Don’t Just Be an Expert in What Things Don’t Mean
Let’s refuse to be those who only know what the Bible doesn’t mean, and let’s find out what it actually means. God’s word is profitable, even those verses that are misunderstood and abused. I’m glad I dug in to learn what Philippians 4:13 meant. It is incredibly encouraging, and I want more to be strengthened and satisfied in Christ alone through it. So let’s be a people who love to know our God and live on every word that comes from His mouth.
In our study of Philippians, I got a chance to teach Philippians 4:10-13. As it is when you dig into God’s word, I was very encouraged to consider Paul’s Christian contentment in every circumstance. And then… there was that verse. You know… the one. The verse that makes it into every pre-game speech and every pre-test declaration. The one that makes you roll your eyes. Even without saying it, you know which one I’m talking about. And you definitely know what it doesn’t mean. And as I was studying it, I had a list of about ten things that it didn’t mean. But here’s the problem: I had to teach that verse. I couldn’t just be an expert in what it didn’t mean. I needed to know what it actually meant.
It is really easy to be an expert in what things don’t mean. I hear that verse, “I can do all things through him who strengthens me” (Phil 4:13), and I immediately have my defenses up. My mind says, “That’s not what that means!” But unfortunately, that’s normally where it stops. All I’ve done is to discard a false idea, while failing to replace it with a true one. That’s the danger of only being an expert in what things don’t mean.
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
Reflections on the Evangelical Fracturing, Ten Years In
During times of instability we naturally seek out allies to stand back to back with us as we feel attacked. Yet this ecumenism of the trenches can be quite dangerous. It causes us to abandon faithful brothers and sisters who we ought to persist in working with, as well as encouraging us to form quite dangerous and unstable coalitions with people who might align with us in some highly specific ways but are actually quite out of step with orthodoxy. As Gen X leaders failed or lost credibility and as older friendships broke down, these vital restraints on individual and movement behavior fell away. The thought leaders who need people leaders in their ear lost those relationships and vice versa. The outcome of all this is that our movements have become smaller, less effective, more prone to schism, and more angry (if right wing or progressive) or more anxious (if centrist). One of the tragedies of all this is that we now find ourselves in an enormously exciting time from an evangelistic point of view.
While reading an ARC of Mike Cosper’s forthcoming book, I was caught up in how Cosper described the church planting scene of the mid 2000s, particularly as it existed around the then still embryonic Acts 29 network.
There was a blending of innocence and confidence and hopefulness that Cosper captures well. I wasn’t part of it directly, but I remember listening to Mark Driscoll sermons and then Matt Chandler sermons at the time and picking up something of the atmosphere from afar. (I was born in 1987, left the fundamentalist church I grew up in in 2005, spent 18 months in an attractional megachurch more in the Willow Creek stream than Mars Hill, and then found my way to RUF and the PCA in 2007, where I have been ever since.) From about 2005 until the early 2010s it seemed as if Acts 29 might represent the defining movement in the next wave of evangelicalism: They had found a way of blending the best insights of the attractional movement of Bill Hybels and Rick Warren with the theological and missiological acumen of Tim Keller and John Piper.
Moreover, because of their particular grunge-inflected aesthetic they naturally avoided some of the worst excesses of the attractional movement, which was a tendency toward the superficial and happy clappy. Their strength here wasn’t necessarily a product of any special virtue—Gen X tends toward the brooding and melancholic, after all, and virtually all their leadership were poster children for Gen X. But the resultant synthesis of their many influences was compelling.
Moreover, as their three defining leaders of that era became established, you could see how the three fit together and could, together, chart a path toward long-term health and success: Mark Driscoll represented the kind of alpha figure who could draw a crowd, win a following, and define the direction of the network through sheer charisma and force of will.
Darrin Patrick, meanwhile, represented a more cerebral and patient voice who was in many ways ahead of his time in his analysis of cultural issues as well as being more balanced in his approach than many of today’s commentators.
Matt Chandler was the more personable balance to Driscoll. Driscoll would deliver the “bodies behind the bus” type speeches and Chandler could then come in behind to help patch up whatever relational issues were created by Driscoll’s harsh style that frequently shaded into straightforward bullying, especially as he became more and more detached from external authority. Again, this sort of arrangement within leadership is not without parallel in church history: Melanchthon was the moderating force on Luther. Oecolampadius was the moderating presence with Zwingli. Bucer was a moderating influence on Calvin. Friendships of unlike personalities who balance one another out are a common occurrence in church history.
In a happier timeline, Driscoll, Patrick, and Chandler would still have another 15-20 years of effective ministry ahead of them as a team: Driscoll is still only 53, Patrick would be 53, and Chandler is 49. For context, Tim Keller was 58 when he published The Reason for God and John Piper was 42 when Desiring God was published and 54 when he spoke at Passion in 2000 and gave his “Don’t Waste Your Life” sermon. So if you think Piper’s Passion sermon and Keller’s Reason for God are their most consequential or influential personal works, that would mean that each of the Acts 29 triumvirate would still be several years away from the ages Piper and Keller were for their most far-reaching, influential works—and that is all to say nothing of all the things both men did after those two signature works. Keller published 29 books after he wrote The Reason for God, many of which I actually like better than Reason. Piper wrote or contributed to nearly 60 volumes after his Passion sermon many of which, likewise, surpassed the Passion sermon or, in my opinion, Desiring God.
Of course, that isn’t the timeline we’ve gotten. Driscoll’s story took a dark turn toward ever greater autonomy and away from real accountability, Mars Hill collapsed, and the magic of those early years never returned. Patrick tragically took his own life after a lengthy and by all accounts genuine process of repair and reconciliation with staff and church members at the church he planted. Chandler has remained in ministry and the Village has continued to do much good work, including particularizing their many campuses into standalone congregations—the same trajectory of the former Redeemer and Bethlehem campuses. But the continued ministry of The Village has not been enough, on its own, to sustain the old Acts 29 momentum. Additionally, Chandler himself took a leave of absence in 2022 after engaging in an inappropriate online relationship with a woman from the church.
Meanwhile, Acts 29 itself has struggled with pastors in the network breaking off in a variety of different cultural and theological directions with some going more progressive while others have taken a reactionary conservative turn.
The story of Acts 29’s trajectory will feel familiar to many of us outside of the network as well. Indeed it may serve as a small-scale model for much of the evangelical fracturing that began around 2015 and has continued through to the present. So it is worth considering why all this took place.
Technology
One pastor friend who serves in Acts 29 observed to me that many of the early Acts 29 leaders began ministry in the early 2000s. Sermon podcasting was only just beginning and many Acts 29 guys were early adopters, as Cosper documented in The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill. What this did is it allowed many early Acts 29 pastors to grow what today would be called a somewhat large digital platform and to do so at a relatively young age and very early in their pastoral ministry. That in itself is somewhat dangerous spiritually because, as others have observed (including Driscoll himself at one time), talent can become confused for maturity. So obviously talented men grew large platforms while still quite young and, often, they were not prepared for the spiritual weight of having such a sizable audience.
But there is one other factor to consider here: The mid 2000s was a very unusual time on the internet. Podcasting was established enough that you could grow, by the standards of the day, quite a large platform via sharing your sermons. And yet social media had not yet emerged as a tool for flattening hierarchies and bringing institutional leaders into more direct contact with their audiences. So the positive reenforcement one gets from possessing a large platform was there for these young pastors, who could generally have a decent idea of how many people their sermon podcasts were reaching. But the negative feedback and critique one can get from social media were not yet present.
So even by the standards of ministry in the digital era, a strong case can be made that no one labored in a more spiritually dangerous digital environment than Gen X pastors in the early 2000s. This might seem counter-intuitive given how destructive smartphones and social media have been and that neither of those things existed in the early 2000s and were not at all well established until the late 2000s. But if the danger in our current era is being malformed by negative attention, the danger of the former era was the easy optimism of digital tech with virtually no familiarity with its now very well known dangers. It was an era marked by a false hope that recognized the reach of digital media but did not perceive the spiritual dangers of it and was, technologically speaking, largely insulated from the negative feedback mechanisms that became unavoidable in later eras.
What this adds up to is a technological context that made it difficult to be obscure and that tended to inculcate pride and militate against humility. Certainly, one could simply not podcast one’s sermons or one could charge for them, as Keller did, which had the effect of minimizing his reach. But the entire tech optimist ethos of Acts 29 tended to militate against that sort of tech skeptic approach, I think. And so the network that had a chance to be the future of American evangelicalism writ large saw its leaders and young pastors formed in a deeply corrosive environment whose dangers were for the most part invisible and, often, were only discovered much later.
Leadership Failure
Perhaps the defining story of the past five years—and likely to be an ongoing story for the next five to ten years—has been the often disastrous leadership transitions in many evangelical organizations as Baby Boomers have retired and their Gen X successors have failed to hold the institution or movement together. Amongst the many reasons these failed transitions have been a problem is that effective movement leaders serve as a restraint within their institution. When the restraint fails, the movement fragments. You might say that effective leadership creates an environment in which the impact of Charles Taylor’s nova effect is somewhat muted. (The nova effect refers to the nova-like explosion of new identities and forms of expression that arise under modernity.)
To take two examples from outside Acts 29, Keller did this in the PCA by helping limit some of the battles that the missional wing of the denomination would sometimes try to fight. On at least one occasion he intervened to get a presbytery to withdraw an overture to GA that would have created enormous (and quite unnecessary) controversy and dissent within the church. Piper played a similar role in his circles: Piper was able to hold together a cultural critique that could say hard and necessary things about racial injustice while also maintaining a firm commitment to necessary right-coded political issues. This had the effect of restraining his institutions as a whole, keeping them back from both the hard left and hard right. His annual practice of preaching on racial injustice one week and then taking up abortion the following week is indicative of this synthesis. But in the aftermath of Piper’s retirement, the dam broke, as it were: The leaders attracted to the social justice aspects of Piper’s ministry flowed in one direction while those drawn to his more right-coded positions became similarly less restrained.
As Mars Hill collapsed and Driscoll fled ecclesial oversight and discipline, the leadership that had framed, guided, and directed the network began to fail. And as with any dam that breaks, the resulting flood can run in many different directions and behave unpredictably.
Read More
Related Posts: -
How Hard is Your Heart?
Charles Spurgeon once noted, “The same sun that melts wax hardens clay. And the same Gospel which melts some persons into repentance hardens other in their sins.” God pursues us in mercy, love, and truth. As God shines the light of the gospel, a soft heart grows softer still. As God comes after the proud, a hard heart grows harder still. How do we soften our hearts? By growing in humility.
You can tell a good piece of fruit or vegetable by its color and by its feel. The avocado might be the trickiest one I know. A novice might think that a bright green, hard avocado is the best, but counter-intuitively, the best avocados are dark, with shades of brown, giving easily to the touch. The heart of a growing Christian also gives easily to the touch.
No one comes to see a counselor or pastor to talk about their problems not wanting success, but the state of our hearts so often resists the very thing we want. A soft heart can turn my mediocre counsel into pearls of wisdom. A hard heart will turn the wisest counsel ever offered into sawdust.
Solomon offers encouragement and a warning, “Blessed is the one who fears the Lord always, but whoever hardens his heart will fall into calamity” (Prov. 28:14). It’s easy to see this in others’ lives, isn’t it? We observe a friend responds to loss by numbing themselves with food and we worry about how they are shutting down. We watch as a family member poorly chooses their friends and we are concerned about the pit they are driving toward.
And yet, when it comes to our own hard hearts, we are often blind. We excuse our unhealthy behavior as an aberration, not a pattern.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Why We Need a Messiah Who is the MIGHTY GOD
We need a messiah who is the MIGHTY GOD because we CANNOT STAND against evil, ourselves. We must never ever underestimate the power of sin. As Christians, we’ve been set free from slavery to sin; if we hadn’t been, we never would have come to faith in Christ! But sin is still present with us, lurking in the throne room of our hearts awaiting an opportunity to seize control any moment.
Have you ever wondered why it is so hard to keep our passion for Christ burning brightly, why we are not more consumed by loyalty and faithfulness as we should be to the one who died for us? Author, Max Lucado, gives a thoughtful answer—we face an enemy of our soul called, the agent of familiarity. Lucado explains,
His commission from the dark throne room is clear, and fatal: “Take nothing from your victim; cause him only to take everything for granted…” His aim is deadly. His goal is nothing less than to take what is most precious to us and make it appear most common….He’s an expert at robbing the sparkle and replacing it with the drab. He invented the yawn and put the hum in humdrum. And his strategy is deceptive. He won’t steal your salvation. He’ll just make you forget what it was like to be lost. Worship will become common place and study optional. With the passing of time, he’ll infiltrate your heart with boredom and cover the cross with dust. Score one for the agent of familiarity (God Came Near.)
Has the poison of the ordinary dulled your excitement about walking with Jesus? If so, our hope is that understanding the titles of Messiah Jesus from Isaiah 9, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, will explode your view of just who this being is who called you by name to be his follower.
Why did the long-awaited Messiah of Israel have to be the MIGHTY GOD—and what does that title mean for our everyday walk with Jesus today?
The Isaiah 9:6 Text
The phrase, mighty god is constructed from the words EL for god and GIBBOR for mighty. Interestingly, the Hebrew word GIBBOR is often used to describe a powerful hero. This word use is not accidental. As OT scholars have pointed out the true hero of the OT is not Abraham, Moses, Joshua, or David, but GOD. The promised land was not Abraham’s land bequeathed to his descendants, but a land of milk and honey promised as God’s gift to God’s people. The “Ten Words” brought down from Sinai were not Moses’ laws but those of a God so holy that anyone who touched the mountain would die. The conquest of the promised land by Joshua was not accomplished by Joshua’s might, but because Yahweh fought for his people. The establishment of David’s throne in Jerusalem by defeating surrounding peoples like the Philistines was accomplished not by David’s military prowess but by God’s power—a truth David understood when he said to Goliath,
“You come to me with a sword and with a spear and with a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. This day the Lord will deliver you into my hand…that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, and that all this assembly may know that the Lord saves not with sword and spear. For the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give you into our hand,” (1 Sam 17:45-47).
Behind the truth that it is Yahweh who saves, (which is what the name Joshua and Jesus mean) was the truth throughout Israel’s history that their political oppression was always the result of their disobedience to Yahweh. A careful look at what the OT prophets proclaimed reveals that the cause of Israel’s military oppression was their sin—their disobedience to their covenant obligations. For example, in the very first chapter of Isaiah, we read,
Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, children who deal corruptly! They have forsaken the Lord, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are utterly estranged. Why will you still be struck down? Why will you continue to rebel?… Your country lies desolate; your cities are burned with fire; in your very presence foreigners devour your land; it is desolate, as overthrown by foreigners….If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be eaten by the sword; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken (vs 4,5,7, 20).
The oppressors that the Messiah needed to overthrow never were the Assyrians, Babylonians or Edomites. The oppressor always was SIN. It was the sin of the Israelites that led God to allow their political enemies to oppress them. That is why the great lesson of the OT is that God’s people cannot save themselves. “The Law never succeeded in producing righteousness,” writes Paul. “The weakness was always human sin,” (Rom 8:1-3). The promised Messiah would (eventually) overthrow the political oppression Israel experienced—but only because the Messiah would overthrow the real cause of Israel’s military occupation—their SIN. And God, himself, would be the only one powerful enough to break the human shackles of sin. The Messiah would be the MIGHTY GOD—God himself, and the only being powerful enough to overthrow evil. Isaiah goes on to tell us that this Messiah, alone, who is the MIGHTY GOD has the power to ABSORB EVIL and OVERTHROW EVIL. In chapter 53 of Isaiah, the Messiah ABSORBS EVIL: Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows…he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.
Isaiah goes on to tell us that God is displeased with human sin but sees no human who can solve the problem and overthrow evil. Only the MIGHTY GOD, himself, is powerful enough to defeat it. So, God will clothe himself in righteous and fight this spiritual battle.
Justice is turned back, and righteousness stands far away; for truth has stumbled in the public squares, and uprightness cannot enter. Truth is lacking, and he who departs from evil makes himself a prey. The Lord saw it, and it displeased him that there was no justice. He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no one to intercede; then his own arm brought him salvation… He put on righteousness as a breastplate and a helmet of salvation on his head (59:15ff).
Sin is so powerful that only the MIGHTY GOD, Messiah Jesus, could overthrow it.
The Awful Power of Sin to Corrupt and Destroy
The message of the OT could be summed up: No human has the moral power to keep God’s Covenant Law—to be righteous. Thus, no man can experience the presence of God. Were sinful man to see the face of God he would instantly perish—the reason that God, in grace, expelled fallen Adam and Eve from the Garden. In Paul’s words to the Romans, By works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law… the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe, (3:20-22).
The awful power of sin to corrupt is revealed in the moral failure of OT fathers to fulfill their task as the heads of their families, following the covenant pattern of Abraham, about whom God said, “For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised him,” (Gen 18:19). Sin’s awful power had so corrupted the Israelites, that almost no fathers fulfilled this obligation, causing the OT to end with the prophecy in the very last verse, that finally one would come who would turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers.
Read More
Related Posts: