The back cover begins..."Centuries ago, English translators perpetrated a fraud in the New Testament, and it's been covered up every since. Your own Bible is probably included in the cover up."
Whenever someone suggests that the Bible lacks credibility I usually shrug it off as anti-christian bias. After all, this has been happening since the Satan said the Author of the Bible lacked credibility. But when a strong proponent of biblical authority, a man who believes in a high view of the Scripture says that "translators have perpertrated a fraud" - I sat up and took notice.
I was asked to review the book "Slave" by Dr. John Mac Arthur as part of a marketing campaign by Thomas Nelson publishers. I would receive the book for free if I would read it and post a review of the book on my blog. So here goes my first review.
Overall I believe the book is useful because Dr. Mac Arthur is a faithful expositor and his work in this book is faithful as well.
My frustration with the book falls under the category of what I would call the "tabloid news tease effect." This marketing technique is used in T.V., Talk Radio, Sports Talk Radio and most advertising. It teases the viewer/reader/listener to "stay tuned" by suggesting that what is coming is so incredible that you wouldn't want to miss it.
While I put up with this in pagan marketing I was quite surprised that it would be part of evangelical circles. I believe Paul (that would be the Apostle Paul) wrote something about not 'tampering with the Word of God" for personal gain.
If the kind of "cover up" that Dr. Mac Arthur says has happened, has in fact happened. And if it has had the level of negative impact on our discipleship that he would suggest, then a massive recall of the bible needs to take place immediately. We are talking about the Word of the most high God. If companies recall toys, medicine and automobiles for safety reasons it would only seem reasonable that someone with more influence than this reviewer would get right on this and demand a recall. I assume the bean counters at the bible publishing companies would not be in favor of bearing the cost of republishing millions of bibles even if it meant getting the biblical text accurate.
Another difficulty was that Dr. Mac Arthur gives a rather negative assessment of the "contemporary evangelical movement" (pg. 74). I find this judgment more than a bit hypocritical given the way this book is being marketed. To take a slap at those whom he had in mind over their so-called "worldly methods" and "worldly music" and having no "lordship ideology" is ridiculous, especially in light of how this book is presented as that which "unveils the essential and clarifying revelation that my be keeping [me] from a fulfilling and correct relationship with God." Really??? Hmmm. It is tough to take a lecture on the compromise of "market driven strategies in ministry" (pg. 75) from someone who tells me that his book holds the key to a correct relationship with God and that a cover up of "biblical proportions" has kept me from that relationship.
I have no doubt that Dr. Mac Arthur is correct that the word for "slave" was mistranslated and probably for cultural reasons. As a pastor I am constantly aware of the illustrations I use and the responsibility to be culturally relevant. I am grateful for men like John Mac Arthur who have bequeathed this great heritage of biblical fidelity to me and millions of others through his writing, preaching and radio ministry.
So how do we move forward in regaining the concept of "slave" as a defining reality of our discipleship in Jesus?
This is perhaps where the book was most confusing. He never really tells us how to move forward. It seems that the author's intention was to write a book about Calvinistic doctrine. My natural bent to cynicism would lead me to believe that in order to get someone to read a book on Calvinistic theology you had better have a good lure - like the one on pg. 1 when the author tells us that he realized there had been a "centuries-long cover up by English New Testament translators that had obscured a precious, powerful, and clarifying revelation by the Holy Spirit." Now I am not much of a fisherman, but I think that is a lure.
Since I am a commitment to biblical fidelity in matters of the glorious gospel of grace, I don't mind reading a book that reinforces my need to keep living in vital dependence to that grace. The problem is that the book has no gospel well to drink from. It is a well written lecture on doctrine but not a place for grace. It would be like giving a thirsty man a lecture on the elements of water without providing for him an actual drink of water.
If I am going to appropriate the spiritual reality of being a slave what I will need is for the gospel to change me so that I embody the teaching of being a slave as well as the reality of living as a slave to Jesus. I sensed in this book the usual law-lecture instead of pointing me to see the One who as rich and yet for my sake became poor so that through His poverty I might become rich.
My desire is to have my discipleship convey the full surrender of being a slave to Jesus. I pray for grace to embody it in the way Jesus did. To the extent that John Mac Arthur's book "Slave" encourages this I am grateful. To the extent he used the alleged "cover up" to sell books and take a swipe at culturally relevant expressions of being a slave of Christ I am disappointed.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Movement
This blog entry will cover the sermon from January 2, 2011. I have included the essay by Tim Keller on "Movement." At the end of the essay you will see three questions I have added. If you interact about this essay please include your thought concerning at least one of the questions I have posed. ~ PKP.
A movement is marked by an attractive, clear, unifying vision for the future together with a strong set of values or beliefs. The content of the vision must be compelling and clear so that others can grasp it readily. It must not be so esoteric or difficult that only a handful of people can articulate it. Instead, it must be something that all members of the movement can understand and pass along to others. By contrast, "institutionalized" organizations are held together by rules, regulations, and procedures, not by a shared vision.
This unifying vision is so compelling that it takes pride of place. First, the vision leads to sacrificial commitment. Individuals put the vision ahead of their own interests and comfort. They are willing to work without high compensation, power, or perks. The satisfaction of realized goals is their main compensation. There is no more practical index of whether you have a movement or not. If the leader is making all the sacrifices, you don't.
Second, the vision leads to generous flexibility. Institutionalized organizations are very turf conscious. Members are suspicious of anyone encroaching on their area of responsibility. Positions and power have been hard-won and jealously guarded. This is done by slavish devotion to rules of procedure, accreditation, and tenure. In movements, however, the accomplishment of the vision is more important than power and position. So people are willing to make allies, be flexible, and cooperate with anyone sharing the basic vision and values.
Third, the vision leads to innovativeness. Institutions are organized more vertically, where ideas from "below" are unwelcome. Movements are flatter because the commonly shared vision unifies and empowers. The vision is what matters - so anyone with a good idea about how to accomplish it is welcome to give it. Ideas flow out of the whole organization, top to bottom, which leads to greater creativity.
Finally, a movement is marked by spontaneous generativity. Spontaneous combustion means energy generated from within - a conflagration without the need for external ignition. A movement is able to generate its own resources, recruit its own new members and participants, and (especially) raise up its own new leaders. This does not mean that movements have no formal training programs. Rather, it means that first, the vision of the movement (especially as its content is disseminated) attracts people with leadership potential, and, secondly, that the work of the movement provides opportunities that reveal emerging leaders through real-life experience and then prepares them for the next level of leadership in the movement. Denominations or church networks that always have to recruit ministers and staff that were raised up in other environments, and that attract them mainly with good compensation, do not show signs of being a movement.
David Hurst, a Harvard scholar, summed up how movements become institutions this way - vision becomes strategy, roles become tasks, teams become structure, networks become organizations, recognition becomes compensation. It is wrong, however, to draw such a hard line between the two forms. It is typical in the Christian movement literature to be highly critical of "institutionalism," for good reason. But the impression is left that all authority, central control, and formal processes are bad for ministry. The reality is more complex.
It is natural for new churches and ministries to try very hard to stay informal, non-codified, and non-centralized. But part of what makes a movement dynamic is a unified vision, and that always requires some codification and control. As time goes on, to maintain the main engine of movement-dynamics - a unified vision - a ministry must adopt some of the aspects of institutions. A strong movement, then, occupies the difficult space between being a free-wheeling organism and a disciplined organization. A movement that refuses to take on some organizational characteristics - authority, tradition, unity of belief, and quality control - will fragment and dissipate. A movement that does not also resist the inevitable tendency toward complete institutionalization will lose its vitality and effectiveness as well. The job of the movement leader is to steer the ship safely between these two opposite perils.
Ministry Movements – Tim Keller
The word "movement" is often used to describe a kind of vital, dynamic human organization, in order to distinguish it from what are called "institutions." Both of these words can have broader meanings, but for the sake of this discussion let us define them in the following ways.A movement is marked by an attractive, clear, unifying vision for the future together with a strong set of values or beliefs. The content of the vision must be compelling and clear so that others can grasp it readily. It must not be so esoteric or difficult that only a handful of people can articulate it. Instead, it must be something that all members of the movement can understand and pass along to others. By contrast, "institutionalized" organizations are held together by rules, regulations, and procedures, not by a shared vision.
This unifying vision is so compelling that it takes pride of place. First, the vision leads to sacrificial commitment. Individuals put the vision ahead of their own interests and comfort. They are willing to work without high compensation, power, or perks. The satisfaction of realized goals is their main compensation. There is no more practical index of whether you have a movement or not. If the leader is making all the sacrifices, you don't.
Second, the vision leads to generous flexibility. Institutionalized organizations are very turf conscious. Members are suspicious of anyone encroaching on their area of responsibility. Positions and power have been hard-won and jealously guarded. This is done by slavish devotion to rules of procedure, accreditation, and tenure. In movements, however, the accomplishment of the vision is more important than power and position. So people are willing to make allies, be flexible, and cooperate with anyone sharing the basic vision and values.
Third, the vision leads to innovativeness. Institutions are organized more vertically, where ideas from "below" are unwelcome. Movements are flatter because the commonly shared vision unifies and empowers. The vision is what matters - so anyone with a good idea about how to accomplish it is welcome to give it. Ideas flow out of the whole organization, top to bottom, which leads to greater creativity.
Finally, a movement is marked by spontaneous generativity. Spontaneous combustion means energy generated from within - a conflagration without the need for external ignition. A movement is able to generate its own resources, recruit its own new members and participants, and (especially) raise up its own new leaders. This does not mean that movements have no formal training programs. Rather, it means that first, the vision of the movement (especially as its content is disseminated) attracts people with leadership potential, and, secondly, that the work of the movement provides opportunities that reveal emerging leaders through real-life experience and then prepares them for the next level of leadership in the movement. Denominations or church networks that always have to recruit ministers and staff that were raised up in other environments, and that attract them mainly with good compensation, do not show signs of being a movement.
David Hurst, a Harvard scholar, summed up how movements become institutions this way - vision becomes strategy, roles become tasks, teams become structure, networks become organizations, recognition becomes compensation. It is wrong, however, to draw such a hard line between the two forms. It is typical in the Christian movement literature to be highly critical of "institutionalism," for good reason. But the impression is left that all authority, central control, and formal processes are bad for ministry. The reality is more complex.
It is natural for new churches and ministries to try very hard to stay informal, non-codified, and non-centralized. But part of what makes a movement dynamic is a unified vision, and that always requires some codification and control. As time goes on, to maintain the main engine of movement-dynamics - a unified vision - a ministry must adopt some of the aspects of institutions. A strong movement, then, occupies the difficult space between being a free-wheeling organism and a disciplined organization. A movement that refuses to take on some organizational characteristics - authority, tradition, unity of belief, and quality control - will fragment and dissipate. A movement that does not also resist the inevitable tendency toward complete institutionalization will lose its vitality and effectiveness as well. The job of the movement leader is to steer the ship safely between these two opposite perils.
Application Questions from Keller Essay and Sermon on Gospel Movement by P. Ken (please note that the questions were added by P. Ken Prater)
- “A movement is marked by an attractive, clear, unifying vision for the future together with a strong set of values or beliefs” (second paragraph, pg. 1). Allow me to suggest two applications:
· In Romans 8:28-30 the Apostle Paul gives us the “attractive, clear, unifying vision” of Jesus for His church. This vision is going to be completed by God in such a way that He is worshiped forever by those who come to “glorification” through the power of God who works all things together for good.
· Acts 2:42-47 illustrates how the church presently experiences a measure of the “glorification” that Paul writes about. We know that God must empower us to do this work but we also know that He expects us to do the work. In light of this consider these questions:
- If by “a strong set of values or beliefs” Keller means convictions or principles to live by – what are ours? If movement is going to take place it must be marked by something. Can you articulate your gospel convictions? What would you say are the “gospel convictions” of Durkeetown?
- “The vision leads to sacrificial commitment” (third paragraph); “to generous flexibility” (fourth paragraph); “to innovativeness” (fifth paragraph).
· Re-read the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs and answer the following questions:
- Which is the most difficult for you personally to live with? What will require the most change from you so that vision can move?
- Where is Durkeetown (as a collective Body) most vulnerable? If we don’t make a course correction how will it impact the ability of vision to move?
- Where do you see “sacrificial commitment, generous flexibility and innovativeness” in the narrative from Acts 2:42-47 and 4:23-37?
- P. Ken mentioned the movement of the gospel in the global, local and individual context. How can Durkeetown be more effective in being part of the global, local and individual movement of the gospel? Write down and share some practical ways to do this so we can benefit from your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
