Recovering the Christian Mind
“We cannot afford to carry into adult life a Christian consciousness so under-nourished and anemic that we slide into accepting faddish convenience recipes for worldly well being as our daily diet. The evidence is that when the time comes for getting to grips with the Christian faith as adults and not as children, many of our contemporaries abandon their faith. They were spoon-fed on the milk of the word, but in adulthood they discard the nourishment as babyish, and assume that there is no more to be said. Meanwhile, professing believers, men and women who perhaps make great steps forward in other spheres of life, all too often succumb to the epidemic of “anorexoria religiosa” which destroys all appetite for progress in Christian understanding and commitment.
. . .full-blooded Christian teaching will bring under judgment much that is taken for granted by people reared on protein-free Gospel or no Gospel at all. We have to learn to set life’s manifestations of evil and suffering, as well as of goodness and joy, in the context of the divine and human drama which is Christianity’s account of what we men and women are here involved in. The Christian worldview is the only integrative counterpoise to a secularism that is decomposing our civilization. No thoughtful Christian can contemplate and analyze the tensions all about us in both public and private life without sensing the eternal momentousness of the current struggle for the human mind between Christian teaching and materialistic secularism. – Harry Blamires, Recovering the Christian Mind, 1988, InterVarsity Press, Introductory material.”
One might rightly suppose that the above is a defense of studying the great doctrines of Scripture. I would agree with that supposition, and can only add that I find it nearly unfathomable that so many of us who profess to believe in Christ choose NOT to do so.
The Battle Cry 
One thing is certain as regards feeding milk to little babies.
They lie back and suckle, and then fall asleep.
How can we expect anything else but sleep from the church, when this is how they feed.
Eating meat requires a knife. The knife is used to cut out the good bits for digestion and the bad bits for disposal. Maturity demands we make our own choice of diet.
Churchgoers do not need such things. Milk and predigested food is their usual diet. They have no need to be involved in the worthiness of the food, after all the Pastor has that job.
Surrendering one’s God given spiritual responsibility to the hierarchical leadership system of church infantilises the saints, and prevents christians from doing the will of God. (Or even knowing it!)
LikeLike
Spiritual responsibility to do what?
LikeLike
Jason,
That’s a good question. That comment author, according to his blog has left the organized church and become a “privateer”, and a bit on the Kingdom now bandwagon.
LikeLike
Hi Jason.
I’ll try to answer properly later, however a partial answer may be to look at the converse side of the subject.
What responsibility has the average institutional church member?
He is obliged to “attend” regularly.
He is obliged to either give or tithe to the system he joins.
He is obliged to listen to what another “special” man thinks is the word of God for all these people before him.
He has obliged himself to be submissive in heart to this other “special” man.
He has obliged himself to agree with that “special” man teaching, and decisions.
This obligation is to the extent that if he has any discernment of error in the “special” man leadership, he must keep it to himself, and decide that either he himself is wrong, or that agreeing with error is not a problem because the “special” man has after all a “special” anointing to be right, even when wrong!
He is obliged to shelf any call from God to him that may not fit in with the church agenda.
The list can go on as long as you wish.
None of this is the “submit to one another” principle of scripture.
This attitude of submission to those who rule a hierarchy, is the spirit of Ahab at work in those who agree to it, and the spirit of Jezebel working in the institutional system.
It creates EUNUCHS in Christ’s Body.
The Eunuchs need to listen to the call of the Jehu anointing, and throw Jezebel out of the window, (and get their balls back)!
Alternatively just walk away.
Pardon my explicitness, it is so crucial to the saints that they become responsible for all that they do.
I will return with some other thoughts later.
LikeLike
At this point you are only defining yourself by what you are not.
What I wish is that you would say what you think the spiritual responsibility is. Your list is a who’s who of hang-ups, errors, and occasional, abiblical hypotheticals.
I don’t mind explictness, but I don’t think that is a characteristic you are exemplifying. The list is characterized by what could be called ecclesiological prurience, not clarity.
So
what do you make of Paul’s instructions in Acts 20? Or Hebrews 13:7 in the line of ethical commandments of Hebrews 13? Or Paul’s explication of the roles of elders and overseers in the Pastorals?
Your list is offensive, in that, I totally agree with you that those are an offense. But I don’t see those things in the bible. However, I do see relationships of BIBLICAL submission, not our malign, distorted version of it.
Anyway, I’m wondering what you think our responsibility is in the matter you are addressing.
LikeLike
Jason.
“Spiritual responsibility to do what?”
The simple answer is Spiritual responsibility to become the sons that we are clearly born to be.
This means having a clear listening relationship within hearing distance of the Father, so I can actually do what my Father calls me to do.
Why do we assume the Christian walk is about Church. I have seen more evidence of God moving in my workplace than I have in Church. The best thing that Church could do would be to teach believers to comprehend God’s voice with sufficient confidence that they can put their money on it! However that would require the leaders to learn first.
Unfortunately the opposite tends to be true, those who used to hear God’s voice, find it fades away when they get hooked up with that substitute voice called the pastor.
“what do you make of Paul’s instructions in Acts 20?”
Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departure grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Act 20:30 Also men shall arise from your own selves, speaking perverse things in order to draw disciples away after them.
Thanks Jason. This perfectly illustrates the point I am making, describing accurately today’s church!
“Or Hebrews 13:7”
Heb 13:7 Remember those leading you, who have spoken to you the Word of God, whose faith follow, considering the end of their conduct:
There are two ways of interpreting the word “leader”.
A) Leader= Ruler, Boss, King etc
B) Forerunner, winner, pioneer etc.
You can take your pick over this as they will both fit into the verse as good and fair interpretations. However, only one of them fits with the rest of either Jesus’s teachings or Paul’s, and it is not A) a Ruler, Boss or King!
Heb 13:7 Remember those who have gone before you, who have spoken to you the Word of God, whose faith follow, considering the end of their conduct:
In this translation the first phrase now reflects the rest of the verse.
Heb 13:17 Yield to those leading you, and be submissive, for they watch for your souls, as those who must give account, that they may do it with joy and not with grief; for that is unprofitable for you.
Try again
Heb 13:17 Be persuaded by those who have gone before you, and be submissive, for they watch for your souls, as those who must give account, that they may do it with joy and not with grief; for that is unprofitable for you.
Above all throughout the bible it makes it clear that leadership is about forerunning before God and is not about badges of office or controlling other Christians.
Try to balance current church rulership practice with Jesus’s words here and elsewhere.
Mat 20:25 And Jesus called them to Him and said, You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men hold them in subjection [tyrannizing over them].
Mat 20:26 Not so shall it be among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant,
Mat 20:27 And whoever desires to be first among you must be your slave–
I do not see would be Pastors of churches clamouring to be slaves, nor do the members want that. The church members want rulers to tell them what to do, because they have been told for centuries that a good leader makes them a good Christian.
God wants his own sons back so he can Father them.
LikeLike
Actually, Frank, I agree with a big chunk of your schtick. It is clear that the congregation is held accountable for abiding false teaching.
But that’s where you start connecting dots that aren’t there and jumping from here to, well, not there.
For instance, you seem to be against any sort of leadership within the church but then you say, that the church (big C? Church universal? Are you a UU?) should raise up leaders to train the laity. That’s conflicted. You need to think about where the leaders are going to come from if you are unhappy about any leaders at all. If there is some difference between being a good leader and a not-good leader (that you have in mind) then you need to be articulating that. I am all for a rant when there is cause, but there needs to be some cohesion.
And I really gotta say, your use of Scripture does not inspire confidence that cohesion is forthcoming.
Working within the two verses you plucked from Paul’s whole speech, you say that this illustrates today’s church. Does this make sense? Yes, if you are going to say that there are good leaders and bad leaders who are in pulpits, but I don’t see you saying that there are any good leaders at all. Except for you, of course.
That there are bad teachers and that they always have been and always will be around is certainly true, but the fact that Paul prophetically says that bad leaders will come from among them presupposes that not all of them are bad. This is not a point I see you making. I see you painting a swath across all leaders in all churches everywhere. Apart from the unfounded prejudice this shows, you seems to forget that you fancy yourself a leader able to teach with authority in this matter. Your universal panning of all Christian leaders cannot help but stick to yourself.
Frank, criticize the leaders that are bad and then be quiet. Stop saying that all leaders are bad and impugning the character of people that you will never ever meet and whose teaching and leadership you will never, ever read or hear. Stop letting your bad experiences in whatever narrow settings comprise your background lead you to do nothing but bear false witness against men who are leading by the power of the Holy Spirit. Saying that people you have never met are doing wrong puts you in the position of most surely working against God in the matter.
Presbuteroi (elders) and Episkopoi (overseers/bishops) are used interchangably in this pericope. Paul is using them without distinction. (Dan, how many more times do you think we gotta go through this?) The later has really only one application throughout all of Grecian literature: One who has the responsibility of safeguarding or seeing to it that something is done in the correct way. Some of those in this passage are doing it the right way, and some, from among them, will do it the wrong way. Unless you are going to start saying that some are doing it the right way, which is not what you seem to be saying at all, these passages do not uphold your thesis at all.
Your second foray into interpretation didn’t go so well, but that was partially my fault. The passage I meant was 13:17 not 13:7. But considering your anti-leadership drumbeat, I have a few criticisms of your interpretation – which is not good.
Firstly, the author of Hebrews did not use the english word “leader”. To look in an English dictionary to try to figure out this meaning puts you dangerously close to the “special man” category of yours which you are so indiscriminately throwing around.
It’s also not a hallmark of faithfulness to look through as many translations as you can find until you come to one that works, even if many others do not. I looked through about 25 translations and I have no idea what translation that is.
Last criticism, the same word is being used in similar contexts and application in the passage I erroneously cited, 13:7, and the one that I meant to cite, 13:17. It is worth trying to see if the same word is used by the same author in contexts in which the meaning cannot be as flexible as you wish.
The word being used is a participle of hegeomai, it is the word from which we derive hegemony. It has basically two meanings: one to be in a supervisory capacity, lead, guide…or…to engage in an intellectual process, think, consider, regard. In 13:17, these hegeomon are to be obeyed. Obey is a third person imperative which is a command, not a suggestion. They are also commanded in the third person imperative to submit. Sorry for not getting the reference right the first time. But, to superimpose your…um…interpretation of 13:7 (english dictionary) over 13:17 will not do. It can only be the other way around.
Ok, you go on with your forerunning thing. Again, unfounded. Forerunning? Before God? What does that mean? God needs a point man?
But what really bugs me is that this is something I can get behind, “badges of office”. Yeah that’s not a good thing, I agree.
Frank, you have to find a way to put together Hebrews 13:17 and Matthew 20:27. You don’t have a choice.
So here’s a thought. You cited Acts 20:29-30, mostly drawing attention to the wolves, which is fine, I know they’re out there, and so do you. But what is to be done about the wolves? Paul told the elders to watch out for them in Acts, and in Hebrews 13:17 the leaders are going to give account for those that are to obey and submit to them. Let’s work within the likely scenario that the leaders and the elders/overseers are the same (unless there is some reason to believe that this is a separate category, let’s get out the English dictionary and find out). At what point do the “Christians” (as you use it when you say “controlling other Christians”) become the wolves? When they use an English bible to find the meaning of a Greek word? When the person uses a (wrong) meaning of a word in one verse, even though 10 verses later the same word is used in a nearly identical context but could not possibly mean what the person says it does? At what point do the leaders step in?
I agree with aspects of your argument, but you haven’t thought it through very well, and your use of Scripture in defending your idea is…well…not great.
This is what the New Testament says: There are leaders. They are called to lead within the local church. Persons under their charge are to submit. If you don’t like the word pastor, fine, but it has more than just a little biblical precedence. Call them “Little Drakes” or “Franciscans” (!) if you like, I certainly don’t care. If the teacher departs the orthodoxy express, then the people have no responsibility to submit and in fact are to either remove the leader from office or leave the church.
Try and keep your criticisms to that which can be criticised at all. I am all for criticizing when and where it is warranted, this is no secret. Be aware of the fact that, as far as I can see, you are what you criticize.
LikeLike
“I don’t see you saying that there are any good leaders at all.”
Si Francis,
I share that thought among others Jason wrote, but that stands out as one I have had through a couple of your comments, while not commenting specifically. There are wolves among the sheep, but that is not cause to condemn in such a univesally sounding manner, both the sheep and those who lead.
The New Testament provides a structure for the local fellowship of believers and thow who lead them. We are called to live Holy Christian lives as individuals and we are called to fellowship.
It almpst soumds like yu are railing against both sheep and wolves in order to justify becoming some sort of ‘lone ranger/prophetic’ type.
LikeLike