Discernment

Peace, Not “Not War”

Standard

Peace on EarthOne of the oddest duets in the history of music occurred in 1977 when Bing Crosby was in London to film his final Christmas special. Looking for a young local musician with whom to share a song, Bing's people settled on David Bowie. That's Ziggy Stardust-era David Bowie—about as avant garde as was humanly possible in 1977.

And so the unlikely duo performed "The Little Drummer Boy" with Bowie singing a counterpoint, "Peace on Earth," over Crosby. Bing died less than a month later, but the show was broadcast. TV Guide in 1999 proclaimed the Bowie/Crosby duet—a true study in contrasts—one of the Top 25 musical TV events of the 20th century. (Click here to see the TV excerpt.)

Peace on Earth is a continual theme during Christmastime. If you want to send a Christmas card with a religious theme that is considered universally "acceptable," you can't go wrong with one depicting a dove carrying an olive branch.

Unfortunately, pinning down what peace is proves to be as large a study in contrasts as Bing and Bowie. One of the odd things about the idea of peace is that we tend to think of it not as was it is, but what it isn't. Peace is viewed as being "not war."

Christians, the ones who follow the Prince of Peace have just as difficult a time thinking about the positive aspect of peace rather than what it represents in reverse. Pull your average Christian off the street and ask him or her about Philippians 4:8:

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

You're just as likely to get a definition of Paul's list of concepts as not lies, not dishonor, not unfairness, not corruption, not ugliness, and not triviality or cheapness, either. The positive side of ideas like peace or purity get lost in our tendency to work toward the good by thinking of an absence of the bad.

What we are left with in many cases is a deficient idea of what kind of peace Christ has purchased for us by His death and resurrection. We tend to think of peace in 2005 as an absence of stress or conflict. Because of this, we fall prey to the world's peace, a man-made utopian ideal that pursues peace by removing anything that interferes with the goal of total tranquility. Again, negation is what drives us, not true peace.

Unshakable peace is not the absence of something, it is the presence of someone: Jesus Christ. The contrast with the world's peace versus the peace that Christ alone can give could not be starker, yet how poorly so many of us perceive the difference, even in the Church.

Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid.
—John 14:27 ESV

I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world."
—John 16:33 ESV

The peace Christ gives is Himself. We overcome strife because He did and He dwells in us. The peace He gives has teeth because it stands in stark contrast to the peace the world gives, overcoming it by faith.

Therefore at that time certain Chaldeans came forward and maliciously accused the Jews. They declared to King Nebuchadnezzar, "O king, live forever! You, O king, have made a decree, that every man who hears the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, shall fall down and worship the golden image. And whoever does not fall down and worship shall be cast into a burning fiery furnace. There are certain Jews whom you have appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylon: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. These men, O king, pay no attention to you; they do not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up." Then Nebuchadnezzar in furious rage commanded that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego be brought. So they brought these men before the king. Nebuchadnezzar answered and said to them, "Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the golden image that I have set up? Now if you are ready when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, to fall down and worship the image that I have made, well and good. But if you do not worship, you shall immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace. And who is the god who will deliver you out of my hands?" Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, "O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up."
—Daniel 3:8-18 ESV

Two stark contrasts are depicted in this passage. The world's peace is for the trio of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to bow down to the idol. It is the peace of worldly conformity. However, they chose the peace of God, letting Nebuchadnezzar know that there is a peace that passes understanding, the peace that Christ modeled for us when He went as a lamb to the slaughter, the devil's lie ringing in His ears, "Come down from the cross; you are the King of Israel, are you not?"

Death brings peace. Not a funeral goes by that someone says of the deceased that he or she is at peace. But one of the reasons Christ endured crucifixion was to offer a peace that comes only by death on a cross. And so He showed us the way as we too join in saying that we would rather die at the cross than worship the idols of this world. Only the dead to the world know the peace an exchanged life brings at Gethsemane, Christ's for ours.

This Christmas, let us rightfully consider what peace is. It is not the absence of war, conflict, stress, and turmoil; it is the overcoming presence in our lives of the God-man born in a stable, who grew to maturity, learning obedience, and dying so that we might bear the seal of His peace.

May we have more of Him and, in turn, know godly peace.

That Other Standoff

Standard

Is it almost Thanksgiving? You’d never know it from the various wars erupting all over the Christian blogosphere as one faction yells to the other faction,Standoff “Oh yeah, well what about this!”

Yes, I’ve participated, but I’ve tried to be as civil as possible. I’m not trying to establish a beachhead. I just desire that other people understand the faction I’m tenuously a part of, especially since mine seems to be on the small side as factions go.

The cessationist/charismatic debate on the surface has tended to be civil. I think that the default faction leaders, David and Adrian, have done well. There have been a few gashes, but I’m not seeing any severed limbs lying around.

But there’s another war out there and this one has turned grisly: Emerging Church vs. Traditional Church. The rhetoric on both sides is so dense that it’s approaching depleted uranium stage. This week brought out the mustard gas and biowarfare as Emerging Church proponent Justin Baeder attempted a domain rustling by securing “emergentno.com” in an effort to put the spoofing screws to Traditional Church proponent Carla Rolfe of Emergent No at “emergentno.blogspot.com.”

Two words: Truly Lame.

While the cessationists and charismatics appear to at least be listening to each other so far, the Emerging Church (EC) vs. Traditional Church (TC) battle has degenerated into a hatefest. I’m halfway tempted to pronounce a pox on both their houses. (I’ve previously blogged about this issue here, here, and here.) The sad part is that there are people on both sides of this EC/TC war whom I appreciate, and the truly thoughtful folks on both sides are not as heinous as they are portraying the other side to be. In many ways, both sides there are attacking the same fringe elements that are under assault in the charismatic/cessationist debate.

But assaulting the weirdos is easy. I’m a charismatic and I’m fed up with the fringe within the charismatic movement. (I’m even more fed up that the fringe may be taking over!) When examining the war going on between the EC and TC camps, each side has every right to be hacked at the lack of Christlikeness in the other side, but then we all know what Jesus said to the group ready to stone the woman caught in the midst of adultery.

I’ve got zero diplomatic skills, so if I tick someone off here in either the EC or the TC camps, I apologize in advance.

This is what the Bible says:

And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
—Mark 12:28-31 ESV

Earlier this week, Ingrid Schlueter of Slice of Laodicea, one of the TC blogs that is most fiercely battling the EC, had this to say about Traditional Churches:

There is, without doubt, a shortage of biblical love and concern on the part of church members in Bible preaching churches today. There is a reason that emergent churches and mega churches with small groups are attractive. There is no more empty feeling in all the world than having attended a church service as a visitor and leaving without a kind word being spoken. In my husband’s and my search for a church for our family in an area where good churches were in short supply, we found this again and again. At one point, after attending a church for almost a year, I said, “Tom, we could be in an advanced stage of rigor mortis in the back pew and I doubt seriously that anyone would notice.” … After moving to a new state, we visited one church where we needed directions. I went to the church office and said, “Excuse me, we’re just visiting and we need to find out where to put our children for Sunday School.” The woman looked me up and down rather cooly, and gestured vaguely down the hall. “Someone will help you down there.” She said. This, folks, was a small church. But I was new and uninteresting looking and that was that.

I don’t think I can add anything to her disappointment. Far too many Traditional Churches, filled with people who adore God and love the Scriptures, are getting the first part of Jesus’ two greatest commandments right, but are missing the second. Doctrine has no strength unless it’s put into practice. It’s not enough to be able to cut down every heretical anti-lapidarydipsydoodlearian out there with the Truth of the Scriptures. Yes, that has extreme value and must be guarded, but if we do not love the very people that the Lord Jesus died for, all the doctrine in the world will sit idle in our hearts, gone begging for someone, anyone to put it into practice for the disenfranchised of the world.

Ingrid’s lament is even more tragic, since it should be second nature for us to at least love the rest of the Body of Christ, even if we have difficulties with extending the love of Christ to the lost. Yet how can we do the latter, as the Lord Himself showed us, if we can’t even love our brothers and sisters in Christ?

Does the EC do this better than the TC? Probably. That need to be part of a loving community greater than oneself is one of the reasons that the EC is gaining adherents. The people who don’t normally get called to the wedding party are being handed an invitation. The Traditional Church needs to understand this and repent.

Now as open as Ingrid was about failures of the TC, I’ve searched high and low to find someone within EC ranks who was willing to take on the fact that the EC plays fast and loose with a lot of Scripture, muddying just about every doctrine it touches. With Open Theism increasingly discussed within the EC (but not in those exact terms, since the EC doesn’t desire to have exact terms about anything), one wonders if they’re doing the second commandment right, but are unraveling the tapestry that spells out that the first commandment clearly. What the TC does well—speaking to sin, holding up the cross, affirming the inerrancy of Scripture and its authority—the EC outright mangles, with many of the leading lights in the EC giving depositions on doctrine in the same manner that Clinton asked us to rethink what the definition of “is” is.

For this, the TC has every right to hold the EC’s feet to the fire, but the EC won’t stand for it. I won’t go into all the sites posting doctrinal fallacies attributed to the EC (and they are legion), but suffice it to say, it’s hard to think of the EC in any way other than a reactionary movement that can’t form a coherently Biblical reason for everything it supposedly believes. What other outcome, other than rank heresy, can be expected from the EC if it continues to deconstruct the Scriptural base on which it’s supposedly founded. The oldest lie in the Book is, “Did God really say…?” The Emerging Church needs to understand this and repent.

All this makes me tired.

Why is it incongruous to think that we can have solid doctrine that holds up the full revelation and personhood of the Triune God while ministering Christ to His Chosen and the lost around us? When those two are melded in purpose, isn’t that The True Church? Emphasizing any part of the whole revelation of the Gospel over any other part is a recipe for disaster, yet somehow Traditional Churches and Emerging Churches are doing their best to cook up such a mess.

And we wonder why the Church in the West is failing.

Response to “Some Say It Blundered”

Standard

Tongues of FireWell, like a zombie, the issue of the cessation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit raises its head yet again as The Pyromaniac just can’t let the issue drop without getting in the last word. The biggest gift that seems to stick in his flaming craw is that of the gift of prophecy, so he takes up the sword yet again—even as the cessationist vs. charismatic debate has cooled elsewhere—to take one last whack at post-apostolic prophets.

I like reading Pyromaniac, and Phil certainly contends for the Gospel. More power to him! His upholding of the authority of the Scriptures in an age of concession is admirable. He’s ten times the thinker, theologian, and Christian that I am, and I mean that. But in light of this whole debate, I don’t get some comments from him in his latest post, “Some Say It Blundered“:

The continuationists’ response to this series of posts continues to amaze and amuse me. No matter how many times I point out that I am not making an argument for cessationism—not trying to make one; wasn’t planning to make one; wasn’t talking about the issue; did not even intend to bring it up when I began this series—we still have this flood of frantic comments from people who think cessationism is the issue and who demand to be given proof-texts so that they can dismantle whatever exegetical claims cessationism might rest on.

So Phil, who vehemently claims he’s not talking about cessationism here, ends his post this way:

So here’s my challenge to those continuationists who insist that the problem of bogus prophecies pales in importance compared to the exegetical issues raised by cessationism: Name one faithful modern prophet whose prognostications are both objectively verifiable and always one-hundred percent accurate. Because that is the biblical standard (Deuteronomy 18:20-22).

If you argue (as most do) that the gifts being practiced today are different in quality from the gifts possessed by the apostles themselves, you are actually arguing for a kind of cessationism yourself. If no one can identify a prophet who meets the biblical standard for basic accuracy, the question of cessationism is essentially moot anyway.

Let me understand this then. He’s never talked about cessationism being the issue? Then why does he end his post saying that if he’s right, then the whole point is that the gift of prophecy has ceased?

Hmm.

Honestly, I have no arguments with Phil on the issue of bogus modern day prophets. There are too many charismaniac flakes out there spouting man-inspired nonsense passed off as “The Word of the Lord.” What I do object to is his massive implication that just because there are a whole host of nutjobs out there claiming to be prophets that the real gift of prophecy ceased the second the Apostle John drew his last breath. (Using Phil’s same arugment, there are a whole host of lousy preachers, but that doesn’t mean preaching has passed away, has it? Or did I miss something?)

Phil’s burden of proof for charismatics is to spotlight one modern prophet who is 100% accurate. For the purpose of exceptions, I would like to turn that around on Phil (especially in the light of his post’s conclusion above) and have him prove that beginning the day after John died, not a single accurate prophetic word has been uttered by anyone in the rest of Christian history. Now that’s a burden of proof!

Phil’s biggest beef with prophets seems to be that of their predictive role. He’s skipping over the prophetic role of exhortation and correction, which it would be hard to claim has passed away. That being the case, I would offer A.W. Tozer as a prophetic voice. He most definitely exhorted and corrected the Church in his day. And forty years after his death, his writings look more prescient than ever as he describes the death throes of evangelicalism, so perhaps he was even predictive. No one would claim that John MacArthur fails to correct wayward charismatics in the manner of a prophet or that C.H. Spurgeon’s collected sermons no longer exhort today’s men and women. It’s that predictive part that is troublesome.

But if the gift of prophecy is merely predictive, then what to make of this:

But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.
—Acts 2:16-18 ESV

And

Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation.
—1 Corinthians 14:1-3 ESV

And

Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers. If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.
—1 Corinthians 14:22-25 ESV

The nature of the gift doesn’t appear in these passages to be focused on predicting the future. This does not mean that the gift never entails prediction:

Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world (this took place in the days of Claudius). So the disciples determined, everyone according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers living in Judea. And they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.
—Acts 11:27-30 ESV

And

On the next day we departed and came to Caesarea, and we entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. He had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied. While we were staying for many days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.'” When we heard this, we and the people there urged him not to go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul answered, “What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be imprisoned but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” And since he would not be persuaded, we ceased and said, “Let the will of the Lord be done.”
—Acts 21:8-14 ESV

Agabus predicts a famine that Luke confirms. The response by the believers was to prepare to meet the need that would erupt; the Church was guided to react to a specific event in the future. In this way, Agabus’ prophecy mirrors that of Joseph in his predictive interpretation of the dream of pharaoh.

We also hear about the prophetic daughters of Philip, but curiously, their prophetic utterances are not recorded. God did not deem them—whether they were predictive, exhortative, or corrective—worthy of inclusion in the Scriptures. Luke does take care to note the existence of these gifted women, however.

Lastly, we see Agabus again. His prediction as to how Paul would be taken into custody not only foretold future events, but steeled the young Church to the truth that their leading light was going to be extinguished.

Prophecy has a number of components, obviously, but Phil is solely troubled by the predictive aspect of the gift and still wants proof of modern prophets.

Is John Knox prophesying the future a good enough example? Over at The Calvinist Corner there are records of Knox, plus Calvinist Robert Fleming (who studied under the tutelage of one of the framers of the Westminster Confession), and friend of Knox, George Wishart, predicting the future, having visions and dreams, hearing the audible voice of God, and other “charismatic” experiences. Click on the links. As Dave Barry says, “I’m not making this up!”

Modern? No. Inspired by God in the manner of the gift of prophecy and the description of the operation of the Spirit as spoken by the prophet Joel and referenced by Peter on Pentecost (Acts 2:14-18)? Absolutely!

Anyway, there’s a post-death-of-the-Apostle-John set of examples right from Calvinist history. I’m sure there have been plenty more like them in the post-apostolic age among Calvinists and non-Calvinists.

The problem, and I’m totally sympathetic to Phil’s complaint about bogus prophets, is that the scientific rationalism and “We’re rich and enlightened so we don’t need God” attitude only kills the miraculous among people who don’t believe it. While this may be prevalent in the West, it does not negate the fact that God is going to do supernaturally miraculous kinds of things (that some claim don’t happen anymore) among people who still take Him at His Word concerning the gifts. This is why revival is sweeping China and other less scientifically-indoctrinated cultures and is missing the West.

In other words, I think that predictive prophetic utterances that are truly of the Lord are rare in the West. But experience does not trump Truth! That our experience of prophecy today is rare does not mean that it is non-existent or rare in places around that world where those who speak predictive prophecy prophesy in obscurity.

God has a history of taking away from those who do not appreciate what He has given them and giving to people who do. Just because the wind has died down here in our anti-supernatural, rationalistic country does not mean that there are not prophets even now speaking to the Church in China and in places where people are willing to believe because belief is all they have.

So no, I can’t give Phil names of any 100% accurate predictive prophets in 2005 (because tracking supposed prophets is not my calling), but neither can he prove that none exist elsewhere in the world, either today or at any time since the death of the apostles—especially since some leading Calvinists of yesteryear were definitely prophesying, hearing the audible voice of God, and having visions in a Europe not yet overcome by anti-supernaturalism and the Enlightenment.

And that’s all I have to say on this topic.