How is a confidential relationship created? Does one person have the authority to establish confidentiality by fiat? What about the request of the leader/moderator of a group—does that, by itself, establish confidentiality? Does remaining in a group whose originator desires confidentiality equate to tacit approval of that imposed confidentiality?

It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.—variously attributed to Mark Twain, Will Rodgers, etc.
Much ink has been spilt—or, perhaps, many keys have been struck—over the recent release of emails from the National Partnership going back almost a decade. In usual internet fashion, there has been as much clutching at pearls as there has been gentle (or not so gentle) nudges to move along because there is nothing here to see. I suppose with these emails having been leaked, anyone curious is able to decide for themselves.
My concern in this particular article is not so much if the emails contain nefarious plots, but rather the oft repeated rejoinder that these emails are confidential, and that the real nefarious deed was their illicit release to the public. This is not a small accusation—keeping confidence is a serious matter.
It is not very far into the emails that a header is added indicating the desire of the moderator of the email group that all those who receive the email keep it confidential. Not long after that, the moderator emails the group in response to a leak of emails to a presbyter outside the group. In that email, he declares his understanding of the confidential nature of the group. In particular, he asserts that confidentiality exists because of the private (i.e., non-public) nature of the conversation the emails contain.
This assertion (both specifically in that particular response and more generally as the claim is being bandied about) raises a number of questions. How is a confidential relationship created? Does one person have the authority to establish confidentiality by fiat? What about the request of the leader/moderator of a group—does that, by itself, establish confidentiality? If the leader of a group indicates that it was his intention for the group to have a layer of confidentiality, does that declared intention, by itself, establish confidentiality? Would that confidentiality be retroactive according to the originator’s desire, or would it only establish confidentiality on an ongoing basis? What if members of that thing remain after the leader has indicated his intention? Does remaining in a group whose originator desires confidentiality equate to tacit approval of that imposed confidentiality?
Much in line with caveat emptor, I would say “let the one who seeks to establish confidentiality beware.” Confidentiality requires the consent of both—indeed, all—parties. Without that consent, statements of confidentiality are both hollow and unsupported—regardless of what statements are made in the actual emails.
It does not appear that the apparent initiator and the primary communicator did have consent from all parties that this was, in fact, a confidential group. Take the repeated reminders of the authors desire for confidentiality. If membership in the email group was conditioned upon confidentiality—that is, if a prospective member had to explicitly agree to confidentiality to be part of the group—then the emails would not indicate the authors desire for the group to be confidential. Rather, the emails would remind the members of what they had agreed to in joining the group.
Read More

In this booklet, Dr. Beisner does not start with ideas from the Social Justice Movement and move from there to God and His Word. Instead, he first understands Scripture as sufficient and authoritative, and uses it to evaluate the Social Justice Movement. In that way, he accurately shows what God and His Word say about the Social Justice Movement, avoiding what the Social Justice Movement says about God and His Word.

In 2018, Dr. E. Calvin Beisner published Social Justice vs. Biblical Justice: How Good Intentions Undermine Justice and Gospel. In his usual scholarly fashion, Beisner analyzes the arguments of the social justice movement that have become especially popular in the last decade.
After Beisner covers what some Christians say is a Biblical principle on wealth redistribution and equalization, with short sections on The Sabbatical Year Law (p. 12), The Jubilee Year Law (14), the sharing of goods at the church in Jerusalem (15), and the Pauline collections for believers who were suffering famine (17), Beisner gives the Biblical definition of justice and the Biblical way it is to be carried out.
Dr. Beisner is especially careful to avoid eisegesis, “making Scripture align with his own thoughts,” and exegetes, “making his own thoughts align with Scripture,” what the Bible says about justice. He shows four Biblical criteria for justice (20-23).

Justice requires impartiality and equal application.
Justice requires rendering to each his due.
Justice requires proportionality between acts and rewards or punishments.
Justice requires conformity to the standard God set forth in His law.

These four things imply that a person has rights. Beisner distinguishes negative “rights against harm” from positive “rights to certain benefits” (23). “Properly understood, rights are not guarantees that something will be provided for us but guarantees that what is ours will not be unjustly taken from us. That is, properly speaking, rights are not positive but negative” (24-25). That means, in the case of a positive right, there is no way of knowing what a person has any right to. Different eras and different geographic locations present differing needs. If a person has a right to food and clothing, how much food would a person have a right to? And what kind of clothes? And if a person has such “positive rights,” how can those rights be provided for without violating another person’s “negative rights”? A person’s right not to have their possessions taken from them, whether it be food, clothing, or money to buy things, must be trampled upon if other persons have positive rights. Beisner shows that “positive rights” are not Biblical rights.
In the next section Beisner gives the Biblical prescription for five types of justice: Commercial, vindicative, retributive, punitive, and remedial.
Read More

A theology that traces promise across the contours of human history and misery, sees that its trajectory ends in a genuine hope which is of greater gravity and density than any merely topical words of comfort. Biblical theology arms the pastor, sitting by a death bed, sitting in the ruins of relational betrayal, occupying the hinterland of doubt and complexity, with the one Story whose ending is joyous without being artificial.

If a theology is true and good it will live well outside of the textbook and the classroom. If a body of scholarship fairly represents the word of God and the God of the word, then its impact will be felt beyond the pulpit and the more obvious didactic activities of the local church. A theology which has the Incarnation at its heart but that fails to land in everyday life is an inadequate and anaemic parody of divine revelation. Not all theology is experiential in content but it must be experiential in impact, the truths the theologian handles are not lifeless pinned butterflies but live specimens whose beauty and benefit should be seen and felt in the world, with the weight of God about them.
The work of a local church pastor is one of the most obvious interfaces for theology and practice, for doctrine and experience. Taking Biblical Theology as my starting point (I hope to write on Systematics at a later stage) in this post I want to share three ways in which this discipline has helped me in the caring aspect of my work as a local church pastor:
1. The Big Story gives me a book that travels well.
One of the things that can mark out a pastoral visit to a home from those made by other members is that such contact provides an informal opportunity for word ministry. This is the ‘house to house’ element of Christian service that Paul was keen to highlight to the elders in Ephesus (Acts 20:20), the ministerial priority that Richard Baxter so heavily emphasised in The Reformed Pastor, and an unseen work that forms the backbone of individual and family discipleship within the local church. Whether it is to the hospital ward, a care facility, or a home, bringing the Bible with me and leaving a word from it behind me is one of the rich privileges of being engaged in Christian service.
In this forum Biblical Theology comes into its own. Many (but by no means all) of the people whom a pastor visits are suffering from ill health, or have faced other setbacks in their Christian walk. This means that many of the texts shared in this environment are Bible promises: the consolation of the Psalms, the tender ministrations of the major and minor prophets, the pastoral heart of Jesus, or the loving counsel of the apostles. The dynamic of a broken heart or stricken health coming into contact with the living word of God can be an electrifying experience. This is often where the real conversation begins, with the word softening the reader’s and hearers’ hearts and opening a door for the mercy and goodness of God to be ministered. The danger of this, however, is that texts can be atomised or psychologised, and the insistence on context that garrisons the pulpit on a Sunday can be lost in the side ward or living room during the week.
This is where the Big Story of Biblical Theology is so beneficial. It has become common to sneer at Jeremiah 29:11 as the anthem of a therapeutic Christianity, but its counsel can be shared with those in crisis merely by disclosing something of the movement of redemptive history that gave dimension and pathos to the prophet’s words. Sections of the Psalter can be ripped away from their moorings, but Biblical Theology insists that the setting is what allows a gem to show its lustre. Having the imprint of the drama of redemption, the sweep and line and arc of what God was doing when this text was written, allows the pastor to speak hope that is real and tangible, textual and contextual. Where appropriate, and where the capacities of those visited allows it, brief context can be given to what is being read, opening up the conversation to be a teaching moment rather than a textual extraction/abstraction. It is hard not to believe that the Holy Spirit can honour the word of God when shared in this way.
2. Small stories are where the Big Story happens.
Aside from direct teaching of Scripture, Biblical Theology helps with pastoral visitation because of its esteem for history and narrative as the channel through which we come to know the mind and ways of God.
Read More
Related Posts: