Daily Archives: September 1, 2014

Of Shepherding Sheep (Pt 2)

Posted on by
Reply

(Beware the False Standard)

Alright, now that we have “stirred the pot” and hopefully piqued your interest, we need to set about explaining why Humanism and Rationalism are so dangerous and why adopting their methods will spell disaster for the Church.

2. Secular Standards are Poison:

The absolute problem with Humanism and Rationalism is that they are, at heart, Secular or Anti-God. Thus, not only should they not, but they simply cannot inform the Christian. The Secularist’s basic presupposition, in Nietzsche’s words, is, “God is Dead”! On the contrary, the Christian’s basic presupposition, in Schaeffer’s words, is, “He is there and He is not silent”!

Thus, we are faced with two mutually exclusive systems.

As each piece of knowledge in each system is based upon the one presupposition, there can only be agreement between the systems when the adherents of the systems are inconsistent with their presupposition. For example, I have heard David Attenborough, an evolutionist, talk both of ‘creation’ and ‘design’. How does an evolutionist, whose base presupposition denies the existence of God and in His place posits that the worlds exist through time, chance, and chaos, ever use the terms ‘creation’ and ‘design’? Similarly, I hear Christians use the term ‘luck’. How do those who believe in an all Sovereign God use such an inane term?

Therefore, it is only when we are inconsistent to our basic presupposition and to our worldview that we can find any common ground with the opposition.

This then means that if we supplement our elders with secularly trained people, we are immediately compromising. As Brother Posthuma rightly asked, “How can someone who is not one with us in faith even begin to comment on let alone promote such matters [of the intimacies of the Christian life]?”[1] The answer is, “They cannot!”

Some will baulk at this. There will be Christian counsellors who have now spit their coffee all over this article as an involuntary reaction to what they have read. Nonetheless, like Brother Posthuma, we must push on. Jesus said, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.” This means that in all of life there is no neutrality. We often use the old adage, ‘to sit on the fence’, meaning that a person has no position on a particular point or is refusing to take sides. This, however, is not a possibility when it comes to Christianity. We are either for Christ or against Christ – ethically, philosophically, spiritually, and physically.

Let’s pause here and take a breath. Some of our readers may be struggling with the terms and concepts that they have just read. This may be, to them, nothing short of highfalutin gobbledygook. So, please, let me simplify things with explicit teaching from Jesus. Our Lord gave the following wisdom and guidance so that the Church would be equipped to face challenges in all ages. Says our Lord: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.  By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.”[2]

What I wish you to see is the inherent philosophical principle in Jesus’ declaration, namely, that an object cannot contradict its true nature. The wolf may dress as a sheep, but in the end, its actions will be lupine[3] not ovine.[4] Two trees may share similar foliage. They may look alike to the eye, but an examination of the fruit will bring instant identification. Similarly, each piece of fruit bears within itself the seed that will duplicate the inherent nature of its own species.

Let us now apply this to the case before us. Elders are men who are both born again and appointed to office by the Spirit of God. They are so because they are to govern in a spiritual[5] manner over the Kingdom. As such, their inherent nature is that which is born from above and draws upon the three Persons of the Trinity for all aspects of their ministry. No matter what detail of their lives we would examine, we should see clearly that the root extends into and draws its nourishment from “the river of the water of life … flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb”.[6]

In opposition to this, the Secular counsellor comes to the Church offering us a ‘truck load’ of Humanistic ‘wisdom’ that has proceeded forth, not from the mouth of God, but from experts, research, and academia. This ‘wisdom’ is highly credentialed, flowing forth from prestigious universities. It can be seen to be used to great effect in the world. There is even an introductory offer with a free set of steak knives! So, why delay? Let us grab hold of this offer and do ourselves a good turn! Besides, helping out our overworked elders and our burdened brethren can only be a good thing, right? After all, what harm could it do?

Well, it could kill! Yes, in fact, it will kill. (Do I hear more coffee being sprayed?) Okay, let’s go back to Jesus’ words – wolf = wolf; sheep = sheep; good tree = good fruit; bad tree = bad fruit! When the Secularist comes to you, he does so without the knowledge of God[7]; he does so without the wisdom of Christ[8]; and he does so without the power of the Holy Spirit.[9] His root is not extracting nourishment from the river of life, but from the pit of Hell. He is of his father the devil, whom Jesus pronounced to be a murderer and liar.[10] Why then would we invite such a one into the midst of God’s people, mistakenly believing that any good could come from the words he would speak?

Let me be frank. Would you invite a local prostitute to give your daughters lessons on how to apply makeup and do their hair? Would you invite a homosexual to give your sons lessons on health and obtaining a suave dress sense? Methinks not. I am confident that I would hear much dissention and many rumblings and words akin to, “These do not have the mind of Christ. They have no place in the Church and certainly no place instructing our children.” To which I would reply, “Preach it, Brother!”

Why, then, the gross inconsistency in our thought processes and actions? Why is it that Christians and Churches seem to think that secular counsellors can be of any assistance whatsoever to the Church? Why do we either invite into our midst or send our people out to those who imbibe of a poisoned root and who, by their nature, must bring forth poisoned fruit?

Why does life insist on receiving counsel from death!

3. The Christian Counsellor or Beware the Lupine in the Ovine:

In speaking of the Secularist and his inability to say anything to the Church, we may have received a few hearty, “Amens!” However, we must now move to the more sensitive and controversial area and address the so-called Christian Counsellor.

As Brother Posthuma noted, this area needs to be treated with sensitivity because it has become very popular for Christians to consult counselors of all types.[11] However, like every pastoral situation, the need for sensitivity cannot override the demand for God’s truth to be spoken. Thus, straight talk should not be construed as insensitive talk.

As we broach this subject, I would ask that you remember what has just been said about Secularism, for it is extremely relevant at this point. You see, most Christian counsellors take on that title after some study within the realms of the secular. That may be a degree, a diploma, or some other course. It may have even come from a “Christian” college.

The question for us, however, is not that of the external, but that of the data on which the external is built. Thus, you may well have a fine Christian man who genuinely seeks to serve his brethren. Having seen or experienced hurt and pain, he decides that counselling would be a boon. To achieve this, he heads off to an institution to be trained. Here, we encounter the problem. If the institution is purely secular the young man will be saturated in ungodly data. If the institution is Christian, there are no guarantees that it is God’s truth that flows through that institution.

There are many in the Church who peddle nothing but baptised secularism. That is to say that these people take the latest and greatest secular idea, rip a verse or two from the Bible (verses out of context add more aroma), feed it through the pepper grinder, then sprinkle it generously over said idea. Then there is the obligatory quick prayer, followed by a little holy water, and “voilà!” the latest concept in Christianity. The final product is rushed off the assembly line and hurriedly pressed into service. Many doe not question such practices because they either stand in awe of the prestigious establishment peddling such concepts or they themselves do not have the Biblical knowledge to adequately critique the concept.

The problem is that, regardless of the model, you end up with lupine in the ovine – your sheep smells and acts wolfy!

When a Christian seeks to become a good counsellor by following the ideas of the world, studies secular counseling techniques, or has been trained in the secular sciences, then he is trying to live as though neutrality exists and is achievable.  He is found to be vigorously pursuing the impossible, namely, the melding of two contrary worldviews. This is nothing short of a fool’s errand. It is a sheer impossibility. The futility of this comes from Jesus’ mouth – “No man can serve two masters”!

In essence then, the young man returns to his home to begin counseling. People trust him because he is a Christian. However, like Snow White, they are unaware that inside the fruit on offer there is poison. The amount of poison will depend on how much Humanism was imbibed, but poison there will be.

You see, the Christian’s counsel is only as good as his conformity to Scripture – the Biblical data. In this he is like the preacher. We believe that the preacher preaching truth preaches God’s Word. To the degree that he is unfaithful, so that word ceases to be the Word. Thus, the Christian may counsel, but whether he is indeed a Christian counsellor depends on whether or not the counsel given is thoroughly Biblical.

Let me illustrate with reference to Christian education. Many, if not most, Christian teachers gain their qualifications through a secular system.[12] Does the fact that the State says that they are now qualified as educators mean that they will be Christian educators? Many would say, “yes”, but they would be mistaken. To be a Christian educator is not simply a case of being a Christian with a teaching degree. No, no, no! A Christian educator is a Christian, yes, but a Christian with a sound Biblical worldview; who teaches from the presupposition that God is; and, as a consequence, passes all facts through this one true paradigm.

I recently went for a job at a Christian school. I sat across from the principal and outlined this theory as Christian education. He was amazed. His reaction told me that he had never heard such a thing before. Yet, here he sat as the principal of a prominent Christian school. His concept, like that of so many, was that a Christian with a teaching degree equalled Christian education.[13]

This said; let us take the analogy back to counselling. A Christian may well counsel, but true Christian counselling is found in the content of the counsel and not in the adjective used to describe the counsellor. One would hope that adjective and content would go together, but, alas, it is not so.[14] Therefore, all Christian counsellors, to be worthy of the title, must first prove that their counsel is Christian – that which belongs to Christ!

This then begs the question, who should provide the examination in which the counsellor is proven to be bona fide? The only Biblical answer available is, “the elders”.

Thus, unlike our good Brother, it is my contention that we do not open the gate to Counselling, Christian or otherwise, in the Church, nor wait for a superfluity of the “university trained”, but rather return to a studied application of God’s appointed means, the elder. The first step in this process is to lock the gate, apply a padlock, and post a large sign that reads, “Do not open. Trespassers prosecuted!” This must be done because we cannot build esteem for the institution of eldership whilst actively undermining it. Such is to work at cross purposes. It is to be the “double-minded” man condemned by Scripture.[15]

In prophetic voice, the question becomes, “How long will we hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.”[16]

 

[1] Volume 61, No 7; 8 Feb 2014. Pages 166.

[2] Matthew 7:15-18.

[3] Wolf like.

[4] Sheep like.

[5] By using the term “spiritual”, we do not intend any type of dualism or include any suggestion that the elder’s governance does not extend to the physical. The term is used in the sense that the elder’s wisdom, motives, ethics, and power are other worldly. Theirs is the power of the coming age – the Age of the Holy Spirit. These are of the Kingdom that has come in Jesus Christ. These are of the Kingdom of God. They have nothing to do with the principalities and powers of this present age.

[6] Revelation 22:1.

[7] That is, a true and intimate relationship with God.

[8] Colossians 2:2-3.

[9] Romans 8:9&14.

[10] John 8:44.

[11] This has tragically become the norm as more and more Christians have abandoned the Biblical concept of sin and embraced the humanist model (Medical model) of blame shifting.

[12] This is almost universal now as the Secular hierarchy insist on tickets for almost everything, including profession registration.

[13] It will not surprise you to hear that, later in the interview, another on the panel insisted that they had to teach evolution in order to comply with regulations and provide a good education.

[14] In essence, a so-called Christian counsellor can give rubbish advice if his data is coming from a poisoned stream. On the other hand, the secular counsellor could pull out some gems if they, contrary to their nature, offered Biblical wisdom. I have a Christian friend who criticised the position outlined in this article. He contended that he had heard a secular counsellor who had given good counsel. On further evidence, said counsellor was found to be a Jewess who took seriously the writings of Moses.

[15] James 1:8.

[16] 1 Kings 18:21.

Of Shepherding Shepherds

Posted on by
2

(Eldership in the 21st Century)

In a recent edition of Una Sancta[1], Brother P. Posthuma wrote on Eldership. In that article he contended that there is a place in the Church for Christian counsellors. To be sure, he upheld the primacy of Eldership, but nonetheless hinted that elders needed supplementation in our day, particularly by those trained to deal with mental illness. This article was of great interest to the current author as it is a topic that is near and dear to his heart. As I read Brother Posthuma’s work, I must admit to feeling as though I had been placed on a roller coaster at a popular theme park. I felt the emotions soaring then plummeting. After the ride, my head was spinning and my knees were the consistency of jelly.

Now, before moving on, let me make a few things very clear:

  1. This article is not an attempt to discredit my Brother. Far from it. Referring back to the roller coaster ride, there were indeed high points. I am sure that we agree on much.
  2. The importance of the Eldership is such that we need to deal with it Biblically. Neglect in this area will be calamitous.
  3. As such, this article is issued as one more step in constructing a Biblical perspective on Eldership. I wish, therefore, not to diminish brother Posthuma’s work, but to build upon it.

Alright, back to the topic at hand and that nagging question that you have in your mind – Why was my head spinning and my knees the consistency of Jelly?

The basic reason is that the good Brother’s article hinted at some very important issues that need to be grappled with, but, regrettably, did not follow through to a consistently Biblical conclusion. Thus, one was caused to soar to lofty heights before being brought back down in a hurry with all the attendant “gut wrenching” sensations that normally accompany such an exercise.

There is no doubt that our Brother pushed very hard to establish eldership as a God given model that is to hold pride of place. However, as noted, there were the lows.  If God has appointed elders, why do we need counsellors? Why have we erected ecclesiastical roadblocks that hinder Biblical practice? What can a university add to a man that the Spirit of God cannot? Are we today confronted by situations to which the Bible does not speak either explicitly or by “good and necessary consequence?”[2]

These questions, and others, must be answered candidly. We must seek the Biblical data and the Biblical data alone, lest we be found to be introducing threads of ungodliness to our thought process. Regrettably, this author believes that such threads were, in part, introduced in the article to which we referred. The gate was left ajar and unlatched – yes, ever so slightly. Nonetheless, that small oversight means that the slightest nudge will see the gate swing further open.

With Brother Posthuma, I wholeheartedly agree that God has ordained elders for the governance of His Church and the wellbeing of His sheep. Peter’s restoration is a clear testament to this fact.[3] These men should be esteemed. These men rightly occupy Moses seat and are therefore worthy of respect.[4] These men are, literally, on the front line of the Kingdom battle as we seek to eject Satan from this our Father’s world. Consequently, we should not make their task difficult. We should pray for them often and by name. This is our great privilege as the non-elders.

However, we cannot esteem elders and eldership, on the one hand, and then introduce unBiblical data, on the other, that erodes the very standard that we have just professed. Thus, we must question whether or not many of the issues surrounding elders and eldership in our day do not in fact come from the tacit acceptance of unBiblical data.

(This said, I may need to encourage you to continue reading whilst sitting on the floor with a ribbon holding your hat firmly in position.)

My background is that of a different Reformed denomination – a denomination that actually sees unregenerate men appointed as elders. As a consequence, there are many horror stories to tell. You may reply, “Well, we do not have such lax practices!” To which I would reply, “No, not yet!” (Gasp!)

You see Brethren, the point is not to focus upon current practice, but on the ideas (theology) that inform our practice? Our focus is not merely to be on the external and outward, but on the data that informs our ideas and which, thereby, undergirds and instructs our practice.[5] Thus, the problem surrounding elders and eldership in the 21st Century has less to do with the examination of divergent practice and more to do with the degree to which divergent data has been inculcated into our systems of belief and governance.[6]

Thus, a denomination that ordains ungodly men to the eldership is different from the one that does not only because the former has travelled further down the “slippery slope” of disbelief. In short, it has adopted more unBiblical data and thus the practices in that denomination have become more obviously corrupt.

Again, if we focus merely on the externals and begin to feel all warm and gooey inside because we do not do what they do, we miss the fundamental point that, at some stage, these people also once had a Biblical practice founded on Biblical data. They then adopted a faulty standard or data set, a standard other than Scripture, which led to a corruption of the Biblical standard and the implementation of the corrupt. Consequently, the salient question must be, “Have we begun to allow unBiblical data into our thought process in regard to elders and eldership?”

1. Rationalism:

Living in our individualistic, scientific age, we are no longer content with, “Thus saith the Lord!” Rather, we want to find a researched article or some other academic device that supports the Biblical position. This seems harmless enough. Yet, here, there is great danger. Why? Very simple; in the end, we begin to argue science, research, or academic opinion rather than the Word of God.

Just today, as I construct this article, the following headline came to me from a prominent Christian organisation: “WHY Fathers MATTER – research reveals the truth!” Does this mean that fathers did not matter until science stepped in with a helping hand? If so, then fathers can be relegated to irrelevancy by another study that takes a contrary position.

Please allow a further illustration using coffee. As a middle aged man, I hear all sorts of reports on the consumption of coffee and most are contradictory or limited in their application. If I drink too much coffee, I may have high blood pressure or end up with a failing heart. Then, another report says, ‘Na. Coffee is great!’ Finally I hear, ‘If you are middle aged, drink five cups per day as it has been proven to combat prostate cancer.’

So, my options are: 1. Bathe in coffee and flourish in every way; 2. Bathe in coffee and have my head explode from high blood pressure, but not die of prostate cancer; 3. Don’t bathe in coffee, maybe avoid high blood pressure and heart problems, but open myself up to prostate cancer! Anyone for a coffee?

The point that I hope you will see is that there is no absolute answer available in Rationalism. Research contradicts research; academic paper contradicts academic paper; expert contradicts expert, and so on.

Therefore, if we Christians adopt this rationalistic approach, we begin to rely on the so-called ‘wisdom of men’ rather than upon the absolute wisdom of God. When this happens, we find ourselves at the ‘whim and fancy’ of every research paper produced or that of every so-called expert that makes an announcement.

Sadly, this rationalism is too prevalent in Christian circles. Recently, during the debate over homosexual union[7], this rationalism came to the fore. We were told to write to our politicians and insist that children “need a mum and dad.” The obvious question then is, “What is a “mum” or a “dad”?

If we rely on the definitions given by rebellious man, these terms could mean anything. Moreover, these terms would change with every new piece of research. If you question this, please conduct a simple experiment. Find yourself both a new and an old dictionary. Now look up some moral term, for example, marriage. What you will note is that these definitions are changing. The dictionary is being made to conform to current practice. Similarly, the terms “mum” and “dad” will be moulded to conform to the current (secular) view of the family.

Relating this to eldership, the obvious force is to question why we need to wait for “enough university qualified and trusted persons totally committed to what the Bible teaches who could also advise and consult with elders.”[8] The implicit connotation in this statement is that elders are neither “academically qualified” nor “totally committed to what the Bible teaches” and as such are in desperate need of supplementation by other (Humanistic) professionals in order to ensure that they stay on the path of truth.

Here we encounter one of those “head spinners”. The statement unequivocally upholds a Biblical standard – these must be “committed to what the Bible teaches” – yet, in the very same sentence, we see the introduction of that which the Bible does not teach—the university qualified.

In Ephesians 4:11-12 we read, “It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,  to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up”. You will note that this list is devoid of counsellors, psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers. Also, you will note that there is no mention of the need to be “university qualified”. What you will see is that God, in Christ, appointed, for the edification and building of the Church, certain offices, which are to be filled by qualified officers. Among these is the pastor (Gk: Shepherd).

Turning to Acts 20:28-29, we witness Paul giving the following counsel to the Ephesian elders: “Keep watch[9] over yourselves and all the flock[10] of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.[11] Be shepherds[12] of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.  I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock[13].”

The point in bringing these texts together is to show what the Bible does and does not emphasise. Extracurricular offices are absolutely denied. No room is given to the concept that secular institutions may turn out a superior product of which the Church should avail Herself. On the contrary, Scripture stands firm. God has given offices to His Church. In these offices are God’s officers, having been appointed by the Holy Spirit. These and these alone are to govern and to defend; for only that appointed, anointed, and empowered by God’s Spirit can adequately care for God’s precious blood bought Church.

It must be remembered that only the true shepherd stands in the face of adversity. The hireling tucks tail and runs.[14] The hireling simply will not defend against the “savage wolf”. Equally, those not having the mind of Christ cannot relate to the Christian whose mind is set on Christ. “The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.”[15] In similar vein, the one trained by the world, will tend to bring the world’s ideas into the Christian arena, polluting it to one degree or another.

Consequently, Biblical wisdom behoves us to follow the Biblical pattern. God instituted elders for the governance of the Church in the Old Testament. Christ did not alter this. Much rather, Christ’s Apostles continued the practice[16] thereby reaffirming the validity of the elder and his office.

If there are issues regarding elders and eldership in our day, then they are not with the concept of eldership. The problem must be in our inadequate application of the Biblical data, both in regard to the standards for elders and our duty toward elders. Our responsibility then is to return to the data revealed for us by God’s Spirit – the same Spirit who appoints elders – and to stand in that light making sure that we conform to every jot and tittle. This is our only option, for the Bible does not give us warrant to abandon or supplement elders or the eldership.

With Brother Posthuma, we must assert an absolute belief in God’s order and standard as revealed in His infallible Word. This confident stand must, in the first instance, cause us to treasure that order so dearly that we will automatically reject anything that seeks to encroach upon the oracles of God. Thus, we must reject both Humanism and Rationalism at the outset. To accept data from these sources is to step onto the “slippery slope”. It is to introduce that thin thread of false data that will eventually corrupt the whole system.

 

[1] Volume 61, No 7; 8 Feb 2014. Pages 165-167.

[2] The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men. Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995. Chapter 1, Section 6. See also The Belgic Confession Article 7 – that the teaching (of Scripture) is perfect and complete in all respects.

[3] John 21:15-19.

[4] Matthew 23:1ff.

[5] This concept is a two-way street. The Biblical data addresses both the shepherd and the sheep. Hence, whilst the bulk of this article will look at the shepherds, the sheep must realise that the same data places obligations upon them also.

[6] For clarity, think here of the old adage, ‘Ideas have consequences.’

[7] I refuse to use the term “homosexual marriage”.

[8] Shepherding the Flock, p.166. Emphasis added.

[9] This is an imperative or command.

[10] This is the same noun as used in Ephesians 4:11. God gave pastors (shepherds) to watch over the flock (sheep).

[11] Overseers and Elders are two different Greek terms. Whilst some believe these terms to refer to different offices, the Biblical data would suggest that they refer to the same office. Here in Acts 20:17, Paul calls the “elders” to himself and then states that they have been appointed as “overseers” (20:28). Seemingly, Paul saw no difference. Hence, the best way to understand these terms is that the term “elder” refers to the character of the officer, whilst the term “overseer” refers to the character of the office.

[12] This is the same root word as already encountered and it means “to act as a shepherd”.

[13] The same term as previously used.

[14] John 10:12-13.

[15] Romans 8:7.

[16] Titus 1:5.