(Tim: this is second in a series, with the first, here) It's in vogue for preachers to cop a posture of humility, today, but it’s almost always a counterfeit humility. While claiming to be speaking for God, they deny the
very authority of God and His Word that forms the only foundation they can
stand on when they say, “Thus says the Lord.”
Jonathan Edwards, the best-known preacher of the Great Awakening in Colonial
America, points to the difference between true and false
humility:
A truly humble man is inflexible in nothing but in the cause
of his Lord and Master, which is the cause of truth and virtue. In this he is
inflexible, because God and conscience require it. But in things of lesser
moment, and which do not involve his principles as a follower of Christ, and in
things that only concern his own private interests, he is apt to yield to
others.
There are various imitations of (humility) that fall short of
the reality. Some put on an affected humility. Others have a natural
low-spiritedness, and are wanting in manliness of character. …In others, there
is a counterfeit kind of humility, wrought by the delusions of Satan: and all
of these may be mistaken for true humility. [1]
Edwards strikes an interesting note...
when he associates false
humility with those who are “wanting in manliness of character.”
For several decades the Western world has been undergoing a dramatic
movement away from patriarchal, toward matriarchal leadership. It was many
years back, now, that Margaret Thatcher served as Prime Minister under Her
Majesty, Queen Elizabeth. And as I write, Representative Nancy Pelosi sits as
Speaker of the House of Representatives. Women comprise around half the
enrollment of training schools historically associated with the development of
leaders—law schools, medical schools, and seminaries.
This sea-change has had a profound impact within the Church,
not just in the most obvious way as the number of women serving as pastors and
elders grows, but also in less obvious ways. The feminization of leadership and
discourse has changed the affect, posture, and methods used by pastors.
Congregations are now comprised of souls who have become acclimated to female
leadership and want their pastors to be more feminine, to be softer in the way
they lead and preach. Knowing their market, seminaries, presbyteries, search
committees, elders, and pastors have complied.
Other forces push in this direction, too. Lesbians,
metrosexuals, and sodomites talk a lot about gender and seek to move everyone
toward the middle of what they claim is a continuum of “gender identity.”
Neutered Bible translations are released by seminary professors eager to remove
from Scripture the Hebrew and Greek terms feminists and those with feminist
sensibilities find offensive. Future pastors are trained by theology professors
who urge them not to focus on repentance or the law, but grace; homiletics professors
who urge them never to speak in a way that could be misunderstood as arrogant
or dogmatic. Rather, as Solzhenitsyn put it, they are to make sure they doubt
themselves and admit they may, in fact, be wrong.
“Thus says the
Lord God Almighty” is out; “I wonder whether” is in. “Follow me as I follow
Christ” is out; “Wounded healer” is in. “Let him be anathema” is out; “Although
I differ with my good friend and colleague on this, I respect her opinion and
accept her as a sincere Christian who happens to have a different perspective
than I do” is in.
Recently, I finished a long series of sermons on Galatians in
which I pointed out, frequently, that we cannot take the theological content of
Galatians and reject the pastoral content. The Apostle Paul’s method of arguing
is part of the God-breathedness of Galatians; it too is profitable and it too
is desperately needed in our effeminate age when strong leadership and argument
is viewed as arrogance.
To reinforce this point, I often read to our congregation excerpts from Luther's
commentary and Calvin’s sermons on Galatians. For
instance, take this short excerpt from Luther’s commentary:
Wherefore if you compare publicans and harlots with these
holy hypocrites (of the Roman Catholic Church), they are not evil. For they,
when they offend, have remorse of conscience, and do not justify their wicked
doings; but these men are so far from acknowledging their abominations,
idolatries, wicked will-worshippings and ceremonies to be sins, that they
affirm the same to be righteousness, and a most acceptable sacrifice unto God,
yea, they adore them as matters of singular holiness, and through them do
promise salvation unto others, and also sell them for money, as things
available to salvation.
Many would say the Church has no need for such intemperate
language today. They would try to keep young men preparing for the ministry
from reading Luther’s commentary and Calvin’s sermons, fearing they might take
Luther or Calvin as their model and say something similar in their sermons.
But we never find the Apostles editing their teaching and
preaching in such a way that they would cause no offense; we never find them
taming things down in the hope that the Church would survive for another
generation.
Calvin warns:
So we must be quite clear that the teaching of the
Gospel can never be handled in such a cautious and moderate way that it is not
subject to misrepresentations. For Satan, who is the father of lies, always
devotes himself to his business. [2]
In the radical relativism of the decadent Roman Empire, the
Apostles didn’t cop a posture of false humility starting their sentences with
“I believe…” or “Don’t you ever find yourself wondering whether…” or “Speaking
only for myself….”
If the Church is to be faithful guarding the good deposit and
contending for God’s Truth, we’ll never have the luxury of being above the
fray. Rather, we’ll be at the center of the battle. We’re commanded to fight
the good fight, not for a time, but until death. And we are to trust God—not our own tact
and diplomacy—to protect us. Some of us will be rescued; others will be sawn in
two. [3]
God’s prophets have never been able to escape persecution when they were
faithful to proclaim the message God entrusted to them.
Kierkegaard is exactly right about preaching today, although he's been dead a century and a half, now:
We all know what it is to play warfare in mock battle, that
it means to imitate everything just as it is in war. The troops are drawn up,
they march into the field, seriousness is evident in every eye, but also
courage and enthusiasm, the orderlies rush back and forth intrepidly, the
commander's voice is heard, the signals, the battle cry, the volley of
musketry, the thunder of cannon--everything exactly as it is in war, lacking
only one thing...the danger. So also it is with playing Christianity, that is,
imitating Christian preaching in such a way that everything, absolutely
everything is included in as deceptive a form as possible--only one thing is
lacking...the danger. [4]
When, under the guise of humility and
compassion, a pastor avoids confronting the sin of his congregation; when he minces his words; there's little doubt he’ll also avoid the suffering and death of the faithful shepherd.
Remember how the Apostle Paul paused his rebuke of the Galatians
long enough to ask them so very plaintively, “So have I become your enemy by telling
you the truth?” [5]
But what is the cost of this betrayal of our pastoral office?
Can such a man ever expect to hear those most sought after of all commendations
from the mouth of our Lord, “Well done, my good and faithful servant?”
Faithful pastors devoted to the teaching of
the Apostles will correct and rebuke in the same manner the Apostles corrected
and rebuked. And for this, they will suffer just as the Apostles suffered—this is the lot of the
good shepherd:
Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater
than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they
kept My word, they will keep yours also. (John 15:20)
