Eutychus

Will Willimon passes on four helpful questions for church leaders to assess their ministries:

In a recent conversation with my friend Lloyd John Ogilvie, he said that in his fifty years of ministry he has learned to ask himself four pastoral questions:

1. What sort of people does Christ want to deploy in the world?
2. What sort of church do we need to produce those people?
3. What sort of leaders do we need to produce that sort of church?
4. What sort of pastor do I need to be to produce that sort of leaders in that sort of church?

What wonderful questions I like the emphasis here on disciple-making as the point of pastoral work. Paul would probably call it “edification” of believers, but I like Lloyd’s stress on performance, enactment, and witness to the gospel as the purpose of it all. Ministry is known by its fruit and the test of my ministry is not only my fidelity to the gospel but also the production of saints. Truth to tell, fidelity to the gospel requires the calling and equipping of disciples, church turned inside out.

Jerry Pournelle makes a succinct case why the US will fail in Afghanistan without making a long-term commitment to nation-building, a commitment that the Obama administration, and for that matter, the American people, are unwilling to make.

The Truth about Afghanistan, and its meaning for US policy

The obvious truth about Afghanistan is that there are two conditions for an American victory, assuming victory means building a democratic republic in the territory we call Afghanistan. One has to do with the number of troops. The other is the length of the commitment: how long will we stay?

Obama’s policy meets neither condition. It will not establish a democratic republic, and it is unlikely to bring about any real consolidation of power centered in Kabul. Afghanistan is not a nation, and sending in 80% of the troops needed for period of eighteen months is not going to turn it into one. The King of Afghanistan was always no more than the Grand Duke of Kabul, a Khan of Khans but not Great Khan; the local Khans were not his subordinates and did not attend at his court. That has not changed. The President of Afghanistan is the Mayor of Kabul, and he has even less authority over the village and territorial Khans than the King ever did. You may prefer to call the local Khans “tribal leaders” or “Warlords”; the nomenclature isn’t important.

The Russians drove much of the local infrastructure into the hills, and the Taliban — many of them mujahadeen armed and subsidized by US and Pakistani intelligence agents — were poised to take over when the Russians gave up the effort to establish a soviet republic government centered in Kabul in the territory called Afghanistan. Note that whatever criticisms one might have of the Soviet strategy, squeamishness was not one of them. They were ruthless in meeting terror with counter-terror, going so far as to leave booby trapped teddy bears and other toys where children could find them; there were other tactics consistent with that. If ruthless counter-terrorism would serve, the Soviets would not have abandoned Afghanistan.

The Russians drove the Khans into the hills, and the Taliban took advantage of that. They came as liberators, and they imposed a central government on Afghanistan, the first in well over a century. Their control appeared absolute, but proved to be fragile: with the help of some US Special Forces the Northern Alliance — Warlords and Khans — returned to control of the cities, towns, and villages. The Taliban leaders retreated to the hills, and to Pakistan, and another round in the perpetual conflict in Afghanistan began. Today the Taliban has made it dangerous to be seen as a friend of the West. They have also shown that they have long memories.

Counterinsurgency strategy relies on this proposition: friends of the West prosper without having to submit and kowtow. Become a friend of the west and you will have schools and fresh water, and we will help you keep your markets safe. The Taliban strategy is simply to remind the local Khans that the Taliban do not forget. The friends of our enemies are enemies, and our memories are long.

How long? We don’t know, but at least a generation. Fifteen years? Certainly no fewer than ten. And absolutely longer than five years, much less eighteen months.

Obama’s strategy cannot succeed in building a new order in Afghanistan. However desirable it may be to have a democratic republic in Afghanistan, this strategy cannot achieve it. In order to achieve that goal we must commit more troops now — and more importantly, commit to stay as long as necessary.

It has always been clear that we never intended to make such a commitment. One need only look at Viet Nam. In Viet Nam the local pacification had already been achieved. The Vietnamization of the war was a success. The only threat to South Viet Nam after 1970 was massive invasion from the north — and that couldn’t succeed so long as the United States was willing to support the Army of the Republic of Viet Nam with materiel and air support. That was proved in 1972 when 150,000 North Vietnamese regulars. twelve (12) Divisions, rolled south with as much armor as Guderian had in the conquest of France. The US provided support, but the war was won by ARVN. US casualties for 1972 were 640, with an additional 168 in 1973. Despite this, the Congress of the United States ended our commitment to Viet Nam, and the next invasion from the North was successful: Congress voted no air support, and materiel support of 20 cartridges and 2 hand grenades per ARVN soldier. The invading army was fully supplied.

Note that the threat to Viet Nam wasn’t “insurgency”, and the US didn’t need to leave much in the way of troops; what troops we had left on the ground were in enclaves (a strategy first proposed by Gen. James Gavin) in 1965. Viet Nam did not fall to insurgents or guerrillas. It fell to an armored army invading from the north. But mostly it fell to a withdrawal of support by the United States, even though that support did not require massive troop deployment or counter insurgency tactics. That commitment did not require much exposure of US troops to danger from infiltrators, and the 1972 war showed that US casualties would be small even in the event of an all-out invasion. If the US wouldn’t meet that commitment, then it was extremely unlikely that the US would commit to keep the Legions in Afghanistan, where conditions were worse and we had far less at stake.

Note also that we have no real national interest in Afghanistan. Unlike Iraq there is no oil, there is no warm water port upon the sea, there is nothing made or grown there that we need, there are no trade routes vital to western commerce. The only strategic importance of the area is its ability to harbor our enemies.

A Different Objective?

If the American objective is changed from “establish a democratic republic friendly to the west” to “make sure no US enemies are harbored in Afghanistan,” will the new Obama strategy accomplish that?

It seems unlikely, but that needs more analysis. We’ll get to that another day. But last night Obama announced, clearly, that the West will not stay in Afghanistan; Afghanistan will not be restructured; the President of Afghanistan will remain the Mayor of Kabul; and the Taliban need only wait. And the local Khans will understand that the Taliban forgets nothing.

I count it a privilege to have studied systematic theology under Bruce Ware at Southern Seminary.  At Mars Hill Church in 2007, Ware gave three talks on the subject of the providence of God. (HT: Justin Taylor).   The first talk discusses two views, those of Process Theism and Open Theism, the second that of Arminianism, and the third the view of Reformed Theology (or Calvinism).

Session 1: Uncertain Hands of God and Men: Providence in Process Thought and Open Theism – Bruce Ware

• Video
• Audio
• PDF Handout

Session 2: Independent Hands of God and Men: Providence in Classic Arminianism – Bruce Ware

• Video
• Audio
• PDF Handout

Session 3: Coordinated Hands of God and Men: Providence in the Reformed Tradition – Bruce Ware

• Video
• Audio
• PDF Handout

Just added a link to J. C. Ryle Quotes under the category “Discipleship & Spirituality.”  Judging from these quotes, Ryle had a wonderful capacity for expressing spiritual truths.  Makes me want to try out one of his books, a number of which are listed at this site.  You can also become a fan of this site on Facebook, which will enable the daily quotes to appear on your Facebook wall.

Cal.vini.st, is holding a drawing to give a away two copies of BibleWorks 8! I’ve used previous versions, and it is powerful tool for digging into the Bible in the original languages.  Many thanks to Nathan Bingham for making available this opportunity!

Reclaiming the Mind Ministries has performed a valuable service in posting papers presented at meetings of the Evangelical Theological Society.  The library appears to represent meetings  from 2001 to 2005 only, but that still represents hundreds of papers on topics ranging from systematic theology to biblical exegesis to church history to christian counseling and more.  As a pastor I am concerned with making disciples at Beaver Baptist Church, and I am interested in the relationship between spiritual formation and the disciple-making ministry of the church.  It turns out that there is a spiritual formation interest group in ETS, and the site has 12 papers on the subject of spiritual formation (the site says 15, but some are double-counted).

One of the papers that I have found to be helpful is “New Wine in Old Wineskins? The Relationship of Evangelical Thinking on Spiritual Formation and Theological Models of Sanctification” (html, or download the .pdf file here), by Steven Roy, who teaches practical theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.  In this paper, Roy compares the approaches to spiritual formation of two evangelical scholars: Dallas Willard as described in his book, The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life in God, and Bruce Demarest, represented by his book, Satisfy Your Soul: Restoring the Heart of Christian Spirituality.  These approaches (which turn out to be fairly similar) are compared to three evangelical models of sanctification: (1) The Reformed or progressive model, which holds that progress in sanctification occurs over the course of the believer’s life, and which is never complete in this life; (2) the Wesleyan model, which holds that entire sanctification is possible, coming through a crisis experience, subsequent to regeneration; and (3) the Keswick model, which holds that the believer, through a crisis experience, comes to surrender to the work of the Spirit, resulting in a breakthrough, or turning point in sanctification,  although entire sanctification is not the result.  Roy observes that there is an affinity between the spiritual formation view approach (of both Willard and Demarest), and the Reformed model of sanctification, because there is a common emphasis on lifelong, gradual progress, and because they both are synergistic, that is, they both emphasize cooperation with the grace of God.  Roy assesses strengths and weakness in each author’s approach to spiritual formation, and in general is quite positive about benefits of spiritual formation movement in evangelicalism.  He concludes:

Spiritual formation and sanctification need each other.   Sanctification is not an old wineskin that must be discarded in order to profit from the new wine of spiritual formation.  Neither is spiritual formation a new and weird departure from tried and true discussion of sanctification.  No, both spiritual formation and sanctification need each other.  So, to quote the words of Jesus from another context, What God has joined together, let no one separate.

The “emerging church” has been attracting a lot of attention for a number of years now.  Unless one is willing to do a lot of reading (and I don’t care to), it’s hard to get an idea of what the movement is about.  Mark DeVine, who teaches history and theology at Beeson Divinity School, has been following the movement.  He is a contributor to a forthcoming book on the movement, and you can download a draft of his chapter titled The Emerging Church: One Movement–Two Streams.  I found it very helpful: he concurs with some critics such as D. A. Carson, but notes that Carson has evaluated just one part of the movement.  DeVine identifies a “doctrine-averse” wing and an “doctrine-friendly” wing to the movement.  DeVine finds much to appreciate in the “doctrine-friendly” wing.  If you’re wondering what this “emerging church” thing is all about, this could be a could place to find out.

On Sunday evenings at Beaver Baptist Church  I am teaching a survey of the Bible.  I got the idea from The Story of a Kingdom, a survey of the Bible using principles of biblical theology.  The author, Jonathan Gibson,  credits a number of books on biblical theology, including Graeme Goldworthy’s According to Plan, William Dumbrell’s The Faith of Israel, and Tim Chester’s From Creation to New Creation, all of which are excellent.  You can particularly tell the influence of Goldsworthy.  The only shortcoming for my purposes is that his course is designed for students of English as a second language, thus the lesson outlines are somewhat simple.  So I decided that I would supplement the lessons with my own reading.

One resource that I have found to be quite helpful is book that I feel deserves a wider reputation: Yesterday, Today and Forever: The Continuing Relevance of the Old Testament , by Larry Helyer.  It is not a comprehensive survey, but it treats a number of key periods in the OT and key themes.  The Table of Contents will give you the idea:

1. An Overview of the Old Testament
2. The Old Testament Teaching on Creation
3. The Fall and the Flood
4. The Promise to the Patriarchs
5. The Exodus from Egypt and the Sinai Covenant
6. The Kingdom of God: Part One
7. The Kingdom of God: Part Two
8. The Word and the Spirit: Prophesy in Israel
9. Eschatology of the Old Testament
10. The Way of Wisdom and Worship
11. Epilogue: The Relationship of the Old and New Testaments

This post hardly qualifies as book review, since I am currently reading chapter 5 on the Exodus.  But I can testify to the book’s helpfulness.  For example, in chapter 2 on the Creation, Helyer has a very even-handed discussion of the various approaches to the issue of Genesis chs. 1 & 2 and modern science.  (For the record, I am an “Old Earth Creationist”).  I like a number of his charts and tables, which I have utilized in my handouts, and each chapter has a useful bibliography for further study.  Helyer is familiar with the scholarly literature, and yet incorporates it with a very accessible style.  It’s a book I will recommend to anyone wanting to get a grasp of the Old Testament.

Yesterday, on the way home, I started yet another book: What Are Spiritual Gifts? Rethinking the Conventional View, by Kenneth Berding, professor of New Testament at Talbot Theological Seminary.  Berding challenges what he calls the conventional view:

Let’s begin by looking at the conventional approach to the so-called spiritual gifts. . . . This approach says that the spiritual gifts are abilities or enablements, given by the Holy Spirit to individual believers to help them serve others.  There are three main components in any conventional definition of a spiritual gift: (1) the entity itself is an ability or enablement; (2) it is given by the Holy Spirit; (3) it is to be used in building up the community of believers. . . .

In this approach, every believer who has a relationship with God through Jesus Christ has been given at least one special ability that he or she is to discover and use in building the community of faith. [pp. 25-27]

Berding claims that nearly all discussions about the spiritual gifts begin without defining from scripture what a spiritual gift is.  That is, all spiritual gifts are assumed to be abilities that are supernaturally given by the Holy Spirit.  Here Berding describes an alternative understanding:

In this alternative approach, the so-called spiritual gifts are not special abilities; they’re Spirit-given ministries.  According to the contextual evidence in the letters of Paul, the so-called spiritual gifts should be viewed as the ministries themselves.  Every believer has been assigned by the Holy Spirit to specific positions and activities of service, small and large, short-term and long-term.  These are ministry assignments that are given by the Holy Spirit to individual believers and, in turn, these individuals in their ministries have been given as gifts to the church. [p. 32]

Berding asserts that this is not a charismatic vs. non-charismatic issue in that both parties believe that spiritual gifts are abilities given by the Holy Spirit, it’s just that they disagree on whether the Holy Spirit still gives miraculous gifts, such as speaking tongue, prophecy, etc. [p. 29]  In arguing for the ministry-assignment view, Berding concedes that some ministries such as prophecy, but not all ministries, would have required a supernatural enablement.  [p. 34]

Berding argues that in Paul’s usage of the Greek word, charisma, every usage of the word can fit the concept of ministry, and that in a number of cases, that is the only viable meaning for the term.  The heart of the book, chapters 5 through 14, lay out Berding’s argument, but I have only read through chapter 7.

There are a number of practical implications if this view is correct.  For one, there would no longer be any need for believers to seek to discover just what gift or gifts they have been given by the Holy Spirit.  The believer merely need to seek where God would have him minister.  This could come in the form of some sort of inner confirmation by the Spirit, but it would also be informed by the believer’s identification of needs in the church, and wise counsel from others.  In addition, one would not be limited by the lists of so-called spiritual gifts found in Ephesians 4:11, Romans 12:6-8; 1 Corinthians 12:8-10; and 12:28-30.  They would be taken as a representative, and not exhaustive, list of ministries. [p. 49]

I know that in my own preaching and teaching I have emphasized that every on has a spiritual gift that they need to put to use in the kingdom work of the local church.  But I have not been helpful in showing how our church members are to identify those gifts.  I’m beginning to think that I should modify that to say that every believer has been called to at least one ministry in the local church.  I think it would be easier to give guidance to those who respond to such exhortations and who want to know what to do next.

As mentioned yesterday, I’m reading Calvin’s Institutes, and finished his Preface to the Reader last night.

I’ve begun reading through the Bible (English Standard Version), using a one-year plan called The Daily Reader.  (HT: Peter Mead of Biblical Preaching).  What stands out about this plan is how they have arranged the Old Testament and New Testament Readings:

The Order of the Books

What order are we planning to read through and why?  Here’s the explanation:

Old Testament

You will notice that the Old Testament in this plan does not follow the same order as our English Bibles. We will cover the same 39 books during the year, but the order is different! We are using the Hebrew order (the order Jesus would have used). The Hebrew order organises the books in three sections. First we will begin with the five books of Moses. Second we will move through the “Former” and “Latter Prophets” - this will feel like history books, followed by the prophets. Third we will enjoy the “Writings.” There are a couple of reasons we have set it out in this different way. For those who have read through the Bible before, this will have a fresh feel to it. For all of us it will mean we enjoy benefits like not having to read the two books of Chronicles right after the books of Samuel and Kings (this can feel a bit repetitive in the English order!)  Watch for further comments about the Hebrew order as we go.

New Testament

You will also soon notice that the New Testament is not in English Bible order. The arrangement we will follow allows us to separate the gospels from each other. After each gospel we will read epistles that have some connection to it. Again, hopefully this approach will be fresh, motivating and helpful. So we’ll begin with Matthew (the more Jewish gospel) and follow it with Hebrews and James (two epistles with a very “Jewish Christian” feel!) Then Mark will be followed by the letters of Peter (who was probably behind Mark’s gospel) and Jude (which is often connected with 2 Peter). Luke will come next, along with his second work, Acts. Then, naturally, Paul’s epistles will follow Acts which tells so much of his story. Finally John’s gospel will be followed by his three other epistles and his last book of all, Revelation!

You can download a pdf file of The Daily Reading Plan, if you’re interested.

Last month at the Desiring God blog, I read John Piper’s recommendation of Leif Enger’s novel, Peace Like a River.  I ordered a copy, which arrived last Friday.  I’ve been reading it at bedtime, and I’m about halfway through it.  It’s well written and it’s a compelling story.

Finally, a man in our congregation is reading John Owen on Overcoming Sin and Temptation, in the edition edited by Kelly Kapic and Justin Taylor (Kapic wrote his doctoral dissertation on Owen at the University of London).  The book is an updating of three of Owen’s works: Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers; On Temptation: the Nature and Power of It; and Indwelling Sin.  He invited me to read it and discuss it with him, so I ordered it and it arrived yesterday.  This morning I read Kapic’s introduction while commuting on the bus to work.   It provided a nice sketch of Owen’s theology of sin and sanctification, and also whetted my appetite to immerse myself in Owen’s writings.  Here’s an sample in which Kapic discusses Owen’s insight that we must consider each individual’s personality in detecting how it is subject to sin and temptation:

A persistant danger among Christians is that we confuse certain personalites with sanctification, creating an inaccurate hierarchy within the kingdom of God.  In fact, Owen believes that because of our various backgrounds and temperaments, it is very hard to discern the most faithful Christians, since looks can be deceiving:

Remember that of many of the best Christians, the worst is known and seen.  Many who keep up precious communion with God do yet oftentimes, by their natural tempers of freedom or passion, not carry so glorious appearances as others who perhaps come short of them in grace and the power of godliness.

Not only can appearances be misleading, but people in positions of leadership in the church can often suffer greater falls than the average congregation member.  When considering countless examples of the saints in Scripture (e.g., Noah, David, Hezekiah), Owen concludes that great “eruptions of actual sin” often occur not in “the lowest form or ordinary sort of believers,” but in people who have in the past “had a peculiar eminency in them on account of their walking with God in their generation.”  Past faithfulness is not a protection against present dangers. [pg. 31]