Jonathan Leeman serves as director of communications for 9Marks. He writes or edits most 9Marks communications, including website content, 9News, marketing material, and so on. Jonathan originally worked in journalism. Since his call to ministry, he has earned a master of divinity from Southern Seminary and has worked as an interim pastor. He is also working on his Ph.D. in ecclesiology. He lives with his wife and daughter in Cheverly, MD.

---

Introducing two new 9Marks bloggers

by Jonathan Leeman

We're grateful to present two new 9Marks bloggers to all of you: Owen Strachan and Kevin DeYoung.

Owen is a member of CrossWay Community Church in Bristol, Wisconsin, which is just close enough to the Illinois border for him to drive there on Sundays from Highland Park, IL, where he "resides." Owen is a PhD student in Historical Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and is the managing director of the Carl F. H. Henry Center for Theological Understanding at TEDS. He is married to a woman of noble character, Bethany. He also has a daughter, I believe, but he needs to update his blog and say so....did you get that Owen!!!!  Owen used to be consumed, but now he's just owenstrachan, lower cased, of course. Owen has a series of books on Jonathan Edwards coming out early next year co-authored with Doug Sweeney, including Jonathan Edwards on True Christianity (Moody).

Kevin is the senior pastor of the University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan. He is married to Trish and has four young children as well as, apparently, a bunny, though he's a little self-conscious about that fact. He is the author of several books, including Why We Love the Church (Moody). We asked him to blog for us, quite simply, because he's published a book with that title. That means, yes, we will make you a blogger too if you write a book expressing your love for the church in the title. Kevin already blogs here and here, and so we're hoping he throws us a few scraps from time to time. 

Both men have written for 9Marks in the past. They are godly men and are committed to the local church. We happily commend them to you.

Posted on November 18, 2009 | Link to this Post | Comments

African Trade and Multi-site Churches

by Jonathan Leeman

An interested reader recently sent me the following email which I thought was insightful. Before beginning seminary recently, the writer was a staff member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. I've bold-faced what I think are the particularly helpful bits:

I thought about the work of 9 Marks as I read Kevin DeYoung's post reviewing policy toward Africa. Why?  Because he is exactly right about the well-intentioned yet horrifically flawed approach nations have taken toward Africa.  Bono can cover the globe arguing to eliminate their debt and chastize nations that are "rich" when they don't acquiesce.  But, at the end of the day, good intentions don't make for good policy.  There are rules in economics.  Africa needs to be able to trade, and the failure of the Doha round of trade talks that would have given Africa a serious seat in the agriculture trading game would have placed them on a far better path to long-term stability.

I immediately thought about how the church misses this logic in the recent multi-site debate. The well-intentioned desire to "reach more people" by structuring church any which way does not necessarily equate to acheiving that goal. The Scriptures provide rules (regulation you might say) about how to go about it.  We did not come up with the gospel, so we certainly don't know how to protect and project the gospel.  We are completely dependent in every way on the Scriptures to tell us how to do all of this.  Just as in economics, so in theology there are rules to the game.  And we better be working hard to understand the rules the Scriptures give us.  We should assume that God understands the game better than we do! 

Thus, for those who "love the gospel" and want to see it advance, they better do the hard work of understanding, studying, and researching what the Scriptures say about protecting it through the church. 

The federal government is full of miserable failures that started as great intentions by people with "good, generous hearts."  Why would anyone think the church and the spiritual realm are any different?  I love that people want to reach more people.  But, no one who believes in the sinfulness of the human heart should begin by thinking that simply because they have a good intention that they are not flawed in their understanding in how to achieve it.  If the goal is to reach more people, then the first place to begin is by doing the hard work of asking what the Scriptures say about the structure and nature of the church which has been given the task of reaching them.

Could it be that even in this "boring" and "secondary" area of ecclesiology that the wisdom of Scripture just might seem, at first, to be foolishness to those of us who once thought we were wise?

Posted on November 13, 2009 | Link to this Post | Comments

Effective Elder Meetings

by Jonathan Leeman

You've probably already seen both of these posts on effective elder meetings over at Justin Taylor's blog, but I think they are worth reposting here in case you didn't.

First, Justin pointed to seven good ideas from Jim Eliff. On his blog, Jim explains each of the seven ideas:

1. Plan for meeting together more often and for a longer period of time.
2. Challenge each other spiritually.
3. Discuss the state of the flock.
4. Have an agenda.
5. Actually pray for individuals and issues being faced.
6. Study together toward a unified position on difficult issues.
7. Make these meetings non-optional.

Second, Justin points to 16 Keys to Effective Elders’ Meetings, by Alexander Strauch summarizing his book, Meetings That Work: A Guide to Effective Elders’ Meetings.

Thanks, Justin.

Posted on November 13, 2009 | Link to this Post | Comments

Study Guide for 12 Challenges Churches Face

by Jonathan Leeman

Iowa pastor and friend Eric Schumacher put together a study guide for Mark Dever's Twelve Challenges Churches Face for using with some of the men in his church. Here is his original post.  

And here are the individual studies:

• Preface
• Chapter 1 - Forgetfulness
• Chapter 2 - Division
• Chapter 3 - Imposters
• Chapter 4 - Sin
• Chapter 5 - Asceticism
• Chapter 6 - Disobedience
• Chapter 7 - Legalism
• Chapter 8 - Autonomy
• Chapter 9 - Thoughtlessness
• Chapter 10 - Selfishness
• Chapter 11 - Death
• Chapter 12 - Decline

Thanks, Eric!

Posted on November 13, 2009 | Link to this Post | Comments

Does Multi-site = Increasing Growth Potential?

by Jonathan Leeman

Thabiti,

I'd like to follow up on a point you made and make it a little stronger. You write, "Some seem to presume that if you're growing and you're not interested in multi-site then you just may be limiting the growth potential of the kingdom.  And conversely, if you are a practitioner of multi-site you're increasing the growth potential of the kingdom."

You suggest this is "spurious." I would also say it's short-sighted. If God does in fact mean for local churches to consist of one congregation, then we can trust that such a congregation will, over time and all other factors being equal, make for a better witness to the non-Christian community around it. We can also trust that planting other single congregation churches will make for better witnesses to the world, and, over time, yield an even greater harvest, can't we? As such, the pragmatic question must necessarily remain a distant second to the Scriptural question, because determining the right answer to the Scriptural question will always give us the best answer to the pragmatic question.

Furthermore, doesn't the "multi-site = increased growth potential" formula wrongly equate kingdom growth with the growth of my local church? Is kingdom growth really that dependent on the growth of any one of our local churches?

Posted on November 6, 2009 | Link to this Post | Comments

Video: Multi-perspectives on Multi-sites

by Jonathan Leeman

Posted on November 4, 2009 | Link to this Post | Comments

"Contextualization" euphemism for "homogeneous unit principle"

by Jonathan Leeman

 

No, the idea of contexualization isn't always euphemism for the homogeneous unit principle. Yes, I’m grateful for the writers who push us to be sensitive and conscientious to our cultural surroundings.  But when I hear about multi-site churches deliberately using different campuses (aka churches) to appeal to different socio-demographic groups, it does seem that the HUP has reared its head. 

McKinley, here's a freebie for you.  This following excerpt comes from Mike McKinley's Church Planting Is for Wimps, which Crossways plans to publish this coming spring:

Not many books or church leaders these days speak anymore about the homogeneous unit principle—appealing to one homogeneous group of people. Somewhere in the 1980s or 90s church growth writers stopped using the phrase because they had heard enough complaining about it being biblically problematic. Still, they needed some way to target particular groups, so they began to speak in terms of “contextualization”—adapting yourself to a context. I don’t want to totally knock the good people-sensitivities involved with contextualizing. But the evangelical fascination with the topic makes me wonder if it’s just an updated version of the homogeneous unit principle: Pick your social demographic and appeal…I mean, contextualize to them.

When we start churches intentionally designed to appeal to a certain kind of person, we fail to heed the biblical mandate to become all things to all people (1 Cor. 9:22). It seems like many churches want to embrace the first phrase without the second. We want to become all things to some people. The problem is, becoming all things to some people, say, by rocking the tattoos and turning up the music often keeps us from reaching all kinds of people. After all, wooing one demographic (like urban young people) often means alienating others (like older people or foreigners).

It seems to me that Paul in 1 Corinthians 9 wasn’t saying that he would mimic the people he was trying to reach, you know, with a ripped tunic and Doc Marten sandals; he was trying instead to remove unnecessary offense whenever possible. He wasn’t telling them to sport goatees, he was telling them not to flaunt their Christian freedom in everyone’s faces. He was encouraging the church to be sensitive to their cultures, yes, but by being sacrificial in its love, willing to give up things it might not have preferred to give up. To this day, I enjoy punk rock. I could flaunt the tatts and plant a punk rock church that took its musical cues from Stiff Little Fingers and its attitude from the Clash. But how would this show love for the elderly women in my neighborhood, the same kind of elderly women who welcomed me to [my former church]? It seems like we should intentionally plant churches that will, as much as possible, welcome and engage people who are different and diverse with respect to age, gender, personality, and nationality….

Perhaps you’re thinking, “But young people simply won’t go to churches where the music is not tailored to them.” That may be partly true, but it’s only true insofar as they’ve been in churches with no biblical vision for reaching all people. But what if pastors everywhere decided to stop capitulating to consumeristic demands? What if pastors taught church members to lay down their rights for the sake of people who were different? Pastor, are you afraid that if you tried doing this, you might lose some of your market share?

So then, what should characterize a church plant that wants to reach people from all kinds of backgrounds? Well, it obviously needs to show intentional love to people from different cultures. People from other cultures will know pretty quickly whether they are welcomed or merely tolerated as a curiosity. In our church, we try to be intentional about having members from other cultures involved in leading our corporate gatherings, whether through prayer, Bible reading, singing, or preaching. In addition 40 percent of our elder board is comprised of non-white non-Americans (and that’s not including the lawyers, who should perhaps be their own ethnic group).

Also, the way that we order our gatherings can impact the way international believers feel. Many of the brothers and sisters in our congregation from other cultures were attracted by how similar our services are to the ones in their home countries. The music is different, sure. The way people dress is different, of course. Our services may be quieter or louder than what they’re accustomed to. But Christians gathered in churches in Thailand, in South Africa, in Niger, in Guatemala all do the same things: they pray, sing, read the Bible, and listen to the Word being preached. The more we focus on doing those things, the more “at home” international brothers and sisters feel. The more we import movies and drama and pop-culture into the church, the more specific and targeted our gatherings feel and the less comfortable these brothers and sisters feel.

Posted on October 28, 2009 | Link to this Post | Comments

Beware Your Seminary Professors

by Jonathan Leeman

A seminary professor is not the same thing as a church elder. That was probably the main thing I observed at last week’s Gordon Conwell Seminary conference “Renewing the Evangelical Mission,” which I attended with Michael Lawrence. Consider a couple of obvious matters:

· An elder is chosen (hopefully) for his exemplary character, his ability to teach, and his track record of doing spiritual good (fruitfulness); a seminary professor is chosen because he or she excels in research and writing.

· An elder’s position requires a holistic regard for his sheep (their intellectual, emotional, spiritual, and physical states); a seminary professor need only be concerned with the “intellectual.”

· An elder’s entire life is expected to be integrated into the congregation’s life (like a shepherd and sheep); a seminary professor need only interact with students in the classroom.

What struck me at this academic conference, however, was how much the “rules of engagement” differed for elders and academics. Three examples:

· In the Western secular academy, one of the highest values is an open exchange of ideas without pre-judgment, a value which has clearly transmitted into Christian academic circles. Yes, there should be a place for Christians to openly consider new ideas, but consider the anthropology behind that democratic value: it assumes (these days, at least) that people are rational, objective, and basically good. When this is our starting point, we feel free to say whatever, whenever. An elder has a very different starting point. He knows that his sheep are weak and susceptible to temptation and self-deceit. Like a parent, he knows that intellectual growth is highly intertwined with spiritual and social maturity.  So he takes great care in what he says and does not say. He’s not nearly so democratic. Instead, he must be judicious.

· The academy, by definition, places a higher premium on saying something “new.” Many churches wrongly do this as well, and, admittedly, there is a right place for a “new song.” But the eldering enterprise, by definition, is about faithfulness. The best Christian academics, that is, the Christian academics to whom we are all indebted, say new things from time to time, but only in the effort to be faithful. Too often, however, the ambition for newness is an utterly different thing than the ambition for faithfulness.  

· Academics tend to work in isolation, and are assessed only (i) for their ideas (ii) by a small group of similarly-situated experts in their sub-specialty. Elders work in the midst of the assembly, and are assessed (i) for their ideas and their lives (ii) by the whole church body in all of its sociological diversity.

None of the rules for academic engagement are bad, per se. But they become bad in the Christian academy when they're divorced from pastoral sensibilities. This struck home, to speak frankly, by the utter lack of pastoral carefulness demonstrated by many of the speakers, a carelessness which I’ve witnessed too often in Christian academic circles. Here are three examples which showed up last week:

· Most of the speakers seemed only too happy to treat Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox as “brothers and sisters in the faith,” as easily as a Baptist might refer to a Presbyterian. Now, I trust that some RC and GOs are Christians, but such unqualified, unnuanced passing remarks effectively dismiss the Reformation and jeopardize souls. Don’t you realize the effect your passing comments have on sheep?

· One speaker presented what he described as a “new” formulation of how the divine nature participated in Christ’s death on the cross, which involved jettisoning divine impassibility and simplicity. At the conclusion, another professor responded by saying that he was willing to go along with this new formulation. Really? A sixty minute lecture and you’re persuaded? You’re willing to re-conceive the divine nature because someone really smart gave a paper? No prayer? No long hours of investigation? No discussion of the matter with the elders of your church?

· At a conference with the title “Renewing the Evangelical Mission,” not a single talk of the eleven was about the gospel (with one abstruse half-exception, mentioned in the last bullet).

Numerous matters like these, all heaped together, reminded me what a different thing the academic enterprise is from the eldering enterprise. One is about intellectual stimulation between supposedly good, rational people; the other is about spiritual warfare between desperate, clinging-to-grace people. It’s as if you enter the Christian academic realm and all the rules for pastoral care and wisdom suddenly change—in fact, it’s as if all the rules suddenly go out the window. “We’re all equals here. We’re all discerning and wise and godly. Take no heed!”

I praise God for the faithful academics who trained me in seminary. Yet the best ones were good because they were churchmen first and academics second. Any academic who takes offence at my remarks, I dare say, just might take offense because he or she finds more identity in being an academic than in being a churchman.

If you are an academic, may I propose, do not conceive of your students, colleagues, journal editors, and publishers any differently than you conceive of the members of your church. All of them are sheep who are threatened with temptation and deception on a minute-by-minute basis. Remember that you, too, are a sheep, and that you need the accountability and restraints of your church and its elders in your academic work, even if you are smarter than all of them.

Posted on October 20, 2009 | Link to this Post | Comments

Implications from Psalm 23 for Elders, Fathers, and Husbands

by Jonathan Leeman

Typically I approach Psalm 23 from the standpoint of the sheep, looking to God (or Christ) as my shepherd. After all, it begins, “The Lord is my shepherd.”

Yet as an elder who is to imitate Christ and “shepherd God’s flock,” there’s a sense in which Psalm 23 offers me--and you, elder--a secondary reading from the shepherd’s standpoint. Yes, our primary reading of Psalm 23 should always be as a sheep. But those of us who are elders should also look to Psalm 23 to learn what the posture of our hearts for our congregations should look like.

Specifically, we should ask the Lord to teach us

· To destroy all ambition for praise and recognition.

· To set aside cultural conceptions of leadership. And instead…

· To center our hearts on helping members of the church to NOT WANT by leading them to look to the sufficiency of the Chief Shepherd in all things.

· To give us the ability to help them LIE DOWN IN GREEN PASTURES and LEAD THEM BESIDE QUIET WATERS, such that interactions with us would leave them feeling refreshed and rested in the gospel.

· To walk away from our time with members of the flock, and have them feeling like their SOULS have been RESTORED, as if the evidence of our presence in the room is someone’s restored soul.

· To help LEAD THEM IN PATH’S OF RIGHTEOUSNESS for the Chief Shepherd’s NAME’S SAKE—and never be party to their sin or stumbling.

· To remind, comfort, and equip them to walk through THE VALLEY OF THE SHADOW OF DEATH, FEARING NO EVIL because they know the Chief Shepherd is WITH THEM.

· To use the ROD AND STAFF of pastoral authority TO COMFORT THEM, such that they can look back on past exercises of our authority and remember that good came, protection came, growth came when their elders wielded that rod and staff.

· To PREPARE A TABLE FOR THEM IN THE PRESENCE OF THEIR ENEMIES, not promising them prosperity now, but reminding of their hope amidst adversity now.

· To remind them that God has marked them off as HIS ANNOINTED ONES, because they are united to the Annointed One. They are special to him!

· To sit under our teaching and find themselves continually looking down into THEIR CUP of the gospel and rejoicing at how it OVERFLOWS.

· To PURSUE them WITH GOODNESS AND MERCY.

Furthermore, if husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the church, should we husbands not pursue our wives with the same Psalm 23 shepherd-like regard?

And if we are to imitate the shepherd-like love of God for his children, does Psalm 23 not provide us as fathers (mothers, too) with a job description?

So elders, husbands, and fathers, be a sheep. At the same time, imitate the shepherd.

Posted on October 2, 2009 | Link to this Post | Comments

God Exposed…yet again

by Jonathan Leeman

We’ve probably talked more than enough about the God Exposed conference, but I’d like to offer one more personal testimony:

Having been to seminary and having sat through my share of pastoral conferences, I’ve heard a good number of the “Why we preach” or “Ministry of the Word” or “Expositional preaching” talks.  I’ve even given the talk a few times. So when news of another such talk pops up in the blogosphere, I confess to often responding (wrongly) with the “yeah, yeah, know that” attitude.

Yet may I suggest every preacher and church leader would serve both himself and his congregation to listen to a talk like Dever’s at least once a year? “The Power of God’s Word” (Mark 4:26-34)

It charged my faith and reminded me afresh of God’s power to save and grow his people through his Word. I trust it could do the same for you.

Posted on October 2, 2009 | Link to this Post | Comments

Mistakes pastors make in practicing church discipline

by Jonathan Leeman

Dee, you asked me last week about mistakes pastors make when practicing church discipline. brainstormed for a few minutes with Bobby J. Here's 23 that we came up with.

 

1. They fail to teach their congregation what church discipline is and why to practice it.

2. They fail to teach about and practice meaningful membership. This involves cultivating a culture of personal discipleship and involvement in one another’s lives in which people transparently confess sin to one another. This also involves failing to adequately teach what membership is, as well as having a clear list of who is a member of the church and who is not.

3. They fail to teach their congregation about biblical conversion, especially the need for repentance. A congregation that doesn’t understand the role of repentance in the Christian life will have difficulty understanding why they need to discipline someone who is not repenting of sin.

4. They fail to teach new members as they enter the church about the possibility and circumstances for church discipline.

5. They fail to teach new members as they enter the church that the church may not grant a pre-emptive resignation from a person trying to avoid discipline. That misses the point of Matthew 18:15-20. Also, the nature of a church covenant requires the church’s consent to both enter into and leave the membership of the church.

6. They fail to ensure the church’s public documents (by-laws, constitution, articles of incorporation, etc.) address the procedures of church discipline, thereby exposing the church to legal risk.

7. They fail to follow the steps of Matthew 18 or 1 Corinthians 5, depending the circumstance. In a Matthew 18 situation, for instance, they fail to begin the process by confronting sin privately.

8. They don’t give adequate time to the process of moving through the various steps of Matthew 18. For instance, they move so quickly from step to step, that they don’t give the sinner adequate time to be reasoned with and shepherded toward repentance.

9. They call for the congregation to act too quickly. For instance, they fail to insert any time in between “tell it to the church” and “if he does not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.” Except in situations of a public scandalous sin of a 1 Corinthians 5 variety which do call for immediate removal, leaders should give the congregation time to both digest the information and to pursue the unrepentant sinner themselves.

10.  They treat the processes of church discipline entirely as a legal process with little consideration for shepherding the unrepentant individual’s heart.

11.  They give little attention to the differences between kinds of sinners and how that might affect how long we should bear with a pattern of sin before proceeding to subsequent stages of discipline (see 1 Thessalonians 5:14).

12.  They forget that they too live by the gospel’s provision of mercy, and therefore prosecute the discipline from a posture of self-righteousness. Other mistakes follow from this wrong posture, such as an overly severe tone and stand-offishness.

13.  They fail to truly love the sinner…

14.  …and beg the Lord for his or her repentance.

15.  They demand too much from a smoldering wick or bruised reed. In other words, they stipulations for repentance and restoration are too high for this one who has been deeply enslaved in sin’s grip.

16.  They fail to properly instruct the congregation on how to interact with the unrepentant sinner, such as how to relate to them in social situations and how to pursue their repentance.

17.  They fail to invite the discipline individual to continue attending services of the church so that they might continue to hear God’s Word (except in situations where the unrepentant sin is a severe threat to the church). Also, they fail to inform the church that everyone should hope for the disciplined individual to continue attending.

18.  Putting the responsibility for leading discipline entirely on the shoulders of one man, the senior pastor. Doing so will tempt individuals in the church to accuse the senior pastor of personally vindictive. Such a charge is harder to make when a recommendation for discipline comes from an entire body of elders.

19.  They fail to have sufficient elder involvement in the congregation’s life, such they are unaware of the state of the sheep. This failure of formative discipline will inevitably weaken the church’s ability to do corrective discipline well.

20.  They fail to teach God’s Word on a weekly basis.

21.  They allow the congregation to approach the case of discipline with a wrongful spirit of retribution, rather than with the loving desire to warn the unrepentant sinner about God’s ultimate retribution to come.

22.  They pursue discipline on non-biblical grounds (playing cards, dancing, etc.).

23. They pursue discipline for any other reason than for the good of the individual, the good of the church, the good of the onlooking community, and the glory of Christ.

Posted on September 21, 2009 | Link to this Post | Comments

What We Lose When Technology Mediates a Relationship

by Jonathan Leeman

Greg, I assume you’re right—that there must be some sociological literature “out there” which describes what we lose when we allow technology to mediate our relationships at church, whether that’s baptism over the internet or preaching through video feed. I’d be curious to read it.

But let’s brainstorm for a bit:  what’s lost?

Here are some tentative thoughts:  whenever I interact with you through a technological medium (video, phone, email, text, etc.). I present you with a very narrow slice of information according to what I want to say. I CONTROL, to some extent, what information you receive. For instance, if I’m speaking to you on the phone, you’re entirely dependent on what I want to say in the thin moment of time which comprises that conversation. You are not able to hear my words through the rest of the day. You are not able to watch my life. You only hear what I want you to hear. Same with email. Same with video. And so on. In other words, my communication with you is staged. I’m presenting you with a front. By saying it’s staged, I don’t mean it’s not true, I simply mean that it’s utterly limited to what I give you for the five or ten minutes of our phone conversation.

When I interact with you face to face, and particularly when we build our lives together, I lose control of the information you receive. You can draw conclusions based on how I speak to other people, or on how I treat my wife. Whatever I might say to you from the pulpit, for instance, becomes integrated with what you know about me from the rest of my life.

Now, if I’m practicing what I’m preaching, that will serve you, because you will see how God’s word translates into action. If I don’t practice what I preach, that will serve me, because you can come to me and warn me.

In short, technology, though helpful in some respects, cuts our communication off from a whole life view and, to some extent, hollows out the communication. Plus, it gives us an unnatural and pastorally unhelpful measure of control or autonomy in what we communicate. From a Christian standpoint, therefore, relying upon technology to mediate church relationships puts both sheep and shepherds in an unconnected, unguarded, and spiritually precarious position.

Is that fair to say?

Posted on September 18, 2009 | Link to this Post | Comments

And yet another

by Jonathan Leeman

I got a recent one, too, Greg:

[Mom places plate of chicken in front of girls for lunch]

EMMA [crying]: I don't like my lunch.

MOMMY: Why don't we pray and ask God to give us grateful hearts for our lunch?

EMMA: I know, why don't we pray and ask God for mac 'n cheese!

Posted on September 14, 2009 | Link to this Post | Comments

Benjamin Franklin on Sounding Humble

by Jonathan Leeman

There seems to be a premium these days on sounding humble in religious discourse, in part because the philosophies of postmodernity should remind us not to be too certain of anything.

Yet I'd suggest that Benjamin Franklin's remarks on how he attempted to cultivate humility by mimicking the phraseology of humility, with no success, are instructive. Franklin writes,

“My List of Virtues contain’d at first but twelve: but a Quaker Friend having kindly informed me that I was generally thought proud…I added Humility to my list…I cannot boast of much Success in acquiring the Reality of this Virtue; but I had a good deal with regard to the Appearance of it…I even forbid myself…the Use of every Word or Express in the Language that imported a fix’d Opinion; such as certainly, undoubtedly, &c. and I adopted instead of them, I conceive, I apprehend, or I imagine a thing to be so or so, or it so appears to me at present…In reality there is perhaps no one of our natural Passions so hard to subdue as Pride. Disguise it, struggle with it, beat it down, stifle it, mortify it as much as one pleases, it is still alive, and will every now and then peep out and show itself….For even if I could conceive that I had completely overcome it, I should probably be proud of my Humility. ” In Benjamin Franklin,  The Autobiography and Other Writings (New York: Viking Penguin Books, 1984 edition), 102-103.

True humility is not a product of one's epistemology; it's not a property firstly of the mind. True humility comes from the Spirit, and is a property firstly of the heart. Whenever a writer appeals to something like post-modernism as the of ground Christian humility, I apprehend, he or she is pointing us to a false humility.

Posted on September 8, 2009 | Link to this Post | Comments

Imputation and Floating Hondas Civics

by Jonathan Leeman

Earlier this week, Kevin DeYoung offered some helpful exegetial thoughts on N.T. Wright, covenant righteousness, and imputation. Here are some further theologoical reflections on this idea of covenant righteousness, which I'm not sure is as incompatible with traditional Reformed conceptions of imputation as Wright implies. What follows is from a footnote for something I have written elsewhere (yes, I'm quoting myself here. Is that pretentious?):

Theologians and exegetes often discuss the Protestant idea of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in the terms of the law court since the dikaios word group is a legal/judicial one. Yet the law-court metaphor is just that, a metaphor that can help with certain aspects of imputation but does not explain the theological concept entirely. N.T. Wright’s oft quoted critique of imputation falls short precisely because he treats the metaphor, as it were, univocally. He writes, “Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom”; In What Saint Paul Really Said (Oxford: Lion Book, 1997), 98. Well, sure, that’s very clever-sounding, but he’s not really critiquing imputation here. Imputation is a judicial idea, yes, but also a covenantal one. Entering into certain kinds of covenants involve my identity and all that I am, such that all that’s mine becomes yours and all that’s yours becomes mine. When I married my wife, for instance, my student loan debt actually became hers, and her Honda Civic actually became mine. Neither the Honda nor the debt floated across the courtroom. Still, there really was this “sweet exchange,” at least from my perspective. So it is with the sweet exchange of Christ’s righteousness and my sin. By giving himself to his people in the new covenant, what he possess becomes “ours,” and what’s “ours” become “his.” In that sense, Wright is correct to point to the covenantal aspects of God’s righteousness in Christ. I even appreciate his point in the same chapter of this critique that the book of Romans, most fundamentally, presents us not with the realities of the law court but with a “theology of love” (110). Yet somehow he misses the fact that the shared identity of biblical covenants involve exchanging not just obligations, but debts and blessings. Somehow he misses the fact that the exchange of sin and righteousness between Christ and sinner—these legal or judicial realities—are also covenantal realities, and nuptial ones, at that.

 Am I misunderstanding Wright? I'm not contending that his brand of "God's covenantal righteousness" isn't a slightly different thing than more traditional reformed conceptions of God's righteousness. But I am arguing that his knock on imputation demonstrates a theological misunderstanding of what biblical covenants accomplish. Thoughts?

Posted on September 4, 2009 | Link to this Post | Comments

New eJournal on Church Discipline

by Jonathan Leeman

In case you missed it, the September/October 2009 eJournal is up. Both this issue and the next one are devoted to the topic of church discipline.

Posted on September 2, 2009 | Link to this Post | Comments

Questions for pastoral candidates to ask a church

by Jonathan Leeman

Let me commend to you Colin Adams insightful questions for a pastoral candidate to ask a church.  Find them here.

HT: JT

Posted on August 28, 2009 | Link to this Post | Comments

5. Summarizing the transcendent and immanent postures in leadership

by Jonathan Leeman

What is the transcendent posture in leadership, whether in parenting, pastoring, discipling, or evangelizing? It’s standing in a position of representing God’s authoritative Word. What is the immanent posture? It’s standing in a position of representing the person under God’s Word—standing with that person.

We’re called to do each in leading others, because God in Christ has done each. Both ideas are intrinsic to the “imaging” language of Scripture, particularly as the imaging language develops in the direction of a royal priesthood as well as in the direction of sonship. Christians should be interested in God’s transcendent truth, but they should also be interested in his immanent compassion.

Part of the wisdom of pastoring and parenting, I think, is knowing which is called for when. As I suggested in the last post, the more common thing to do when the people you’re leading are hard-hearted and immature is to adopt an empathetic, relational, and immanent posture in order to win trust. And much of the time that may be correct. But sometimes what the immature and hard-hearted need most is a line in the sand and a requirement that’s inflexible. Sometimes God draws us with cords of love; sometimes he breaks us with the sharp rebuke of exile.

The desire to be a good leader, finally, should sends us to our knees, begging him for the wisdom of knowing when to stand near to those we love, and when to stand far off.

Previous posts:

1. T & I in parenting

2. T & I in pastoring

3. T & I in discipleship

4. T & I in evangelism

 

Posted on August 25, 2009 | Link to this Post | Comments

4. Transcendence and immanence in evangelism

by Jonathan Leeman

Basic idea: When you are doing evangelism, you are, by definition, doing something to represent both God’s transcendence and his immanence. You are speaking authoritatively true things about God’s work in Christ (transcendence) to fellow humans and sinners (immanence). You are issuing an authoritative call (“repent and believe”) to people who are just like you.

Biblical basis: In the incarnation itself we see how God’s evangelistic activity presents itself both transcendently and immanently. In all the Scriptural material related to Christ’s work as king (transcendent) and priest (immanent) we see both postures, as well as in the identity of the church as a “royal priesthood.” We see it in the Scriptural idea of the church being in but not of the world. And this list could continue.

Wise evangelism: What’s especially worth observing here is that doing evangelism well requires us to give attention to both postures. There’s a place to say, “Hey, I’m a sinner, too” (immanence). And there’s a place to say, “God calls you to repent and believe” (transcendence). All the talk these days about “contexualization” and “cultural engagement,” as well as perennial questions about Bible translation, stems from the desire to do the immanent posture well. And the talk about making sure we are clear about the unique gospel message, the need for conversion, and the distinct witness of the local church (involving things like church membership and church discipline) stem from the desire to do the transcendent posture well. 

In short, I’d say good evangelism involves both empathy and relatability (immanence) and confrontation (transcendence).

Know thyself: Personalities and cultures incline us toward one posture or another. Socially attuned people are good at the empathetic posture. Truth people are good at the transcendent posture. Likewise, cultures can lean one way or the other. I believe Western culture today leans heavily toward the empathetic and relational posture. We’re afraid to confront. Our philosophies as well our sense of manners tells us that it’s “wrong” and “inappropriate” to confront. Even among evangelicals, “relational evangelism,” several decades ago, occurred as an immanent reaction against the heavy transcendence of “contact evangelism.”  These days, evangelicals don’t even like to talk about “evangelism” and “conversion.” We like to talk about “kingdom building” and “conversation.” This shouldn’t be surprising, though, since we also don’t like talking about God’s transcendence or authority.

Lessons from a bad evangelist: In short, it’s easy to lean too far in one direction or the other, which I know quite well from personal experience. I try to be faithful in evangelism, which I think is the most important thing. But I don’t consider myself a very good evangelist, and one way I can see this is that I often veer too far in one direction or another.

1) We can be too immanent—too empathetic. Sometimes, I have let either fear of man or worldly wisdom impel me toward avoiding sharing the gospel’s command with someone (“God calls you to repent and believe”). I focus too much on “relating” or “being understanding” or “talking in their language” or “giving my testimony” or just not being weird. So I’ll put everything in terms of my personal experience, which has a way of playing into our culture’s happy acceptance of the subjective. It’s a little scarier to put things in terms of authoritative universal truth and to use the second-person pronoun “you.” But we must warn people of the jeopardy they are in! It’s only a demonic blindness which keeps us from seeing this.

 

I once shared the gospel with a man sitting next to me on an airplane, and he was very interested in what I was saying in part (I think) because I was very forthright about the gospel’s relevance to him. As it turned out, he worked six blocks from where I work. So we agreed to get together for lunch. We did have lunch a couple of times, but then he lost interest. There could be many reasons why he lost interest, but in my own post-game analysis it occurred to me that I began to care about what he thought of me, and I began defaulting toward the purely empathetic. I wanted to seem “normal” and “like him.” But when an evangelist is “all empathy,” there’s no longer any unique message to share! If you’re just like me, why should I listen to you?

 

2) We can be too transcendent—too confrontational.  Sometimes, I have plowed into an evangelistic encounter motivated only by a sense of duty rather than by love. Christians do have a duty to evangelize, but when we act in duty and not in compassionate love, we tend to be doing it for legalistic, merit-earning reasons (at least I do). When we’re focused only on the transcendent, authoritative truth, we can forget we’re sinners just like them. And we enter the conversation somewhat self-righteously.

 

I once shared the gospel with a cab driver in the last minute or so of the cab ride. Right before I got out of the car, I told him that one day he would stand before God and give an account, and that he needed to be ready for that day because God would judge his sin. Now, I honestly do think that something like that needs to be said from time to time in evangelism. On that occasion, however, I know my heart was motivated not by love but duty. The Lord may well use those words for good in that driver’s life; but generally speaking I would not encourage people to evangelize by walking up to someone they don’t know and telling them the wrath of God is coming (but Jonah?).

 

3) Compassionately confront; empathically urge.  My guess is that most evangelicals these days need to be reminded of the confrontational or transcendent aspects of evangelism. I say this in part because it feels like everyone is talking about the relational, contextualizing, and immanent aspects of evangelism. And, sure, good pastoral sense should tell us that there are times to lean more toward one posture or another. The more immature and hard-hearted a person is, the more empathy and immanence is required (sometimes). And our culture is, in many ways, hard-hearted and immature. Still, we must remember to confront and to empathize.

Don’t we all think of the apostle Paul as the exemplar of both? Of course, I’m no Paul. The great news for me is that God can use even donkeys to speak his words.

Next (and final) post: Summarizing the transcendent and immanent postures in leadership.

Posted on August 25, 2009 | Link to this Post | Comments

3. Transcendence and Immanence in Discipling

by Jonathan Leeman

Basic Idea: Discipling other Christians involves us in imaging God’s transcendent posture and his immanent posture toward his people. On the one hand, discipling typically occurs in the context of friendship—two individuals who have affectionately drawn near to one another for the purposes of enjoyment and care. This is the immanent posture. On the other hand, discipling is a friendship with a Christward direction. The goal of the enjoyment and care is to help the other person look more like Jesus. This is the transcendent posture.

Friendship: Think about what friendship involves. Our friends are the ones we imitate and follow. We adopt their language and life patterns. We tend to spend money where they spend money. We value what they value. We raise our children like they raise their children. We pray like they pray. We trust their counsel and heed their rebukes more easily than someone who is not a friend. There’s a reason that Paul says, “Bad company ruins good morals” (1 Cor. 15:33; cf. Deut. 13:6). It’s because our friends play a large role in forming who we become as we imitate one another (see James 4:4).

The intimacy and trust afforded by friendship (immanence) makes it a perfect vehicle for instruction and teaching (transcendence).

This is why there is no better friendship a person could have then the friendship of the Lord, a friendship which is given to those who keep his covenant and do his commands (Ps. 25:14; John 15:14). To say he is our friend is to say that we imitate him. To be a friend, on the other hand, is to give, just as God gives. God gives to those whom he befriends, just as Christ has befriended us through his sacrifice (John 15:13, 15). Likewise, we should befriend the members of our church by giving ourselves to them.

Discipleship: What is discipleship? Again, it’s friendship with a Christward direction or purpose—the purpose of seeing another conformed increasingly to the image of Christ as one or both give in order for the other to receive. Indeed, Christian friendships take humility, because it requires humility to both give and receive. 

Sometimes people laugh at how particular phrases and mannerisms become contagious and overused within a group of friends or a church community. But that’s exactly how discipleship works among imaging creatures. We watch and mimic, hopefully in the right direction. “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ,” Paul said to the Corinthians twice in one letter (1Cor. 11:1; 4:16; also 2 Thes. 3:7, 9). The author of the Hebrews likewise told his readers to imitate the faith of their leaders (Heb. 13:7). And John told the church he was writing to imitate what is good, not evil (3 John 11).

Church: As God gives humility to churches, those churches should be increasingly characterized by such discipleship friendships: young men befriending other young men for the sake of encouraging one another in the faith; young women doing the same with other young women; older men befriending one another and younger men; and so forth.

Christian friends are surely valuable inside or outside the same local church. But friends within a local church will be formed by the same ministry of the Word, giving them the opportunity to extend that ministry more carefully into one another’s lives throughout the week. Friendships are a God given vehicle through which the church’s ministry of the Word travels.

Practical take aways:

1. Pastors have busy schedules, and frankly they cannot afford to become good friends with everyone whom they disciple. Still, we can generally expect that the discipling relationships which occur in the context of a friendship will have the highest impact. In other words, the amount of time I spend drawing near to a brother (immanence) will directly affect how far I can draw that brother toward Christ (transcendence)—all things being equal.

2. Drawing near to a younger brother in the faith doesn’t mean telling him everything about my life. Questions of his maturity and trustworthiness will help to answer how much I can wisely tell him about my life to assist him in the path of discipleship.

3. At the same time, I need to make sure it’s not my own pharisaical aspirations of looking impressive to the younger man which keep me from drawing near and being transparent.

4. After all, at the heart of what we want to teach younger Christians is the glory of the gospel and the pattern of a gospel life. If the younger Christians around me never see me demonstrate confession, contrition, and repentance, how can I expect them to learn it? 

(Paragraphs 2, 4, and 5 to 8 have been adapted from The Church and the Surprising Offense of God’s Love: Reintroducing the Doctrines of Church Membership and Discipline—coming from Crossway Jan 2010).

Next post:  Transcendence and Immanence in Evangelism

Posted on August 21, 2009 in Discipleship & Growth | Link to this Post | Comments