Preaching to an effeminate age (I)...

I've often wondered where the line is between choosing to be charitable in what we think about someone's level of honesty or motivations and simply committing intellectual suicide.

Any thoughts?

Rebecca Nugent: "I've often wondered where the line is between choosing to be charitable in what we think about someone's level of honesty or motivations and simply committing intellectual suicide.

Any thoughts?"

I've wondered about that on a national scale. There are ardent calls to be charitable about the Liberals' lack of honesty and their motivations, and by these calls to be charitable, we as a nation are simply committing national suicide.

Why be charitable to a wolf? The wolves love it when you're charitable to them. The wolves love it when sheep bleat and bleat and bleat for hirelings to be charitable to all, especially for wolves.

Reminds me of a Pearls Before Swine cartoon strip where the zebras were trying to improve relations by sending a delegation to the lions (or was it the crocodiles). The response came back in the form of a letter, asking for more zebras to be sent.

Of course, charity would require us to "hope all things" about the lions. We can't know for sure that they ate the delegation, and so we can't talk about their motives in sending the letter.

Tim Bayly: "Here in the Western world, if a pastor’s goal is to be likable, to be given serious consideration by pulpit search committees, to not be taken to task by elders during session meetings, to have peaceful weeks in between Sunday morning performances of helpful thoughts for the week spiced with biblical erudition, he will work hard to cultivate a certain tone of voice—a balanced, calm, soft voice. He will make sure to doubt himself, to suggest he may, of course, be entirely wrong.

But hear me. Such a man is a wolf. He is a false shepherd. He is a betrayer of the Lord Who bought him with His Own blood."

Strong words, brother Tim. Good words. But I'm of a constitution that can handle powerful medicine like yours.

My guess is that many people would not just simply dislike what you're saying, but that they would really despise the medicine you're dispensing, so much so that they would attack you personally.

With your words of admonition, you could turn an otherwise "nice" and "likable" man into a snarling wolf.

And you'd be blamed for provoking the incident.

That being said, I wish I had a solution or a better alternative than what you've written.

Rebecca,

I thinks that's one of those, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." I think it takes experience - of the person in question and general experience -- and a great deal of discernment.

That, and if you throw a rock at a pack of dogs the one what yelps is the one what got hit, so to say.

Kamilla

Kamilla,

Thanks for your response. Perhaps I should have phrased it, "When is the discernment of another's motives being wise, and when is it sinful?"

What's really sad, is that Tim's post expressing a pastor's need to directly discern, rebuke, and call to repent seems so glaringly common-sense obvious by logic/theology/scripture/history, yet so rare and radical in practice both individually and congregationally in word and attitude coming from even our country's best and most doctrinally sound preachers and churches for a lifetime.

I simply see severe fear of God deficiency at the root.

We must be careful about judging motives, or speculating on them. THe word itself, explained and applied, in a robust way, reveals the thoughts and intentions of the heart, though.

So often, all we must do is expound and apply the word, preaching both God's yes and his no, with frequent calls to repentance.

It is amazing how often just that separates God's sheep from Satan's goats, and how quickly the opposition arises on just that account, how vociferous, angry, and non-sensical it is, revealing itself for the demonic shrieks that it is.

Now, we need to be careful not to be needlessly offensive, and certainly not to view every disagreement with the pastor as a disagreement with God.

But, on matters where God's word is clear, and folk set themselves in clear opposition to it, then, whatever our own faults or failings, we must be clear to declare it.

And preaching does not always have to be winsome, or end on a positive note. Sometimes grace means bringing the heat, and praying for conviction to call so that the response is, "Men and brothers, what shall we do?"

Should not our preaching look more like the Sermon on the Mount, Peter on Pentecost, or Stephen before the Jews, and less like a toastmaster's speech?

The main problem in so much PCA preaching is the bending over backwards to be winsome that much of what God says we left unsaid. It is very hard to take people to task for what they do not say, so I am grateful to Tim for pointing this out!

Well said....and someone asked where the lines comes between charitability and intellectual suicide....my take would be that true charity, real agape love, would necessarily involve saying the difficult things that people need to hear. Agape is not touchy-feely getting along and singing kumbaya; it is looking out for the best as God sees it.

God disiplines me in charity; Satan soothes in hate.

Daryl Hart said, "Eliza writes above, quite sensibly I think, 'If another denies the motivation we attribute to him, we have to drop it, but we still can talk about the "deed" itself.'

I deny what you attribute to 2k. So when will you drop it?"

It is impossible to imagine any time in church history when a theological dispute was settled like this: "No, you are wrong to call my orthodoxy into question."

"Oh, silly me. I'll just drop it."

So, when is this a sin? When we're speaking corporately/theologically or personally? I'm not trying to play devil's advocate, and for the record, I agree with Tim's stance on 2K theology (and I am a member of an OPC church). So far, it seems like the responses say this: On a personal level, it is sin. On a political, corporate, theological level, it is not. Is this accurate?

Tim Bayly: "On the one hand, mainline liberal and emergent churches do it by direct denial of the Word of God. Doctrine after doctrine is tossed on the ash heap of history as they speak of the fresh revelations they have received and the new thing the Holy Spirit is doing in our time."

Hi Tim,

I just read an interesting comment on the intersection between mainline liberal Christians and US history. I'd like to get you and your blog readers' opinions. Here it is:

"The “Christians failed to voluntarily care for the sick/poor, so the government had to step in” theory, though commonplace and apparently obvious, is simply a historical myth.

The vast majority of Christians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were Progressives in mainline denominations who did not fail to care for the sick and poor; they did so through the means of the government and intentionally so because they believed the State was the chosen instrument of God to bring relief to the poor. If one recalls, the Progressive era was the heyday of the social gospel. The Progressives were so politically energized and powerful they, led by their elites, passed four constitutional amendments (four!) within only seven years: the 16th Amendment authorizing the federal income tax, which made possible large-scale federal entitlement programs; the 17th Amendment authorizing the direct election of U. S. Senators; the 18th Amendment prohibiting alcohol (recall the influence of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union in Prohibition); and the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote. Woodrow Wilson was elected by the Progressive Christians in this era, and with their blessing he established the prototype federal institutions dedicated to expanding the power of the federal government to care for the poor, sick and unemployed, institutions that laid the groundwork for FDR’s New Deal programs/agencies and the Great Society institutions under LBJ.

So, no, the “the government had to step in because Christians failed to do their job” theory is completely removed from historical reality. That’s not how the federal government got involved. The government got involved because the evangelicals of that day, the Progressives, became captivated at both the populist and elite levels by the same vision of material salvation through the power of the State that was capturing the hearts and minds of the elites of the dominant European culture, to where U. S. elites also traveled to learn. Progressive Christians, who were the vast majority of American Christians at the turn of the century, chose the government.

The problem was not that Christians were involved in politics. The problem was that the Progressive version of the Gospel–the social gospel–embodied in their politics, was a shallow and heretical distortion disconnected from the historic Church through time (we Americans love our clean slates).

Nevertheless, the federal Leviathan today represents the culmination and triumph of the vision of liberal Christians over the past century. Theologically conservative Christians love pointing to the declining numbers of mainline denominations because they think it means they are winning the battle in some Gnostic realm of invisible spirituality; unfortunately, it means something else. They are shrinking because they already won in America in the early 20th century; mainline decline is simply the outworking of their false theology privatizing and eventually eliminating the Church. But the weakness is illusory; the numbers of their “moral therapeutic deistic” descendants are swelling and we see that fact mirrored politically in our democracy by the increasing centralization and growth of the State (a process which, one recalls, has not been abated for over a century–sorry politically conservative Christians, not even during Reagan–not even close).

The true Church needs to reject both the privatized gospel of fundamentalism which allowed the Progressives free reign by abandoning cultural life and, in truth, the world; and the social gospel of liberal Christianity which denies the centrality of the crucified and risen Savior and His Spirit-filled Body.

We do this not by sticking a “Jesus saves” sticker on whatever modern culture and politics happens to be and doing the same things, but by continuing the re-forming and re-ordering of our lives in every sphere as the historic Church has always needed to do and has done, more or less faithfully, to build up the Kingdom of God.

Today for the Church in globalized America, after a century of false choices, this will mean some big changes that will only happen over time by God’s grace, if He is so merciful. Once again, the Church must be against the world, for the world."

Darryl Hart: "TU . . . AD, why is it so courageous for Tim Bayly to rant at a blog that he and his brother sponsors, and that has readers who cheer like you?"

Number one, you're using loaded language when you use the word "rant". That makes the question a leading question.

Number two, I don't always cheer or agree with Tim Bayly.

Number three, I think it's courageous because he's not looking for the world's applause or to be widely liked like some effeminate pastors do.

For example, take a look at this one recent comment by a commenter named "Libchick" on one of Tim's posts:

"Just wanted to let you know that people like you are the reason I have no interest in ever setting foot in a PCA church again."

P.S. You really don't like the light that the Baylys are shining on R2K doctrine, do you?

>>who says this is a theological dispute. It's a discussion at a blog.

I fail to see how "theological disputes" and "discussion at a blog" are antithetical.

>>Maybe the laughs on you for thinking this interaction has the significance of Nicea.

Obviously it is significant enough for you to spend as many hours as you have (not) having a theological dispute.

Rebecca: "For someone who is so sure of his standing - academically, theologically, intellectually, and otherwise - I have to admit, insecurity continually seeps through your snarky comments."

I kinda wondered the same thing. I wondered whether Dr. Darryl Hart wants to give up R2K doctrine because he now realizes it's so untenable, but because of pride and not wanting to give the Baylys the satisfaction of being right it prevents him from abandoning R2K, and thereby releasing himself to grab hold of the better biblical position that the Baylys are espousing.

Rebecca, granted, I may have too much time on my hands. But when someone tosses around the words sin, infidelity, and cowardice about your views, do you think you'd just sit back and treat the comments as if the weather report? The Baylys have called my profession into question. That seems like something worth caring about. If you have different advice, I'm all eyes.

Michael B., in the good old days, when faith mattered to the state, people died for theological disputes. I don't think that's happening here.

I meant to add this to my last comment, but I think it is appropriate for me to quit this thread, so that's what I'll do. Thanks.

I actually don't think the Bayly brothers have mischaracterized R2K. They took the actual words of the proponents of R2K *in context* and showed the logical conclusions and implications of R2K in addition to the actual statements themselves.

I, for one, wish that this line of comments would return to the stated topic...far more worth discussing than who did what to whom, when.

We, I trust are all big boys and girls, and should be able to take what we dish out.

Tim's thoughts on preaching are spot on. The problem in confessional Reformed circles is what is left unsaid. Would that we preached more like Lloyd-Jones and our Puritan forebears.

All grace all the time is not really grace at all. Christ-centered can devolve into Christ as idea, and not Christ as Lord who says hard things to his people. R2K can devolve into All justification all the time, and become a practical denial of the need to submit to Jesus as Lord.

Okay, that ought to be enough fuel for the fire. Agree, disagree?

How did this thread ever get derailed into a discussion of R2K and Darryl Hart in the first place?

Clint Mahoney: "Dr. Hart is unhappy and brought it there."

Sigh. Tim Bayly wrote the following on a prior thread:

Dear Darryl,

Pubic errors call for public correction. This discussion of R2-K did not begin with your name attached to it. Rather, after David and I expressed our concerns about this doctrinal error, you came on here and personalized the debate. And now, you want it all to be about you.

But it's not. There are many out there who share your error and are equally dangerous.

But now that you have personalized the error for days and days and thousands and thousands of words, we warn people against your position using your name because you're the one promoting it here, now. You're made it all about you.

Rebecca,

I believe you've answered your initial question by your words to Dr. Hart, and it seems that Kamilla agrees.

Love,