Truth and Relationships...Continued

This will be my last entry before I leave for Africa.  I will try to resume as soon as I can after I return and recuperate.  You may post comments while I'm gone, but I won't be able to respond until I get back.  My blog helper, Dan Kreider, will monitor your comments and clear the helpful and edifying ones (and the vast majority have been great!).

If you have not been reading all the comments on the last TRUTH AND RELATIONSHIPS article, you are missing some interesting stuff.  I am encouraging additional comments on this article because I feel they are surfacing some very important concepts.  To keep up to date you may wish to respond with your comments, even from the previous article, to this article.  That way I will be less likely to miss them when I return.

Now for a few more concepts.

I hinted at this one, but no one went for it.  So, I'll say it more bluntly and you all can kick it around.  Am I the only one, or is professing Christianity/evangelicalism just a lot wimpier than it was 30 years ago?  I remember times when  men of God who disagreed could confront, argue, and edify one another - like "iron sharpening iron" - and still walk away with mutual respect.  Yes, there were some cruel, unloving abuses too.  But it seems that now the pendulum has swung so far the other direction that many just suffer in unloving silence for fear of someone getting upset or disagreeing.  It seems that we have quite a representation of babies (under the guise of postmodernity?).  Consider 1 Corinthians 11:19  -  "there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you."  We need not fear controversy, because controversy reveals those who are approved, and sorts out those who are not.  Controversy can sharpen our convictions!  Exhortation, rebuke, reproof, confrontation  -  these do not have to be bad things to avoid.  They are, in fact, an important part of biblical love.

Next one; does anyone else feel the danger I feel with this mindset of "major and minor doctrines" (or essential and non-essential, or primary/secondary/tertiary)?  Of course, some truths are more central/foundational to our truth claims than others (the Trinity, substitutionary death of Christ, et.al.)  But when other matters are made minor, it appears to me that the "minor compartment" keeps getting larger and larger, swallowing up even these very central truths.  So, now the push (relative to Islam) is "as long as it is monotheistic"- that is to say, the Trinity is not as important (a minor or secondary doctrine!!).  Some may feel I'm being extreme, but this does seem to be the trend.  Where does it end?  I would say apostasy, except for a relatively small, faithful remnant.

Last one; why does it seem that I am being pushed to settle for the "lowest common denominator" instead of "going for the gold"?  Let's learn more and more of God's precious truth instead of settling for less.  All for His glory!!

Project C.A.R. '08

THE MINISTRY OF DR. KEITH A. SHEARER TO THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC (JAN. 08 – 25, 2008) –

Please pray . . .
 
1.) for the spiritual health and growth of New Beginnings Grace Brethren Church while Pastor Keith is gone (for ministries, attendance, offerings, and a great spirit of worship.)

2.) for Pastor Keith's family during the time of this project.

3.) for safe travel for Pastor Keith (see Itinerary).

4.) for physical health and strength for Pastor Keith.

5.) for revival among the churches of C.A.R. (over 350,000 believers) as Pastor Keith preaches to their National Conference.

6.) for the lost to be saved and the saved to be edified as Pastor Keith preaches at three churches in C.A.R.

7.) for the success of the pastoral leadership training that Pastor Keith will be doing in Bambari, C.A.R.

8.) for wisdom for Pastor Keith to identify one or more new men to be nationwide/continentwide leaders in Africa.

9.) for the training Pastor Keith will be doing for business and government leaders in Bangui, C.A.R.

10.) for the missionaries NBGBC supports there – Mboi Andre, Francois Ngoumape, and Augustan Hibaile – that Pastor Keith will be an encouragement to them.


ITINERARY
Jan. 08    Tuesday
·        Depart Myerstown at 3 PM for Newark, NJ airport
·        Depart Newark at 7:15 PM on Air France Flight #0019
 
Jan. 09    Wednesday
·        Arrive Paris at 8:40 AM (2:40 AM, EST)
·        Depart Paris at 10:55 PM on Air France Flight #0880
(4:55 PM, EST)
 
Jan. 10    Thursday
·        Arrive Bangui, C.A.R. at 5:40 AM (11:40 PM – Jan. 09 EST)
·        Depart airport immediately and travel by truck with Mboi Andre to Mbaiki (108 km) which is the site of the national conference
·        Preach at the National Conference of GBC's in C.A.R. at 2 PM (8 AM, EST)
·        Evening – counsel with pastors and leaders
·        spend night at Mbaiki (rainforest)
 
Jan. 11    Friday
·        Morning – counsel with pastors and leaders
·        Mid-day – travel back to Bangui (truck)
·        Evening – counsel with pastors and leaders
 
Jan. 12    Saturday
·        Travel with Mboi Andre and team to Bambari (all day truck trip)
 
Jan. 13    Sunday
·        Preach at the 1st Bambari GBC
·        begin training (formation) of new pastors and evangelist in Bambari
(eastern C.A.R.)
 
Jan. 14-18   Monday – Friday
·        continue training classes
 
Jan. 16    Wednesday
·        Preach at the 2nd Bambari GBC
 
 
Jan.  19   Saturday
·        return truck trip to Bangui
 
Jan. 20   Sunday
·        Preach at the Ngou-Mboutou GBC in Bangui
 
Jan. 21-24   Monday – Thursday
·        SALT training with Augustan Hibaile in Bangui(for key government and business leaders)
 
Jan. 24   Thursday
·        Depart Bangui airport 11:05 PM (5:05 PM EST) on Air France Flight #0883
 
Jan. 25   Friday
·        arrive Paris 5:45 AM (11:45 PM, Jan. 24, EST)
·        depart Paris 1:15 PM (7:15 AM, EST) on Air France Flight #0018
·        arrive Newark, NJ  3:40 PM
·        arrive Myerstown @ 8:00 PM

Comments Appear!!

Readers may wish to recheck the 12/05/07 blog post on Israel and The Church (pt.2). Some new comments have appeared. They are worthwhile and I hope they are not ignored. Thanks to those participants for their contributions.

Grace, Truth, and Incarnation

As a gift for the Remember-the-Incarnation-Season, here is a brief section from D.A.Carson on John 1:14. Can reading good Bible commentaries bless you? I hope this reading will.

-The words "full of grace and truth" may be descriptive of the Word, especially if "pleres" ('full'), is understood to be nominative, agreeing with "logos" ('Word'); but because 'full' is irregularly declinable (that is, it does not formally 'agree' with any particular word form), it seems best to take the expression as a modifier of 'glory'. The glory of God manifest in the incarnate Word was "full of grace and truth". In that case John is almost certainly directing his readers to Exodus 33-34. There Moses begs God, 'Now show me Your glory' ( Ex.33:18). The Lord replies, 'I will cause all My goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim My name, THE LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion' ( Ex.33:19). God's glory, then, is supremely His goodness. So Moses stands on Mt.Sinai, and, we are told. 'the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there before him, and proclaimed His name, THE LORD. And He passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "THE LORD, THE LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in LOVE AND FAITHFULNESS, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin" '( Ex.34:5-7).

LOVE AND FAITHFULNESS spell out the nature of the goodness which is God's glory. The two crucial words in Hebrew are "hesed" (variously rendered 'steadfast love', 'mercy', 'covenant love' - but it has recently been shown quite clearly that it is the GRACIOUSNESS of the love that is at stake), and "met" ('truth' or 'faithfulness'). This pair of expressions recurs again and again throughout the Old Testament. The two words that John uses, 'full of GRACE and TRUTH', are his ways of summing up the same ideas. The glory revealed to Moses when THE LORD passed in front of him and sounded His name, displaying that divine goodness characterized by ineffable grace and truth, was the very same glory John and his friends saw in the Word-made-flesh.-

Now, as the old saying goes, 'if that doesn't light your fire, you're wood is wet!'. The glory revealed to Moses was "the very same glory" John saw in Christ!! The glory of Christ, the glory which is "full of grace and truth".

May God shine in your heart to give you "the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ" (2. Cor.4:6).

Truth and Relationships: A Distinction?

I've been asked to write about what I will call a "perceived distinction" between doctrine and relationships. I don't really like doing this because it should not be necessary to "reconcile friends". The question I've been asked to address is, "Which one of these two is higher?". Ideally, the question should not have to be asked. But, we do not live in ideal situations, even in churches, so it evidently takes some work to understand how the friendship between these two works. So, here goes! (I've learned over the years that a lot of patient participation is needed to have this discussion, so I hope there will be a few comments).

Two Bible passages have inevitably been used whenever I have been in this discussion: John 1:14 (grace and truth) and Ephesians 4:15 (truth in love). Somehow a dichotomy gets superimposed over these verses. The dichotomy gets expressed in ways like this: (1) "There are 'truthers' and there are 'lovers'", or (2) "There are 'gracers' and there are 'truthers'", or (3) "We need to keep truth and love (or grace and truth) in balance" (kind of a 50/50 thing). The assumption seems to be that people who are more focused on truth do not tend to be loving or gracious, and, conversely, people who are grace/love oriented are not very concerned about truth (usually meaning doctrine). I suspect the reason for the imposition of the dichotomy is that there ARE people who tend to neglect one side or the other. Then the idea of "balance" is suggested as the answer to the problem. But "balance" actually makes bad matters worse because it implies the lessening of one for the increasing of the other ( i.e. "Don't be so concerned about doctrine - you need to become more relational" - which is usually the way it goes these days; or "Don't be so involved with people - you need to be studying/reading more"). In reality, both sides of these verses are to be viewed as one whole, not a dichotomy. If there is a "balance" it better be a 100/100 one - to be 50% truthful suggests that the other 50% is something other than love. The believer in Christ should never seek to be less than completely truthful, loving, and gracious.

Another way to reveal that there should not be a dichotomy would be to juxtapose terminology in our common usage. We could (and should) refer to the mass of biblical data on relationships (like most of the book of Proverbs, Ephesians 4:25-6:9, Matthew 5-7 as examples among hundreds) as "The Doctrine of Relationships". Wouldn't this be great as a necessary part of the systematic theology curriculum (instead of dividing it off into counselling or some other department)? Or, as we live out friendships, why do we not think of our times together as "theological occasions" ( what a great name for a party! - OK, you may think I've gone too far now:-))? In this light, check out Section Four of my book "Childlike Faith" dealing with communal interpretation < www.bmhbooks.com>.

But, what happens when this is not working properly, which may be a lot of the time? I have asked myself many times, is there any biblical precedent/teaching for rightly sacrificing doctrinal truth in order to save relationships? I have not found any. I also have asked, is there any biblical precedent/teaching for rightly sacrificing relationships in order to save doctrinal truth? I have found, with tears, significant models for this. In a real way, the intent of this sacrifice of a relationship is ultimately to save the relationship too.

Titus 1:9 - 2:1 People who contradict sound doctrine are to be rebuked
Romans 16:17-18 People who cause division by differing from approved teaching are to be avoided
Proverbs 28:23 Rebuke is necessary to preserve relationships
II Corinthians 6:17 - 7:1 "come out"/ "be separate" - "having these promises"

There are negative examples, too, of times when a separation does not occur and one's life is damaged as a result (i.e. Lot not leaving Sodom in a timely fashion). Enough said about this for now.

The result of this line of thought is that doctrine and relationships must go together. But, when there is a breakdown in this whole, truth (including the Doctrine of Relationships) must assume the highest priority. One might ask, "But isn't love the greatest?" (1 Cor, 13:13). Yes, love is the greatest out of faith, hope, and love! But, love "rejoices with the truth" (1 Cor.13:6). Love is higher than faith and hope, but it must be governed by truth, which makes truth greater. The prophet Amos asked this question - "How can two walk together except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3). It is shared truth that builds shared love.

Israel And The Church (Part II) So What?

Having established that there is a distinction in the New Testament between Israel and the Church (while yet honoring a continuity), a good question would be, "so what?" I'll just mention a limited selection of implications, but the list really could be made quite lengthy.

First, here are some examples of failing to keep this distinction: Mormonism, which would so hold that they replace Israel that their official doctrine includes the establishment of the Kingdom and building of the Temple on the American continent (hmmm . . . would that influence Mitt Romney's presidential leadership??); Assemblies of Yahweh/Jehovah's Witnesses/other "Sacred Name" cults - all tend to think they are the new Israel and do Israelite-type-things in their systems, such as Jewish festivals, new moon celebrations, Sabbath observance; though not "Sacred Name", Seventh-Day groups whether "Adventists", "Baptists", et.al. have the same problem; Roman Catholicism (amillenialism) is also a "replace Israel" program with a new priestly class, buildings designed to replicate the tabernacle/temple with a holy of holies where only the priest is to go (Protestant amillenialism does the same thing in concept, but not in physical practice because of the "spiritualizing" tendency of their hermeneutic); I rather cringe when I see an edifice with the name "Baptist Temple" (and of course there are Mormon temples - is their a difference?). Keeping the distinction helps us keep God's people away from all such nonsense.

Second, this distinction should keep us aware that God yet has a future program for Israel. All of God's warnings and promises to Israel will come to pass. If this is "spiritualized" rather than "actualized", how would any believer of the current age be able to trust that God's promises will be actually fulfilled for them. There is an actual geo-political future for Israel promised by God (yes the Church will rule and reign in this too, but if it does not happen there will be nothing to rule!). This is what makes the Church (made up of both Messianic Jews and Messianic Gentiles) the strongest supporter of Israel on earth today. Because of the lack of keeping the distinction there is massive confusion among professing "evangelicals" as to what their posture towards Israel should be (see for example <http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=14685 > and <http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/novemberweb-only/148-33.0.html>). Even worse, some "evangelicals" are cuddling with Islam in a way that denies the very heart of biblical truth-claims (the Bible, the Trinity, etc.) and insults Israel (see < http://www.yale.edu/faith/abou-commonword.htm.>). For a great example of how to get this right, see Randall Price - "Should Christians Support Israel? (available at < www.worldofthebible.com>).

Third, this distinction enables the believer in Christ to stay focused on the Blessed Hope, the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ. Post-tribulational, mid-tribulational, pre-wrath, and partial-rapture theories of eschatology all ignore the distinction between Israel and the Church. As a result, they project coming tribulational terrors and judgments promised to Israel (and the unregenerate world) onto the Church. Thus, they are more focused on tribulational events than the Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, there can be pre-tribulational rapturists who forget that "signs of the times" are for Israel, forget that the rapture is a signless event, and thus are more interested in looking for signs (earthquakes, famines, etc.) than for Jesus - this too is problematic. The distinction between Israel and the church is essential for understanding the New Testament doctrine of the imminency of the return of the Lord Jesus Christ in the air to resurrect/catch-up His Church.

Fourth, this distinction produces a heart for Jewish evangelism. "To the Jew first" is taken seriously by those who love Israel. It is not that those who do not share this distinction may not have an interest in Jewish evangelism either. But it certainly is true that most ministries dedicated to the evangelism of Jews do.

Other blessings and understandings flow from this distinction as well. I hope this encourages your ministry and the thinking through of such issues for the glory of Christ.

Keeping Distinctions: Israel and the Church

At no point does the word "Israel" in the New Testament ever refer to anything other than ethnic Israel. To say otherwise is to superimpose personal theological presuppositions over the text of Scripture. Go ahead, check it out - Matthew 2:6, 2:20, 2:21, 8:10, 9:33, 10:6, 10:23, 15:24, 15:31, 27:9, 27:42; Mark 12:29, 15:32,; Luke 1:16, 1:54, 1:68, 1:80, 2:25, 2:32, 2:34, 4:25, 4:27, 7:9, 22:30, 24:21; John 1:31, 1:49, 3:10, 12:13; Acts 1:6, 2:22, 2:36, 3:12, 4:10, 4:27, 5:21, 5:31, 5:35, 7:23, 7:37, 7:42, 9:15, 10:36, 13:16, 13:17, 13:23, 13:24, 21:28, 28:20; Romans 9:4, 9:6, 9:27, 9:31, 10:19, 10:21, 11:1, 11:2, 11:7, 11:25, 11:26; First Corinthians 10:18; Second Corinthians 3:7, 3:13, 11:22; Galatians 6:16; Ephesians 2:12; Philippians 3:5; Hebrews 8:8, 8:10, 11:22, Revelation 7:4, 21:12. There it is - the complete list.

Nonetheless, some want to continue to insist that the Church has replaced Israel in the program of God, making the Church into "the new Israel". This is entirely unwarranted, is dangerously biased against Israel, and harms a spiritual leader's ability to do ministry because of the cloudiness that results in interpretation of the above passages and the Old Testament promises to Israel. Proponents of this "replacement theology" can only agree that one of the above verses makes their point - Galatians 6:16. Without any exegetical warrant at all, they conclude that "the Israel of God" in Galatians 6:16 must not be believing ethnic Israel (whether in the present or the future), but rather the Church. Apparently to to them adding the phrase "of God" makes the statement mystical enough that it must not mean Israel anymore. From there an entire "replacement theology" has been developed in a way that just assumes itself to be true, but never substantiates itself by biblical exegesis (see for example the irresponsible works like O. Palmer Robertson's "The Israel of God" or Philip Mauro's "The Hope of Israel"). The idea of the replacement of Israel is then constantly superimposed by them over all other pertinent Bible passages, rather than letting these texts speak for themselves. In contrast to the replacement theologians, Alva J. Mclain in his classic "The Greatness of the Kingdom" was clear in stressing from Romans 9-11 that if God does not fulfill His promises to Israel, you cannot be sure that God will fulfill His promises to you either. That is, if the Church has "replaced" Israel, what assurance is there that God will not "replace" the Church?

If we let Israel be Israel in all its usages in Scripture we will be free to let the promises, threats, warnings, etc. of God to Israel be for Israel, and we will be free to let the promises, threats, warnings, etc. of God to the Church be for the Church. It is quite clear in Ephesians 2:11 through 3:12 that the "commonwealth of Israel" (2:12) is not the same thing as the "new man" (2:15), or "God's household" (2:19), or "the mystery" (3:4-7), or "the body" (3:6). Thus a distinction between Israel and the Church is proven by this passage. Just visit Israel and you will not need any more proof than that to see that Israel is not the Church. This superimposing of a mystical "Israel" over other passages cannot be a valid hermeneutical method. Letting each text speak for itself, letting Israel be Israel and the Church be the Church is a valid hermeneutical method. This has massive implications for our ecclesiology as well as our eschatology. In other words, if we want to get ministry right we had best get this distinction right.

For excellent further study see Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum's "Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology (pp. 680-699) and Stanley Toussaint and Charles Dyer's "Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost" (pp. 181-195). I also just waded through an outstanding new book, "Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged" by Barry E. Horner (B&H Academic, 2007). Well worth the effort. While I concur with most of Graeme Goldsworthy's "Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics", and certainly appreciate his main sentiment, I found his critique of "evangelical Zionism" (which I consider to be an ungracious slur) to be inconsistent, out of place, and actually "eclipsing the Gospel" in the Old Testament and in eschatology ( pp.169-171).