Golfers know the adage that you drive for show and putt for dough. The translation for non-golfers is that 300-yard drives don’t matter if you three-putt the green on to which you’ve chipped because of your impressive – u-dah-man!! – drive. In fact, if you don’t sink your birdie putt (one under par for the golf challenged), you are not going to be much more than a duffer.
This adage would seem to apply to the Gospel Coalition, though it needs to be adjusted to this – join for show and withhold the dough. According to Justin Taylor, GC is in the midst of a year-end fund-raising effort in which supporters who contribute the most will receive ten free registrations for the GC annual conference, along with ten free nights at the conference hotel in Chicago. (Since I doubt W. C. Fields would have been much of a fan of GC, I wonder if his joke would be that second-prize is 20 free conference registrations and 20 free nights in the hotel – 30 if in Philadelphia.) And so that everyone can benefit from the effort, anyone who starts a campaign page at his or her blog or website will receive a copy of Tim Keller’s DVD curriculum, Gospel in Life.
To what purpose do contributions go? So far GC amounts primarily to a website/blog presence and a national annual conference. To accomplish this, the Coalition employs three full-time people. According to Taylor, “The Gospel Coalition (TGC) is not a church, but it does exist to serve and honor the Church. TGC is ultimately ‘a fellowship of evangelical churches deeply committed to renewing our faith in the gospel of Christ and to reforming our ministry practices to conform fully to the Scriptures.’†He adds that the Coalition is more than just a set of blogs or a conference sponsor but “ a place where ‘humble orthodoxy’ is modeled, thoughtful arguments are made, people are loved and honored, conversation is advanced, and the gospel is applied—all to the glory of God.â€
Among the benefits of belonging to the Coalition is the Ordinary Pastors project. Since the link that Justin supplied for this endeavor is defective, either GC attracts no ordinary pastors or they need another staff member.
Another feature that caught my eye was GC’s directory of churches (which again has a defective link at Tayloy’s blog). This is a nifty device that shows where GC congregations can be found across the greatest nation on God’s green (and warming) earth. But the directory comes with this warning: “Disclaimer: The Gospel Coalition does not endorse all churches in the directory. We are not able to fully vet all churches.â€
This is a remarkable concession and points to the relevance of applying the golfing adage about putting to GC. Apparently, churches will join GC but will not give. The advantage of this strategy is obvious – you get some free publicity and can draft off the celebrity of John Piper and Tim Keller, but you don’t have to find any money in your budget for membership dues. At the same time, why wouldn’t a coalition committed to the gospel be willing to vet anyone that joins its ranks?
So Taylor’s pitch for GC could be improved if the Coalition offered a better product. In fact, better products exist and they are called not parachurch organizations but churches. In my own case, the OPC can vouch in some way for all of the congregations that belong to its fellowship. Not only that, the OPC can vouch for all its church members who are in good standing. We also have a website with a church directory that allows people to find an OP congregation. We also have lots of publications that are widely available to anyone, whether they belong to the Gospel Coalition or to the Southern Baptist Convention or to Redeemer Presbyterian Church. And we have way more than three full-time employees – just look at our directory and see all the pastors, missionaries, and teachers. And we also have a relatively uniform product – all of our officers agree about infant baptism and follow the Westminster Confession on the Lord’s Supper. And don’t talk to me about the sovereignty of God. The OPC has the sovereignty of God coursing through its spiritual veins, from Van Til’s apologetics to its commitment to the ordinary work of proclaiming the gospel in the United States and foreign lands. For those interested in a conference, can anyone beat a visit with presbytery or an all-week’s paid trip to General Assembly?
By the way, the OPC is also having a year-end fund-drive, called our Thank Offering, which solicits offerings for the General Assembly’s programs and agencies.
If the OPC is a better philanthropic value than GC, why does Justin Taylor want his readers (including Orthodox Presbyterians like me) to give to the Coalition without mentioning better options like the OPC for spiritual investing? And a related question is why do parachurch organizations have no problem looking far and wide for contributors while churches don’t expect non-members to give to denominational or church causes? I wonder, for instance, what kind of budget Keller’s Redeemer church has allocated for the Coalition in this fiscal year? Or Piper’s Bethlehem Baptist? Shouldn’t a fund drive for GC start with GC members, especially those congregations that have more than others? Meanwhile, shouldn’t the Coalition be circumspect about raising funds from believers who should be giving to their own churches?
Of course, in that case, if church members gave to the local churches or denominations, then GC would have no budget. But since we have churches that need money, and churches that provide services superior to the Coalition, why does GC actually exist? I know such questions might seem mean spirited, further evidence of Machen’s Warrior Children’s instincts. But the parachurch folks only consider such questions impertinent because they have no sense of propriety. They have no idea that they are duplicating the work of the church and then taking energy and support from the very churches that they supposedly seek to serve.
Old Life 
I just received an email from Ligonier requesting a donation to meet their yearly budget. Is there room for them in your critique? When I asked you about them before you replied that you see then as more of a one man operation. I just wonder how far you’re willing to take your criticism of parachurch organizations. What is the material difference between TGC and Ligonier?
LikeLike
“(Since I doubt W. C. Fields would have been much of a fan of GC, I wonder if his joke would be that second-prize is 20 free conference registrations and 20 free nights in the hotel – 30 if in Philadelphia.)
LOL. Now I don’t care who you are, that there is funny.
LikeLike
As well as giving me a chuckle, not to mention increasing my admiration for your rhinoceros-like hide, I found that incredibly helpful. I do have misgivings about TGCs centre-bounded confessional approach; it seems to relegate the importance of the church somewhat.
LikeLike
I can’t get on the OPC web site. Maybe it’s just me, but maybe there’s so many people trying to give to the OPC after your post that that the site went down.
I think the points you bring up here are well worth consideration. There are endless appeals for many, but where does the Lord want our priorities to be?
LikeLike
Love this post.
Sanity is being restored.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I’d rather give to the OPC’s Thank Offering than to my local church. Is that okay?
LikeLike
This one is suitable for framing, Darryl
“I believe in the holy catholic church.” Does the evangelical proliferation of parachurch projects testify to a disbelief in the church?
LikeLike
Kate, I’m not a fan of parachurch ministries for a variety of reasons. But Ligonier, as far as I know, does not actually claim to use the means of the church to do its work. Here is what GC says:
That would be one reason for singling GC out. And many of TGC’s leaders should know better.
LikeLike
Joseph, no, it’s not okay. You should give to Old Life.
Or, join the OPC and give to your church.
LikeLike
Michael,
I think it testifies more to a sloppy belief in the invisible church and a failure to consider what constitutes the visible church — in other words, the marks of the church.
LikeLike
Darryl,
If the OPC is not your cup of tea, you can always support your friendly neighborhood United Reformed Church plant in an urban center (Washington, DC) going head to head with, well you know, alternative “reformed” models. We’re even smaller and less-resourced than the OPC, and our confessions are older. Just click my name above. We have a staff of one.
But seriously, I’ve given a lot more thought GC type coalition building–i.e., marketing and politics–and it seems like really rational behavior for congregational churches, even those that may have a high view of the church, or the means of grace. Without an institutional expression of the church universal such as that granted by presbyterian government, it is justified and necessary to see to build coalitions to improve other, local churches. Obviously, presbyterians still have church politics to worry about, but its of a different order. The confessions give us coherence and unity that allow us to invest more fully in the work of our local congregations, and ironically make us more faithfully congregational than congregationalists, who have to worry about building coalitions. Funny how that works.
LikeLike
I appreciate this post. I hate the OP “thank offering” though. (I’m an OP church member.) It actually seems rather para-church-like to me to have a big year-end fund-rasing drive. I’d be interested in knowing how far back in Presbyterian history “thank offerings” go. Am I being cynical?
LikeLike
At least as far back as Lotty Moon. Oh, wait.
LikeLike
I am not a fan of Reformed para-church “ministries” because there is no effective means of correction when such “ministries” promulgate theological error and/or conduct themselves in a way that breaches the peace and purity of the church.
Take World Magazine, for example. Most PCA churches (in my experience) treat the World Magazine periodical and blog site as an unofficial publication of the PCA GA. While attending the membership class of one PCA church, the pastor stated, “If you want to know what our church believes, read World Magazine and especially read their blog.” In my experience in the PCA, this is pretty typical (even though it may not be uttered with such clarity).
The problem is this: No one exercises spiritual authority over World Magazine. When an article contains factual errors, gross exaggerations, and Bayly-like character assassinations of others, how should a session respond, especially if it’s outsourced its teaching responsibilities to Olasky, Belz, and their fellow worldview-obsessed cultural warriors? And what should such a session do with those Christians who disagree with the theology propounded by World Magazine? When I questioned the session of the aforementioned PCA church about its promotion of World Magazine, I was simply told that I would be happier in a different church. The session recommended a PCUSA church; I opted for an OPC church instead.
While I appreciate Brian’s desire for coherence, I do not believe it’s responsible for a session to outsource its teaching function to World Magazine, Breakpoint, Worldview Weekend, Vision Forum, Gospel Coalition, or other like organizations. Despite their not-for-profit legal status, these organizations are largely concerned with marketing and do not generally submit themselves to the rule of a church session. If the demise of these organizations results in greater incoherence, I’ll welcome such incoherence.
LikeLike
Dear Darryl,
Didn’t you work for a parachurch organization out in southern California?
In your opinion, what’s the difference between a seminary and a parachurch organization like Gospel Coalition (GC)?
Especially if the seminary isn’t directly overseen by any one denomination?
Moreover, how different are a seminary’s year end donation solicitations and those of GC – besides the swanky hotel offers, of course.
Speaking of swanky, I’d be willing to give more to a certain seminary if they offered to feed me and let me listen to you opine – all while enjoying good cigars and expresso…
LikeLike
Fresh transformationist red meat here: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2010/12/16/culture-making-cooperation-and-controversy/
No time. Final exams.
LikeLike
David, I’m not sure that you read the Thank Offering the way I do. I see it as a communion wide offering for the OPC’s many denominational endeavors. Plus, it functions to remind everyone in the church of our common ministries through the Assembly.
LikeLike
Cubanito, everything outside the church is parachurch, technically, even the New York Times. But seminaries do not pretend to do the means of grace and in the case of those like WTS and WSC, at least, they seek representation from officers in Reformed communions in their board members. If the GC can’t even vouch for its member churches, I’m not sure what kind of oversight they have at the board level.
LikeLike
On the Gospel Coalition video, take note that his call to have churches take over art is as far from neocalvinism as it is from even the most strict 2k view (Kuyper would have categorized this as a Roman Catholic approach, whatever it’s actual ecclesiastical context). This is why a term like “transformationalism” is so worthless.
LikeLike
Dear Darryl,
Thank you for your reply and insights – indeed, all things are parachurch as all things ultimately serve God and His Church.
I’ve never been to a GC conference, but do they actually serve the Lord’s Supper and baptize people at them?
I’d be surprised if they did, but I agree that at first glance their website’s “About Us” description (as you quoted above) makes it sounds like the GC does administer the sacraments.
Perhaps it’s a description that’s too vague and the “we” refers to its affiliated churches.
Perhaps GC is trying to emphasize the goodness and effectiveness of the God-approved and time-tested ordinary means of grace versus the plethora of other “sacraments” administered by broadly evangelical churches.
But considering the GC’s leadership, you’d think some more care would have been used in their self-description.
Which leads me to why I love Presbyterianism: precision, accountability, and team work – just like a good Japanese car manufacturer.
Come to think of it, you can also add dependability and austereness to that list…
LikeLike
Joseph, there is a big reason staring evangelicals in the face on why movie makers don’t portray them favorably (although the Big Kahuna is a very good exception). It is because evangelicals want to turn everything either into an opportunity for soul winning or to show the greatness and majesty and God. In other words, they always want faith to be explicit, worn on the sleeve. Funny how that makes people uncomfortable. Why can’t evangelicals just be human and let faith work in their lives quietly and invisibly?
And while I’m at it, why can’t evangelical artists avoid mutilating the body?
LikeLike
Darryl,
I suppose the most charitable response (as to why they can’t let faith work quietly) is because “from the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.” Their private daily religious piety, I suppose, could make it hard for them to contain such things within themselves. I won’t speculate about the others for whom that is not true.
Mutilating the body? You should ask this one to Doug Wilson. He’ll definitely have the answer…probably something about “slave culture” and “punching through with an awl.” Careful though. He’s a FV-er 😉
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
Thanks for responding. Okay, I hear you, but it seems to me that those things you’re saying about the Thank Offering are already adequately provided for in the weekly Lord’s Day offering, which is prescribed in our BCO as an ordinance of worship. So the year-end fund drive seems redundant to me, and worse (at the risk of sounding cynical), it smacks more of something imposed by the front office to raise a few more bucks, than of something we do because it’s commanded in Scripture. (Though I realize some argue that the weekly offering isn’t scriptural either.) I was serious about the historical question. How long have Presbyterians had a year-end Thank Offering? Has the OPC done this for her entire history?
LikeLike
David,
I don’t know the history. A couple of other considerations: 1) the folks in the front office are the ones overseeing that missionaries, and church planters get paid. I don’t know the percentage, but the thank offering is not to pad central office budgets so they can have better coffee; it is for the ministry of the church. 2) not all congregations support denominational ministries the way they should (according to calculations by budget planners); so the thank offering is a way to offset a shortfall in giving, not a way to raise extra money.
So if you haven’t yet, why don’t you write an extra check today? Maybe Justin Taylor will match it.
LikeLike
DGH: Why can’t evangelicals just be human and let faith work in their lives quietly and invisibly?
Certainly a provocative thought. Remind me again where Jesus tells us to let faith work in our lives invisibly?
I see the part about not parading one’s prayer life or alms-giving in public (just imagine — instead of trumpets, we now have granite donor lists).
But how do you put that together with this:
“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.”
In your view, how does one simultaneously “let faith work invisibly” and “let your light shine before others”? Is it black light?
Or so as to put the antitheses on par: In your view, how does one simultaneously “be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them” AND “let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.”
?
LikeLike
Jeff, I would distinguish. There is a Faith that flows out of person because it is an inseparable part of who the person is. Then there is a forced expression of religion done out of a perceived duty.
It is difficult to make this distinction, but I am guessing you have witnessed it. You have probably witnessed a forced evangelistic encounter and seen how it differs from one that arises from circumstances and from the character of the one testifying.
Getting closer to the point at hand, this distinction is quite evident in the attempts I have seen at making “Christian” movies, which are not much more than propaganda, albeit “our” (I guess) propaganda. The last one I saw would have been a nice part of a weekend retreat on Christian marriage, but it lacked the authenticity of a first-rate movie. A good contrast would be “Chariots of Fire” in which a Christian character is portrayed sympathetically but there is no sense that the movie exists for the purpose of cramming a message down our throats.
BTW, I am not making any mega-point about evangelism, but am focusing on the difference between authentic art and Christian propaganda.
LikeLike
Jeff, how about Matthew 6:3 when we’re told to not let our left hand know what the right is doing? Keeping even yourself in the dark seems like faith working pretty invisibly. I mean, if I can’t tell myself what I’m doing then do you really think the command to shine before men means wear it on my sleeve?
But it has always seemed to me that something other than a 2k sort of piety runs the risk of actually hiding a light under a bowl and keeping it from shining brilliantly before men. To align explicitly or implicitly the otherworldly mission of the church with whatever this-worldly cares actually fetters and obscures the gospel. If that works for the church then why not her members? And then there’s the stuff about being told to mind our own business, work with our hands and live quiet lives.
So instead of starting with the premise that they are two notions at apparent odds with each other, it may be that letting our light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven is actually fulfilled by being careful not to practice our righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. That might seem counter-intuitive, but then again so is the gospel.
LikeLike
David R & DGH: Here is a little bit on the OPC Thank Offering:
“Every November since 1949, a Thank Offering has been received for the work of Worldwide Outreach. Almost all Orthodox Presbyterian congregations give to the Thank Offering…It usually works this way: individual families and members prayerfully consider what they are able to contribute to the Thank Offering, and on an appointed day or days (usually in November) the offering is received by their local church and sent to Worldwide Outreach.” The OPC’s New Horizons magazine – Nov, 2010
http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=676
So, it has been a long-standing practice of the OPC. My understanding is that this offering is used in setting future budgets, not exclusively for catching up to existing budgets. There are OPC employees in my suburban Philly Church. At some point they have to “close the books” on the 2010 Thank Offering, and not wait for late entries before they start the evaluations.
In general I believe the OPC approach to missions is a good one. OPC missionaries do not have to hit the circuit to secure their own support prior to actually heading off to the field; they don’t have to function as independents, in other words. I formed this view via a friend who served 2 different fields as an OP missionary. In order to get back to his preferred place of service, he went to the PCA foreign missions; which meant he was really going out on his own in terms of securing financial support.
I’m not saying the OPC approach is the one & only way required by Scripture, but I think it syncs better with a Presbyterian/Reformed view of the Church
-=Cris=-
LikeLike
Michael, I think you’re getting at how I see it also, which is that motive matters a great deal here: doing good deeds for the purpose of being seen and praised is rebuked; for the purpose of bringing glory to the Father is commanded.
Who gets the glory?
But if motive is in view, then “invisible” is probably not the best way to describe our faith. I’m interested, though, in seeing what DGH is on about here.
P.S. The Michael Mann I know of is a somewhat controversial climatologist. I’m guessing that’s not who you have in mind?
Zrim: Interesting idea, and I think there’s something there. But you seem to press it too far:
To align explicitly or implicitly the otherworldly mission of the church with whatever this-worldly cares actually fetters and obscures the gospel. If that works for the church then why not her members?
James is clear that our conduct in this-worldly cares is an indicator of the genuineness of our faith. Actually, Jesus intimates much the same thing (what, are they brothers?!).
My discomfort here is the same discomfort I have with the term “invisible” — that it seems to subvert James for the sake of otherworldliness.
That said, I agree on this: It is likely that obeying Matt 6 is the means of obeying Matt 5.
About the “wearing on the sleeve” — I’m betting that’s a function of personality more than anything else. I know people who talk about Jesus because they, well, love Jesus. I know people who don’t talk about Jesus but love Jesus. And funny thing, the first group are pretty much extroverts and the second, introverts. I’m the in the second bin, FWIW.
Maybe I’m wrong. Perhaps there’s something genuinely wrong about wearing or not wearing one’s faith on the sleeve. But I’m not convinced yet.
LikeLike
Jeff, not that Calvin is the last word on salt and light, but it is interesting that he thinks (as did Luther) that Christ’s instructions in Matt. 5 were for the apostles as ministers of the word, not general instructions for all believers:
If Calvin is to be trusted, these verses are not directed to inform the daily lives of ordinary believers.
LikeLike
Is this the inevitable result of transformationalism or something about the water in Moscow, Idaho?
LikeLike
Dr.Hart,
Thanks again. Yes, I understand it’s not so the front office folks can live more cushily. It’s not the ends I’m questioning; it’s the means.
I guess I’m torn. Here’s how things appear to me (perhaps viewing the situation through cynicism-colored lenses):
In the regular weekly offering, the people of God (in the language of the revised BCO) “set aside to him the firstfruits of their labors,” thereby “present[ing] themselves with thanksgiving as a living sacrifice to God.” Those gifts are then to be used for various biblical purposes, including “the preaching of the gospel throughout the world.” So here it would seem that we have both a thank offering and the means for funding the endeavors of WWO.
BUT apparently either (1) individuals and/or congregations are not quite thankful enough or (2) those who set the WWO annual budget want to live beyond our means, so a year-end Thank Offering is established to compensate for OP church members’ stinginess and/or budget planners’ incompetence. The TO is then a bandaid solution to a deeper problem that isn’t being dealt with.
But on the other hand, if we’re stuck with a bandaid solution for whatever reason, I’d MUCH rather have the year-end Thank Offering than send our missionaries out to raise their own support.
If I’ve missed something (and I’m sure I have), please feel free to correct me.
Cris D., thanks for that, it’s helpful. I agree with you about the OP approach to missions.
Okay, I’ll be quiet now.
LikeLike
Jeff, as an unapologetic and card-carrying INTJ I get the move to simply psychologize the question. But not only do I know plenty of fellow INTJs who esteem self-expressing over self-comporting piety, I also know extroverts who do the opposite. So, as much as I think an extroverted world and church could use a tutorial on the virtues of introversion, I also don’t think it all boils down to temperament. (Plus, it seems to me that to psychologize the specific matter only opens one up generally to those critics who would that religious belief is a function of mere mental need or psychological craving.)
But I’d rather theologize the question than psychologize it. Your quest for motive surfaces again. Your discomfort with invisibility is mine with motive. I’m not saying this explains it all either, but a theology of glory is one particularly concerned for sight and seems ill-at-ease with what cannot be seen, whereas a theology of the cross is the opposite–you know, living by faith as opposed to sight.
I don’t see how the point about invisibility is at loggerheads with James, unless one is assuming that living quiet and peaceable lives is categorically an unacceptable “indicator of the genuineness of our faith.”
LikeLike
“BUT apparently either (1) individuals and/or congregations are not quite thankful enough or (2) those who set the WWO annual budget want to live beyond our means”
or (3) a mission work or other church that, for whatever reason, has a meager income may not be able to budget money for the denomination, but its members might be willing to dig deeper to give a one-time offering to the denomination. It’s a version of the widow’s mite.
LikeLike
What is the OPC denominational structure but yet another para-church organization?
– Your friendly Baptist Commenter
LikeLike
Zrim: But I’d rather theologize the question than psychologize it. Your quest for motive surfaces again…
Quest for motive? No, it’s an observation that here, motive counts. Why are you uncomfortable talking about motive?
Zrim: I don’t see how the point about invisibility is at loggerheads with James, unless one is assuming that living quiet and peaceable lives is categorically an unacceptable “indicator of the genuineness of our faith.â€
No, actually I don’t assume that. Rather, I assume that “living quiet and peaceable lives” is not invisible. One can, more or less, readily observe the difference between lives that are quiet and peaceable and ones that are not.
LikeLike
DGH, that is interesting. So on your account (following Calvin), ministers of the word are to think of themselves as the light that cannot be hid, but Christians in general should not?
How do you put that together with Phil 2.14-18? No relationship, or some other kind of shining meant?
LikeLike
Joseph, some thoughts are best left private (but if Doug is an evangelical, I guess he can’t hide it under a bushel).
LikeLike
Jeff, since Paul starts off talking about shining with instructing Christians not to grumble, it looks to me like Paul is saying, don’t be obnoxious, and if you suffer (there were martyrs back then), then you shine. I don’t see how wearing your faith on your sleeve is a product of suffering. It seems to be more a cause of it.
LikeLike
Jeff, I’m uncomfortable with mining motives because motives are always mixed. Saints are also sinners, the heart is deceptive, who can know it? Do those who do good deeds for the purpose of being seen and praised really admit that, or do they say it’s for the purpose of bringing glory to the Father? We’re compromised creatures. And you know what they say about the road to perdition and how it’s paved.
And, I don’t know, there are plenty of times I make the case for quiet and peacable living only to be derided a pacifist growing turnips, etc.
LikeLike
Turnips, eh? 🙂 I’ve never tried one.
It seems to me that we ought to make a large distinction between considering our own motives on the one hand and trying to weigh the motives of others.
The former seems frequently enjoined in Scripture.
The reason I say this is that your response crosses the wires, so to speak:
Do those who do good deeds for the purpose of being seen and praised really admit that, or do they say it’s for the purpose of bringing glory to the Father?
This assumes that I am supposed to look at you, Zrim, and try to divine your motives for good deeds.
Jesus’ command (to whomever it may apply!) is simply not given to that end. No, he commands each of us to look to our own motive.
So the one who does good deeds for the purpose of being seen (that’s me, at times) is simply disobedient. And when he hears the word in Matt. 6, then that’s the opportunity for the HS to convict him about it.
What others think of his motives is neither here, there, nor anywhere.
Keeping the subject of the command grammatically straight is crucial to treating this passage properly, IMO.
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, since Paul starts off talking about shining with instructing Christians not to grumble, it looks to me like Paul is saying, don’t be obnoxious, and if you suffer (there were martyrs back then), then you shine. I don’t see how wearing your faith on your sleeve is a product of suffering. It seems to be more a cause of it.
Sorry, could you spin that out a bit more? I get the part about not grumbling. Are you saying, “if you suffer, that is when you are shining”, OR “if you suffer, that’s the time to shine”? (That is, indicative mood or imperative?)
And I don’t see a connection to wearing one’s faith on one’s sleeve, but if you’re suggesting that doing so is a way to suffer for the sake of Christ, then it’s hard to see why you’d object. 😉 (but somehow, I doubt you’re saying that)
LikeLike
Jeff, I think your original citation of Phil. 2 was short on spin. You cited it to counter my following Luther and Calvin on salt and light. I didn’t see it as much of a counter. I saw the word shine, but it didn’t say much to me in the way of letting everyone see your faith 24/7.
LikeLike
It seems to me that we ought to make a large distinction between considering our own motives on the one hand and trying to weigh the motives of others…The former seems frequently enjoined in Scripture…Jesus’ command (to whomever it may apply!) is simply not given to that end. No, he commands each of us to look to our own motive.
Jeff, my point actually assumes the questing after motive is self-directed, so the problem isn’t solved (although it is worsened when it is other-directed). And it seems to me that the point of Scripture bidding us to search ourselves is to conclude that we are constantly steeped in sin and ever in need of forgiveness, not to conclude that sometimes we can actually pass the test. So if you’re asking me if my motives are pure the answer is always no, they are always mixed, compromised and like filthy rags. Now what?
And so the quest for pure motive aligns with my suspicions that what an older 2k piety is up against with its new school critics is a view of sin that just doesn’t seem high enough.
LikeLike
So I guess the 2k Children’s Songbook won’t include “This Little Light of Mine”?
LikeLike
Kyle – The OPC as a denomination is not a parachurch organization. It is the Churches of the OPC, organized via the Presbyteries of the OPC, as the Church as whole.
The chain might seem long and convoluted, but there is a connection from members at the local level to those serving the church as a whole or at the broadest level. Part of that connection is a common faith, a common commitment of faith and life. At that broadest level tasks are entrusted and delegated to those able to effect ministry on behalf of the whole communion.
To try and liken a church federation like the OPC or the Canadian Reformed Churches (where I learned to prefer federation to “denomination”) or RPCNA or URCNA to something like Crusdae for Christ, InterVarsity, Youth for Christ, etc is simply ridiculous. A cute drive-by comment, but I find it hard to take seriously.
LikeLike
I take it none of the rest of the Sermon on the Mount applies to ordinary believers either. Calvin must have been the first hyper-dispensationalist.
I suppose when Jesus says
Matt 7:24 (ESV)
“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
he is referring only to ministers of the gospel.
Of course, the root error here is a false absolutising of a clergy/laity divide. There is a failure to recognise that in the new covenant there is a sense in which all God’s people are prophets and teachers. Thus all can give a reason for the hope within.
I imagine those in Revelation who die for their witness to the gospel are all ordained clergy.
Rev 6:9 (ESV)
When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne.
The reality of course is the ‘disciples’ that Jesus directly addresses in Matt 5 -7 are , are likely to be a much broader band than the twelve as they often are throughout the gospel.
I have no problem with the idea that being salt and light is often about how we live and not just what we say. It is ‘good deeds’ that glorify God. The ‘good deeds’ are the lifestyle of the Kingdom; a lifestyle so ‘visibly’ distinct as to provoke reflection in those who observe it. Yet visibility is also by word as we give a reason for the hope within.
Of course there is a balance and not all are evangelists by gifting. However, believers did not suffer for simply good living. Nor do those who have found the Christ keep it to themselves instead like the woman they go and tell others, ‘come see a man… is not this the Christ’. One brother tells another ‘I have found the Christ’.
LikeLike
I only give to para-para-church organizations.
LikeLike
If you want to increase your knowledge simply keep visiting
this web site and be updated with the most up-to-date news posted here.
LikeLike