4) The Judaizers were gainsaying Paul's apostleship, twisting the fact Paul did not accept money to preach, saying it was an insult the Corinthians. They also called his credentials as an apostle into question, saying he was not an eloquent speaker. (II Cor. 11:5-12;12:12,13; cf. I Cor. 2:1-4) Thus, one of Paul's purposes in his second letter to the Corinthians was to demonstrate the superiority of the Christian system and its complete incompatibility with the Old Law. Paul wants the Corinthians to separate themselves from the Judaizers (II Cor. 6:14-18), his thorn in the flesh (II Cor. 12:7), and be reconciled to him and, through his ministry, be reconciled to Christ and God. (II Cor. 5:19,20;7:2)

It is against this background of the Judaizers troubling the church that Paul wrote II Corinthians, chapter three, comparing the ministry of Old and New Covenants. In the course of the chapter, Paul moves back and forth from one covenant to the other, comparing the attributes of each: The Old Law Paul says was of the "letter" (i.e., "fleshly ink"); the New is written with the Spirit of God. (vv. 3,6) The Old was written and engraven in stone; the New upon the believer's heart. (v. 3) The Old, Paul called the "ministration of death" (v. 7); the New, the "ministration of righteousness." (v. 9) The one system gendered death, the other life. (v. 6) The glory attending the giving of the Old was fading (vv. 7,13; cf. Heb. 8:13); the glory of the New surpassing. Paul concludes, saying, Moses put a "veil upon his face" so the children of Israel could not see clearly the end or purpose of law (v. 13), but that he (Paul) used "great plainness of speech" in declaring the gospel of Christ. (v.12) In the gospel, believers behold the glory of the Lord with "open" (i.e., "unveiled") face (v. 18), but the mind of the Jews remained veiled and blinded in reading the Old Law. (vv. 14, 15)

The Old Testament Concealed
A familiar saying has it that the "Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed." If this saying is attributable to any particular passage of scripture it is to II Cor. 3:13, above. In saying Moses put a "veil upon his face," Paul avers to the fact that there lay concealed with in the types and shadows of the Mosaic law prophetic images of the substitutionary death of Christ. "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect...For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." (Heb.10:1,4) Because the mystery of the gospel was concealed and not openly declared, the Jews could not "steadfastly look to the end" of the law: They could not see that the law was merely transitional, to lead men to Christ, but mistook it as an end in itself. "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law to all that believe." (Rom. 10:1-4; cf. Gal. 3:24) The Jews mistook the law as an end in itself; a perfect and complete system of righteousness and not the shadow that it was. Hence, they did not submit to the righteousness of God in Christ.

From what has been said, it is plain that the apostle's reference to Moses putting a veil upon his face is merely a metaphor for the types and shadows of the law; the prophetic aspect of the temple service and other Old Testament laws pointing to Christ. But if Moses put a veil upon his face, Paul used "great plainness of speech" (vv. 12,18), depicting plainly the glory of God in the "open" (i.e., "unveiled") face of Christ. In other words, the apostles did not use types and shadows to convey the message of Christ's redeeming blood. Their job was not to conceal the mystery of the gospel, but to reveal it. Thus, when Paul says that they behold the glory of the Lord as in a mirror clearly, with open face, we understand that he is simply averring to the fact that the gospel is not veiled beneath types and shadows like the Mosaic law. With this explanation of II Cor. 3:12-18 in mind, we are prepared to look at I Cor. 13:8-13.

New Testament Revealed
The context of I Corinthians, chapters 12-14 revolves around the purpose and use of spiritual gifts. In Cor.13:8-13 Paul explains the purpose and duration of miraculous manifestations of the Spirit, likening them to the stuff of childhood, saying that upon attaining maturity they would be done away. The time of childhood reasoning and understanding Paul describes in terms of seeing through a "glass darkly;" but upon maturity, "face to face." (vv. 11,12) Based upon his comparison of the two covenants in II Cor. 3:12-18, it seems clear that Paul is referring to them again here.

God's people were in their infancy under the law, but would come to maturity in Christ. "Now I say, that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children were in bondage under the elements of the world." (Gal. 3:24; 4:1-3) The period of infancy that obtained under the law corresponds to the childhood Paul mentions in I Cor. 13:11. The spiritual gifts associated with the early church were given for the very purpose of equipping God's people with the doctrine and ethical teaching necessary to bring them to majority; to an understanding of man’s need of a Savior and that that Savior is Christ. These gifts were distributed in the beginning of the Christian era during the final days of the Mosaic age. "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy." (Acts 2:17,18; cf. Joel 2:28-32) The "latter days" of the Mosaic age was the beginning of the Christian era. The two overlapped by approximately 40 years, or from Pentecost to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. During this period, the infancy that attended bondage of the law was being brought to maturity in Christ:

"And he gave some apostles; and some prophets; and some evangelists; and some pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. Till we all come to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. That we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine...but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him that is the head, even Christ." (Eph. 4:11-15)

Note that the Christian era did not mark the beginning of spiritual gifts, but their end. The gift of prophecy and power of the Holy Ghost had existed under the Mosaic law, as evidenced by the powerful works of the prophets, but came to completion and ceased in Christ. This is an important fact often overlooked. The infancy Paul refers to in Ephesians is often assumed to belong solely to the church, and somehow different from the infancy under the Mosaic law. But this is incorrect. The infancy that characterized the early church was the same infancy that obtained under the law. It is the doctrine of the gospel that brings those who were children under the law to the "measure and stature" of Christ. Hence when Paul characterizes spiritual gifts as belonging to childhood in I Cor. 13:11, he is saying that they were associated with the era belonging to the Old Law which was about to "vanish away." (Heb. 8:13) If this is correct, then Paul's language in I Cor. 13:12 about seeing through a glass "darkly" may be clearly seen to refer to the indistinct image and shadows cast by divine revelation during the pendency of the Mosaic age.

Through a Glass Darkly Versus Face-to-Face
The term "darkly" in I Cor. 13:12 in the Greek is enigma (i.e., "in a riddle"). Opposite of seeing through a glass darkly, is seeing "face to face." (v.12) These correspond to the "veiled" speech of Moses, and the "great plainness of speech" and "open face" characteristic of the gospel in II Cor. 3:12-18. The Hebrew writer says substantially the same thing: "God, who a sundry times and in divers manners spake in past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son." (Heb 1:1) That is, God spoke to the father in types and metaphors, but now speaks to us openly and clearly (i.e.,"face to face") through Christ. That this is the correct meaning of the phrase "face to face" is easily demonstrated.

In Numbers chapter twelve the story is recorded how Miriam and Aaron reproached Moses for having married an Ethiopian woman. This displeased the Lord, who rebuked the two with the following words:

"And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold. How then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?" (Num. 12:6-8)

Notice that the phrase "mouth to mouth" and speech that is plain or "apparent" is set in opposition to "dark speeches." This language corresponds with I Cor. 13:12. The phrase "mouth to mouth" is equated with seeing "face to face," and "dark speeches" equates with "seeing through a glass darkly." Similar usage occurs in Exodus 33:11, where it is said that the Lord spoke unto Moses "face to face" as a man speaks to his friend. This does not mean that Moses saw the face of God, for "there shall no man see me, and live." (Ex. 33:20) Rather, use of the phrase "face to face" and "mouth to mouth" signify that the Lord communed openly with Moses, perhaps telling him plainly of the coming substitutionary death of Christ, whereas God communicated the plan of salvation to other prophets through more obscure, indirect means. Jesus himself made a similar remark to the apostles shortly before his crucifixion, saying that he had concealed nothing from them. (Jn. 15:15; 16:29)

Although God spoke "mouth to mouth" and "face to face" with Moses, Moses put a veil on his face when speaking to the sons of Israel. (Ex. 32,34; Deut. 9:7-21;10:1-5) But the veil woven from the law of Moses is taken away in the gospel, and we behold the glory of God’s salvation openly in the face of Christ. "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." (II Cor. 4:6) The "shining" in the hearts of the apostles was the inspiration of the Holy Ghost; the glory of God in the face of Jesus is the redemption he wrought in his death, burial and resurrection.

That Which is Perfect
Some will ask, Why does Paul say in I Cor. 13:12 that they saw "darkly," but in II Cor. 3:18 he says we see with "open face?" Doesn't Paul contradict himself? This can be explained in two ways. First, Paul's use of "darkly" in I Cor. 13:12 versus "open face" in II Cor. 3:18 reflects the different emphasis of the two passages. In I Cor. 13:8-13, Paul is emphasizing the temporary nature of spiritual gifts and their identification with the age that was passing away. In II Cor. 3:8-18, the emphasis is upon the surpassing glory of the gospel of Christ. The age to which spiritual gifts belonged was a time of types and shadows wherein man saw only darkly the mystery of the gospel and the glory of the age to come. On the other hand, in the gospel, God causes the radiance of his glory to shine openly in the face of Christ. Jesus has brought his blood within the veil (Heb. 9:12,24); the glory of God's presence has illuminated his skin, which now shines openly in the face of Jesus, our High Priest, as he blesses the people. (Ex. 34:29-35)

Second, Paul's use of "darkly" versus "face to face" reflects the "already but not yet" character of the first century A.D. It must be borne in mind that the church was in a period of transition. The Mosaic age did not stop immediately at the cross, but lingered on for a time, the Hebrew writer describing it as a thing that "decayeth and waxeth old" and was "ready to vanish away." (Heb. 8:13) The Christian age, on the other hand, although begun at Pentecost 33 A.D., did not come in fullness until the old had passed away. Indeed, not even the atoning work of Christ was come in its fullness to the early church, which was given the gift of the Holy Ghost as the earnest of their inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession. (Eph. 1:13,14; II Cor. 5:5) This is why the Hebrew writer describes Christ as a high priest of "good things to come." (Heb. 9:11) If the benefits of Christ's blood and the power of the age to come (Heb. 6:5) were fully realized by the early church, the Hebrew writer would not have had occasion to characterize them as things yet to come. But as it is, the receipt of these things was still in expectation. The seal given in evidence of God's ownership and assurance of the promised redemption was the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, imparted by the laying on of the apostle's hands. (Acts 19:6; cf. 8:17) The earnest passed when the church has redeemed out of the "present evil age" (Gal. 1:4) in 70 A.D. at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by Rome. This is the time Paul referred to in I Corinthians, chapter thirteen; the time when that which was "in part" was done away and replaced by that which is perfect and complete.

Conclusion
During the pendency of the Mosaic age, man saw through a glass darkly. The mystery of the gospel was veiled in Moses, but is done away in Christ. The gifts of the Spirit belonged to the latter days of the world-age identified with the types and shadows of the Mosaic law. Their existence testified to the fact that that which was complete had not yet fully come. "For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did." (Heb. 7:19; cf. 7:11; 8:7) Just as the types and shadows of the law found fulfillment in Jesus, so the gifts of the Spirit found completion in Christ also. Their utility ceased when the body of believers was come to majority; the age set by the Father for inheritance in the kingdom of Christ. (Gal. 4:1-4; Eph. 4:11-13) Childhood has yielded to maturity; and Christians now behold the glory of God "face to face" in the open, unveiled face of Jesus.

Abandoning the “Invisible Lifeline”

Good morning, all. I pray you had a great Sunday. Mine was very good.

Here is the latest (opening paragraphs) from my favorite Baptist writer, Michael Spencer, who blogs as the InternetMonk. Although I don't agree with his remedy, he does a great job identifying a problem.


Abandoning the “Invisible Lifeline”
September 23rd, 2007 by Michael Spencer

“If you’re not 100% sure that you are saved…if you are 99% sure, but have even 1% of doubt, then I want you to come forward this morning and repent. You need to rededicate your life to Christ.” -Closing words of a recent sermon by a well-known Southern Baptist preacher.

I’m on record as an opponent of the use of the public invitation, and the longer I’m around evangelicals who use it, the more convinced I am that it’s usually- not always, but usually- a detriment and obstacle to healthy Christianity. Of its many flaws, the effect it has on preachers has to be near the top. In short, invitationalism has caused thousands of preachers to become “sacramental con men,” promising a “local appearance” of Jesus or the Spirit, and then giving those who come mostly nothing, while telling them that everything is now just fine.

Preachers using the public invitation are tempted to shape the entire sermon around the response of walking forward at the close of the sermon, so finding theological and practical justifications for that walk forward is a major concern. (The better public invitations are, in my opinion, less directly connected to the specifics of the sermon and more directly connected to either baptism, church membership or specific time of prayer.)

If you are like me- and too many of you are. It’s scary- then you’ve heard, over and over and over, what amounts to what I call the promise of the “invisible lifeline” in much evangelical preaching: Do this thing- and that “thing” can vary greatly- and you’ll be taking hold of God and his power. This amounts to a kind of evangelical sacramentalism, and that needs to be acknowledged.

Discernment: Head or Heart?

I see, almost every day, some reference to an individual's being led by the Holy Spirit to some decision or understanding. I don't for one moment deny the sincerity of such a claim. I do, however, question the basis for it. I find only two groups of NT Christians who were promised HS guidance -- the Apostles (John 16) and prophets (Eph 3:5). In the NT, prophets were those who received, miraculously, a message from God (thru the HS?) to be passed on to the disciples. I've not met anyone who makes such claim today (although there are those who do).

Here is a short look into the source of Christian discernment --- relying on scripture written, during that age of direct HS activity, to Christians who were indwelt with the miraculous manifestation of the HS --- which indicates that discernment was a matter of rational investigation/decision making.

Discernment: Head or Heart?
Gregory Koukl

Is "spiritual" discernment an objective judgment of the mind, or a subjective intuition of the spirit?

I had a challenge from a friend a couple days ago that I've heard many times. Maybe it's been leveled at you, too. It has to do with spiritual discernment. Am I in my "head" too much when I do spiritual discernment, and not enough "in the Spirit"? Am I discerning with my mind - with reason and rationality - and not discerning with my heart ? That was her question.

It got me thinking. Since I'm involved in offering a reasonable defense for the faith and advocating clear thinking on critical issues, since I'm skeptical of those whose religion is almost entirely emotional/intuitive, people have challenged me that I'm only "half there" not using all my spiritual faculties and therefore am at risk of running into error.

"Koukl, you're just in your head too much," they suggest. "You're too left-brained when it comes to spiritual things. You're too logical, too reasonable. You don't depend enough on your heart to discern the spiritual realm. Yes you're using your mind, but what about your spirit? Why do you always trust in your own thinking instead of what the Spirit is saying about something?"
These statements imply that somehow I'm not doing a full-blooded assessment of things because I'm only using half of my machinery. My analysis should include the subjective, not just the objective.

This kind of critique assumes a couple of things. First, it assumes that there are two types of spiritual assessment. One is a rational assessment, a kind of theological head-trip. The other is a subjective, intuitive skill that some call discernment, in which we sense deep within us that something is on target or that something is amiss.

Second, it implies that the subjective, intuitive analysis is more advanced and more accurate. It is a "higher method," a more tuned-in capability. It's a spiritual assessment and not just a mental, rational assessment. It's an ability to "hear what the Spirit has to say."

People who make these kinds of comments generally are skeptical of the rational to begin with. It strikes them as being fleshly. It's what Koukl "brings to the table," so to speak, his mind, his thinking, his own rationality, his own ideas. And all of these smack of "the ways of the world," as opposed to going to God and letting God do the analysis for us.

This distinction is incredibly pervasive in Evangelical circles, so much so that some groups have even given a name to it. Some of the so-called Word-Faith teachers distinguish between what they call sensate knowledge --that which you learn with your mind as a result of study and analysis- -and revelational knowledge --that which is mediated directly to you in the spiritual realm. You have this learned stuff you get with your head, and you have this spiritual stuff you get from somewhere "out there," from the spiritual realm.

The second type is definitely better, the argument goes. You need to develop the capability to learn things spiritually so you can really get the deep truth, because the sensate stuff is distorted by the flesh. At least this is implied when you hear these kinds of assessments. And isn't it really true that Evangelicals trust more in their "spirits" than in their minds when it comes to spiritual things?

When I was less than a year old in Christ, I went to a coffeehouse in the basement of a church in Pacific Palisades in California. It was so long ago that Keith Green was not even a Christian yet (for those of you who remember that fine Christian musician who died in 1982 in a plane crash). Keith was there that night playing with Randy Stonehill, who eventually was to lead Keith to Christ. But Keith wasn't a believer that night.

As I entered the door that evening, my friend Joyce paused and put her hand to her chest as if she felt something. "Gosh, I sense that something is wrong. I feel this check in my spirit," she said. And I thought, I can't wait till I get to the point in my spiritual growth where I can know things directly in the spiritual realm, and have this sixth sense and discern things like Joyce just did.

It's 23 years later and I still haven't gotten that sixth sense. Instead, I use my mind. I don't say that as a concession, like I got the booby prize. I think it's biblical. The only way to know if I'm correct, though, is to ask the questions, "Which way is really right? Which is best? Do we discern with our minds, or do we need a sixth sense for optimum spiritual discernment?"

When I was challenged this week, my first response was, "I bet if you do a scriptural analysis, you'll find there are more verses that have to do with an objective assessment than those for a subjective one." I figured that if there really are two different ways of discernment, no one could fault me for being rational if I had scriptural support, especially if more verses supported a objective method than a subjective one.

As I did a mental inventory of the New Testament, though, it suddenly occurred to me that I couldn't think of any verses at all that supported the notion of discernment as subjective and intuitive. None came to mind, so I had to do a little searching.

I went to my NASB Bible Master program and started looking up words, starting with the word "discern." There are only two verses in the New Testament that even use the word. In Matthew 16:3 Jesus says that in the morning, "...[you say] 'There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening.' Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times?"

Jesus was talking about looking at particular signs - the appearance of the sky - and drawing conclusions about what the weather will be like. That's an objective, not a subjective, assessment.
Hebrews 5:14 chastised those who ought to have been teachers of the Word, eating meat instead of drinking milk. Then it says, "...but solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil." So the discernment here is not subjective; it's objective. It's using the knowledge and practice of the truth of the Scriptures to develop an ability to objectively discern right from wrong.

Then I looked up the word "discernment." There's only one use of it, Philippians 1:9-10. It says, "...this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ."

Here, discernment is coupled with knowledge resulting in a morally excellent life. Discernment is knowing what's right and what's wrong. We get that from the Scriptures, as Hebrews 5:14 points out. Sounds like an objective assessment to me.

Then I looked up the word "test." There are fifteen verses that use this word, but only one that applies to our issue. In I John 5:1-3 it says: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because there are many false prophets gone out into the world." Now we're getting warmer, I thought, testing the spirits. Surely now we're moving into subjective.

Not so. Read again. The next verse says, "By this you know the spirit of God. Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God." Hmm...not a subjective test here, but an objective one, once again.

First Corinthians 12:10 talks about spiritual gifts. Here we might be on to something, because distinguishing of spirits is a spiritual gift. There is no hint of objective standards here; there's also no hint of subjective standards. In fact, what's curious about this verse is that it doesn't say anything else in this passage, nor anywhere else, about what it means to distinguish spirits.
I'm inclined to believe that since it's a spiritual gift, it leans more toward a subjective ability, because if this were referring to an objective way to distinguish spirits, we all could do it, and we wouldn't need the gift. So here seems to be one verse that lends itself to a subjective sense of discernment, but it's not something that everybody has, only those who are gifted. If I'm not gifted in this way, then there's no point in me trying to distinguish spirits subjectively, because I have different gifts.

Next I looked up the word "correct," but there were no entries. I looked up the word "correcting" and found II Timothy 2:25, "...with gentleness, correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth." Here the correcting has to do with having a conflict with people who disagree with you. The verse above it says, "...not being argumentative, but gracious when wronged, with gentleness correcting..." Once again we have an objective test. We see that somebody is doing something wrong and we offer correction. No intuitive pondering here or getting into a spiritual twilight zone. Rather a correction "leading to the knowledge of the truth." The truth is objective.

Here's my point. Is it true that Koukl is too much into his head, using his reason to assess spiritual things, and is not into the Spirit enough? Only if the Bible teaches that we must balance the two. But when I asked the question, "Where does the Bible teach such a thing?" I found no such teaching. I was unable to produce any scriptural support except for I Corinthians 12:10 about the distinguishing of spirits, which is a spiritual gift I have not been given, apparently, and which only a few have.

The point is, when the Bible talks about discernment - when it talks about assessing spiritual things - it's talking about a rational assessment based on objective criterion. You can't be "too much in your head" when it comes to spiritual discernment. Using your head is spiritual discernment, if you're using the truth properly.