Lloyd-Jones on Debates

In Preaching & Preachers, Martyn Lloyd-Jones (MLJ or “The Doctor” for some) recounts how he was once invited to a public debate on the question of religion with a man who “held more or less atheistical views at that time.”

MLJ declined and tells of how he was questioned for that.

Many felt that I was rejecting and missing a wonderful evangelistic opportunity.

But I maintained then, and I still maintain, that my decision was the correct one. Quite apart from any detailed reasons which I am going to give, I think it is wrong as a total approach. My impression is that experience of the kind of thing shows clearly that it very rarely succeeds, or leads to anything. It provides entertainment, but as far as I am aware, and in my experience and knowledge of it, it has very rarely been fruitful or effective as a means of winning people to the Christian faith.

But more important still are my detailed reasons. The first is, and to me this was an all-sufficient reason in itself, that God is not to be discussed or debated. God is not a subject for debate, because He is Who He is and What He is. …

To discuss the being of God in a casual manner, lounging in an armchair, smoking a pipe or a cigarette or a cigar, is to me something that we should never allow, because God, as I say, is not a kind of philosophic X or a concept. …

It seems to me that these supposed discussions and dialogues on religion that we have the television and radio are generally nothing but sheer entertainment. Equal time is given to the unbeliever as to the believer, and there is the cut and thrust of debate and jocularity and fun. The programme is so arranged that the subject cannot be dealt with in depth. I protest that the matter with which we are concerned is so desperately serious and vital and urgent that we should never allow it to be approached in this way.” (46-48)

Was MLJ too radical? How should we engage his proposition that weighty matters of theology are not well handled in armchair debates, particularly among scoffers? Is there something here that should inform us as to the value of something like the Elephant Room? Are there some areas in which MLJ’s principles against debate would not apply?

Regardless of how we conclude on these questions, we should give some thought to MLJ’s point, namely, that God is. And therefore, it doesn’t fit to debate or discuss that.

Perhaps it would be a bit like debating the existence and usefulness of air. Without it, you can’t even debate it.

We should take care before indulging the questions of scoffers, which it typically how debates are arranged.

Here’s the other side. I greatly enjoyed and learned from the debate between Gordon Stein and Greg Bahnsen. If you have listened to it, you should. Multiple times. I have greatly benefited from other debates, panel discussions, exchanges of ideas, etc.

After all, Paul engaged people in synagogues, on Mars Hill, in the marketplace, indeed it seems anywhere that he could get someone to engage.

So there’s good precedent it seems.

But we need to be careful.

I suppose I tend to side against MLJ here. But I think his point should be carefully considered.

Ryle on Sanctification

This is a longish series of quotes (in order, but not consecutive), but IMO it is worth hearing in the modern day discussion about sanctification. They are from pp. xi-xv in the introduction to Ryle’s Holiness (which is Logos’ free book of the month this month).

I ask, in the first place, whether it is wise to speak of faith as the one thing needful, and the only thing required, as many seem to do now-a-days in handling the doctrine of sanctification?—Is it wise to proclaim in so bald, naked, and unqualified a way as many do, that the holiness of converted people is by faith only, and not at all by personal exertion? Is it according to the proportion of God’s Word? I doubt it.

But surely the Scriptures teach us that in following holiness the true Christian needs personal exertion and work as well as faith. The very same Apostle who says in one place, “The life that I live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God,” says in another place, “I fight,—I run,—I keep under my body;” and in other places, “Let us cleanse ourselves,—let us labour,—let us lay aside every weight.” (Gal. 2:20; 1 Cor. 9:26; 2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 4:11; 12:1.) Moreover, the Scriptures nowhere teach us that faith sanctifies us in the same sense, and in the same manner, that faith justifies us! Justifying faith is a grace that “worketh not,” but simply trusts, rests, and leans on Christ. (Rom. 4:5.) Sanctifying faith is a grace of which the very life is action: it “worketh by love,” and, like a main-spring, moves the whole inward man. (Gal. 5:6.)

But surely the New Testament teaches us that we want something more than generalities about holy living, which often prick no conscience and give no offence. The details and particular ingredients of which holiness is composed in daily life, ought to be fully set forth and pressed on believers by all who profess to handle the subject. True holiness does not consist merely of believing and feeling, but of doing and bearing, and a practical exhibition of active and passive grace. Our tongues, our tempers, our natural passions and inclinations,—our conduct as parents and children, masters and servants, husbands and wives, rulers and subjects,—our dress, our employment of time, our behaviour in business, our demeanour in sickness and health, in riches and in poverty,—all, all these are matters which are fully treated by inspired writers. They are not content with a general statement of what we should believe and feel, and how we are to have the roots of holiness planted in our hearts. They dig down lower. They go into particulars. They specify minutely what a holy man ought to do and be in his own family, and by his own fireside, if he abides in Christ. I doubt whether this sort of teaching is sufficiently attended to in the movement of the present day.

1.  Ryle is surely right that the faith which justifies does not work the same way as the faith which sanctifies. Remembering the work of Jesus is no substitute for “discipline yourselves for the purpose of godliness.” These two must not be set in opposition.

2.  Ryle is surely right that preaching and teaching about personal holiness is about more than generalities which prick no conscience and give no offense. The Bible is specific, and it does not address only what we believe about Jesus and his cross work. It also specifies what we must do, and the NT makes it plain that it will not be easy and will not be without sacrifice.

3.  Ryle is surely right that this sort of teaching is not sufficiently attended to in our day. There is a great fear of legalism and extra-biblical rules. And it is wise, nay, it is biblical to be concerned about legalism and extra-biblical rules. But today, there are a lot of babies flowing in the waste-water because people have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. There is a fear of clear proclamation of the Scriptures on matters of personal holiness. There is a fear of being grace killers. We just need to get over that. Yes, be cautious, but don’t be fearful of saying what God has already said.

Thoughts on the Elephant Room

A friend recently asked me on Twitter if I was going to the Elephant Room, and why (or I suppose why not, depending on the answer to the first question). Rather than try to cram it into a DM on Twitter, I decided to answer here.

The answer is “No, I didn’t go,” though late last week I re-tweeted a tweet offering free airfare, entry, and lodging to a randomly drawn winner. I was willing to win and actually go because I think it would be interesting on several different fronts, even though I intentionally live in a far different theological and ecclesiastical world than most of those participating.

(I say “most” because I can’t speak for all of them, since I don’t know who all is there. And I am perfectly willing to let them answer to God for wherever they stand.)

But I didn’t win. So I didn’t go because, in addition to not winning, (1) it’s too cold to play golf in Illinois right now (though it would be cheaper than the entry fee to ER), (2) it’s expensive, (3) it takes me away from my family when I would rather be home, and (4) a couple more reasons given below.

To start off, let me say that I like the idea of the Elephant Room (ER). Getting men in the same room to interact face-to-face about their differences is a great idea. Participants could present their positions, discuss them, ask questions, and answer questions, give nuance, correct misrepresentations, etc. No more making stuff up.

We see far too many people addressing caricatures of others’ positions. I have seen blatant lies, half-truths, and subtle (or not so subtle) innuendo offered in the name of “taking a stand.” It needs to stop. It needs to be repented of. By all sides.

Sitting down together to talk about differences is not sinful. It is not partnership or fellowship. In fact, it gives the chance to explain why one is not a partner. It provides an avenue in which biblical obedience can be carried out because we are talking directly to people about where we believe they are wrong rather than talking about them. In such a context, we can challenge the position of others. It may not be wise in every situation (though it may be in some), but it is not sinful in every situation either (though it may be in some).

However, I think ER is too narrow in its scope to be of great value. All of the participants come from a fairly narrow stream of modern, American, Christianity. This one branched out a bit (perhaps even outside of Christianity, a problem in and of itself), but it was still pretty narrow. IMO, getting a bunch of guys to challenge each other who already agree for the most part isn’t all that engaging, helpful, or interesting, at least not for the amount of money it would take to get there.

If you want a good ER3, get Driscoll, Chandler, Hybels, MacArthur, Dever, Trueman, and me.

Okay, leave me out. But get the other six. And then actually ask tough questions and allow discussion.

The challenges I saw in the clips from ER1 were rather weak, IMO. So I didn’t have high hopes for this one.

Those hopes were not surpassed if the reports I read from yesterday’s ER2 (Trevin Wax, Tim Schraeder) are accurate. They seem to show that challenges were virtually non-existent this time.

And it raises the question: What is the point of having differing viewpoints in order to challenge each other if no challenges take place?

The most direct challenge I recall from the notes was in the exchange between Driscoll and Graham over the topic of how many churches were actually planted in Haiti, and how many would be around in five years. It’s a good question, and should have led to more interaction about the nature of church and the gospel, particularly in third world countries. Driscoll could have even pointed out that there were no nationally known pastors in Haiti, and someone could have challenged him on that because he certainly needs to be.

But the number of lasting church plants in Haiti seems a rather small matter compared to the prosperity gospel and Word Faith doctrine of T. D. Jakes which apparently went unmentioned, and even his views on the Trinity were not really hashed out much. Apparently it’s all cool because Jakes says there is “very little difference” between Driscoll and him on the Trinity (as Wax reports). Driscoll’s closed-handed issue of complementarianism didn’t even come up.

The number of churches in Haiti after five years also seems small compared to the Code Orange revival which apparently was mentioned only by Furtick in a reference to baptizing his son. What was going on there? Why did you think that was going to bring revival? What is revival? How would we get it and how would we know it if it actually showed up?

The number of churches in Haiti after five years seems small compared to the resignation of MacDonald from the Gospel Coalition council while fellow ER participant Crawford Loritts remains on the council. Now there’s an elephant in the room. Why didn’t anyone challenge that? What actually happened? Why does MacDonald think TGC is wrong?

Where were the prophetic voices to speak into this?

You have a group of men known for being bold proclaimers of truth, writing books, and calling out all manner of stuff. Yet here they suddenly came down with lockjaw?

Why? Scared of being called haters in Furtick’s next video?

Scared of pulling the main post out of the big tent and causing a gigantic crash of the ER?

MacDonald didn’t have any problem taking a few shots at fundamentalism. Why not take a shot at the prosperity gospel? Why not take a shot at the circus church mentality? Why not take a shot at the crudeness of Driscoll?

This failure is interesting to me. And concerning.

And it’s why I am not enamored with the ER. And it’s why I didn’t go.

So to sum it up, while I thought ER2 would be interesting, I didn’t think it would be worth the time, money, and effort to go. Now, my reading confirms that I made the right choice for me.

Were it free and local, I would probably go. Were it cheap and local, I would be tempted because I find the conversations interesting, and I don’t mind getting out of the office in the winter time.

But as it stands, it is too broad in who it calls Christian leaders, it is too narrow in perspectives represented, it lacks real challenges to issues of significance, and it costs too much money to offset any of those problems.

So I didn’t go.

So what do I make of hosts MacDonald and Driscoll?

Actually, not much. And what I mean by that is not pejorative. I just don’t think about them much. It’s like the pastor who asked his pastor friend, “What are they saying about me over there?” The answer came back, “Nothing. They’re not even talking about you.”

Neither one, in fact no one on this panel, has particular influence in my present sphere of ministry. I doubt one person connected to my church would know them. So I don’t think about them very much.

I do think there are some significant concerns on some issues of real substance, Driscoll in particular, which demonstrate that they do not serve a vital role in public ecclesiology and theology. I wouldn’t recommend them or their ministries as models to be emulated.

We can learn from them, and indeed should. In fact, we should learn both good and bad from them, and there is some of each.

I will rejoice in people that are saved and lives that are changed. But that won’t alleviate my concerns.

I don’t need them to be faithful to the task to which God has called me and therefore I don’t think about them.

And I don’t feel compelled need to drop a half a grand on entry fees, hotel, food, and travel to go hear them.

The Lasting Impact of Church Preaching

Out of Ur has an interesting article today on “The Religious View of 20-Somethings.” You can read the first two parts to catch up to this one.

The particularly notable part of this article is at the end:

Very few of my students could identify any way religion might impact their daily lives, specifically their future personal and professional goals. Even the students who consider themselves committed Christians failed to recognize what difference their faith made, say, in their marriages or careers. They could point to superficial things—like wanting to be married in their church, which meant they had to marry a fellow Christian—but couldn’t go much deeper than that.

This is troubling. I suspect some will blame preaching and teaching that doesn’t focus on life application. But I’m not so sure. I wonder if the problem is actually too much emphasis on the practical. Evangelicals have had a tendency for the last twenty years or more to distill the Scriptures into five-principles-for-happy-marriages and three-promises-for-raising-great-kids. If we spoke of the Christian life more in terms of the inner life—spoke of the Holy Spirit’s work of transformation, of the pursuit of godly virtue, spiritual gifts and fruit, etc.—if we truly focused on growing Christians, and not just good citizens, maybe our young people would have an easier time identifying how their faith affects the rest of their lives.

Around the Horn

Here’s a good article on evangelism. It reminds me of an old idea called the 3x5 rule, the idea of which is to contact five people a day, or 35 a week (for those who are math-challenged) with the goal of getting three sit down meetings to talk about the gospel. People who talk about evangelism but don’t talk to unbelievers about the gospel are not serious about evangelism.

Here’s a good article on heavy-handed leadership. Unfortunately, this is the default for many, and not just in fundamentalism. Leaders have to be bold, but humble. As I tweeted recently, you can’t lead if you aren’t willing to disappoint and even infuriate people, but do not do it lightly. Too many leaders have an arrogance that they know it all. They are unwilling to let people differ with them.

Here’s a good post by Sean Lucas on the age-old homiletical question about the difference between preaching and teaching. He says,

“Whereas my major goal in lecturing is information, my major goal in preaching is transformation. And because this is the case, I don't feel the burden to give people as much information as possible; rather, I feel the burden to give people the information necessary about the text so that they will see the connections to their own lives and be moved to seek God in Christ as a result. Application is the major focus of the sermon.

I think he is right here. Pastors, don’t fall prey to the tendency to tell everything you know about a text. It makes you long, boring, and confusing. Since there is a rather large chance that your congregation doesn’t need to know there are four interpretive options for something, just tell them what they need to know in order to do what God has said. Save the rest for a teaching time, such as a midweek Bible class. My general rule is that if an interpretive option is obvious in the text or shows up in the translations that I know people carry, then I give a brief word about it. Otherwise, I just say what I think it says.

Lastly, a few posts on David and Goliath have been making the rounds recently. Matt Chandler kicked it off with this explanation. Over a year ago, I posted my take on David and Goliath here. I think Chandler’s view is moralizing—a sanctified moralizing since he put Jesus on the front of it, but moralizing nonetheless. You can read a few other takes here and here. I think Jesus is clearly and obviously in the OT, and I think we should preach that way. But I think Chandler is headed down the wrong path.

And as a bonus, what in the name of anything good and decent was Chandler doing at Furtick’s Code Orange Revival. That was disappointing.