This is the second of three posts concerning “meekness”, used with the permission of the author (Dr. Paul Brownback, Evangelical Reformation). I will post his articles in their entirety.

The Real Meaning of Meekness

Dr. Paul Brownback

I had a professor at New York University who said, “God created man in His own image, and man has been returning the favor ever since.”

This is a valid observation, especially in regard to our morphing Jesus into the image of our culture. This is true even of evangelicals, who pride themselves in their adherence to Scripture.

In the previous post, we noted that one means of deforming Jesus so that He fits nicely into contemporary society is by defining meekness to mean mildness and gentleness. By so doing, we have transformed Jesus into Mr. Rogers, thus making Him comfortable to have around—accepting, non-threatening.

Recently, I read through the gospel of Matthew in several sittings. In so doing, a person is hard-pressed to find a Jesus in the image of Mr. Rogers. I challenge you to read it for yourself and see if that is not the case. Pay special attention to the dialogue—what Jesus actually said.

Many evangelicals let their imaginations run wild in order to re-create Jesus into their image. They imagine Jesus chuckling to Himself as He uses the illustrations of the person with a beam in his eye seeking to remove the speck from the eye of another.

However, if we are at all sensitive to the attitude conveyed by Jesus throughout the gospel, there is every indication that He is not chuckling, but rather that He is deadly serious. The chuckle is a figment of the reader’s imagination—an attempt to make Jesus like us.

What, then, is this meekness that according to Jesus characterized His personality?

The essence of the meaning is to be oriented toward service. It is to set aside one’s own agenda in order to minister to others. Blessed are the meek means blessed are those who desire to provide service to others rather than demanding service from them.

Though Jesus could rightly demand service, instead, as He asserts in several places in Scripture, He came to serve. “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45 NIVUS). Jesus calls us to maintain a similar attitude of service.

This definition of meekness also can be misleading if we do not understand the nature of Jesus’ service, which is the type of service He has called us to render.

Jesus came primarily to serve His Father. His service to us is a byproduct of His service to his Father. That should be the nature of our service as well.

This arrangement fits the biblical teaching regarding the first and second commandments, that is, to love God and neighbor. The first commandment is first because love of God must be preeminent, and love of neighbor an outflow of it.

If we misconstrue this order—allow love of neighbor to be first, we end up with humanism. Our approach to life becomes dominated by the horizontal rather than the vertical dimension.

Making our service to God priority one has some serious practical implications. If service to our neighbor were priority one, we should serve them on their terms. “I exist to serve you, to support your agenda. What can I do for you?” Based on this arrangement, meekness would consist of living our lives according to other people’s terms.

This is not biblical or practical. Imagine trying to meet everybody’s terms.

However, because service to God is preeminent, we are not called to serve others on their terms, but on God’s terms. This arrangement is abundantly evident in the life of Christ. Though he came to serve, He was clearly in charge. He displayed meekness first and foremost through His attitude of submission to His Father, not to human beings.

Consequently, He could be meek and still deal with His disciples and others like a Marine drill sergeant. This is how His Father called him to serve them. In addition, this attitude represented the greatest service He could render to them. For the most part, they didn’t need mildness and gentleness. They needed confrontation and exhortations.

The same is true in our service to others. Sometimes they need gentleness, but often they need to be challenged and exhorted.

Such ministry fits into the biblical understanding of meekness, but our Mr. Rogers definition of meekness excludes it. Therefore, by deforming Jesus, we have also deformed our own approach to Christian living, forcing ourselves to comply with a definition of meekness that is not biblical.

This deformation of character has serious implications. That is our next topic.

This is the first of three posts concerning, you guess it, the topic of “meekness”. I have the author’s permission (Dr. Paul Brownback) to quote material from his Evangelical Reformation site. I will post his articles in their entirety. They address a serious issue ‘floating’ around evangelical circles these (pun intended). Having said that, here is installment one:

A Better Understanding of Meekness

Dr. Paul Brownback

It is important to understand the meaning of meekness. It is a major concept in the New Testament. Jesus promised that the meek would be blessed—inherit the earth. Meekness is an aspect of the fruit of the Spirit.

But what is it? A correct understanding will guide us toward the blessings Scripture promises. A wrong definition will lead to confusion and failure to realize those blessings, even when our intentions are sincere.

Common definitions of meekness include mildness of disposition, gentleness of spirit.

The contemporary person who seems to flesh out these qualities most vividly is Mr. Rogers. He would seem to be the very embodiment of meekness.

The problem with this definition is that Jesus was no Mr. Rogers. Or at least the Jesus of the Bible was not. Contemporary evangelicals tend to frame Him as such, but this is a Jesus of our own making; not the one found in Scripture.

I am not suggesting that most of the time the Jesus of the Bible was mild of disposition and gentle of spirit, but on rare occasions he departed from that orientation, such as when he cleansed the Temple. The reality is that for most of his ministry, Jesus was just the opposite of this Mr. Rogers caricature. In fact, moments of mildness represent the exception—not the rule.

Read the Gospels again, and see for yourself. Note how Jesus was frequently in the face of the Pharisees. But beyond that, He often dealt with his disciples with an attitude that bordered on harshness.

Notice Jesus’ teaching style in Mark 8:17-18 when his disciples failed to grasp a lesson. “Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: ‘Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18  Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?’” This conjures up the picture of the old schoolmaster wielding a cane, warning his students that they better pay attention.

And when Jesus, coming down from the Mount of Transfiguration,  encountered a demon possessed boy that His disciples were unable to help, He chided, “You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you?.” (Mt 17:17 NAS95). Imagine Mr. Rogers saying that!

Or think of Jesus’ Easter greeting to his fellow travelers on the road to Emmaus. “He said to them, ‘How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!’” (Lu 24:25 NIVUS). In the selection of Easter texts, this has been the road less traveled.

His Easter greeting to the eleven disciples conveyed the same gentleness and mildness. “Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen” (Mark 16:14 NIVUS).

It is little wonder that when the disciples did not understand Jesus’ comments about His coming crucifixion, that “they were afraid to ask Him about this saying” (Luke 9:45). Imagine, even the closest followers of this gentle and mild teacher were so intimidated by him that they feared to ask a question. This is a Jesus that makes few appearances on contemporary evangelical radio and television programs.

This list of instances displaying a Jesus that contrasts sharply from Mr. Rogers is far from comprehensive. If meekness really means gentleness and mildness, Jesus wasn’t meek.

However, Jesus made the claim that He was meek in Matthew 11:29: “For I am meek and lowly in heart.” Therefore, meekness must not mean gentleness and mildness. It must not be a Mr. Rogers-like quality.

What then? Next post.

____________________

I encourage you to visit Dr. Brownback’s site. You will find a variety of relevant articles, secular as well as for spiritual growth, written from a biblically evangelical perspective. – Dan

…..and strawman builders wherever they lie lurking…….

“If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” – Joshua 24:15 (NASB)

Joshua spoke those words to the Hebrew children. If He were here today he might tell those who profess Christ –

“…choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: the God of Scripture or the god of your vain imagination…”

The God of Scripture tells us that apart from His Son, we are DEAD in sin and the objects of His wrath.

The god of your imagination tells you that are basically OK, but are inclined to commit a sin now and then – after all, you are only human.

The God of Scripture tells us that He must pour out His holy wrath against all ALL sin because He is just and the wages of sin is death, by His own decree. We are all born on Death Row.

The god of your imagination says that God is not angry; He mostly sits around in Heaven all day dreaming up new ways to attract you to Jesus because He can’t imagine His Heaven without you in it.

The God of Scripture sent His own Son die in YOUR PLACE, to pour out His wrath against YOUR SIN upon HIS OWN SON, and it pleased Him to do so.

The God of your imagination tells you that Jesus died to bridge an impersonal gap called sin so you could be happy in Heaven with Him forever.

The God of Scripture tells us that everything in this world exists to bring Him glory and honor – EVERYTHING.

The god of your imagination tells you that God does everything He does with YOUR happiness in mind.

The God of Scripture tells us that He saves those that He does save as a precious love gift to His Son.

The god of your imagination tells you that God saved you because He wanted someone to love.

The God of Scripture tells us that He sent His son to seek and save the lost, and that he will seek, save, and keep them.

The god of your imagination tells you that Jesus is waiting longingly outside a door with no doorknob waiting for YOU to decide you want Him to come in.

The God of Scripture tells us that the reason he leaves us on earth after He saves us is to proclaim His Gospel to everyone around us.

The god of your imagination tells you He left you here to have your best life now.

The God of Scripture tells us the Gospel we are to share, and that is powerful to save a soul is that Christ died for our sins and was raised up again; according to Scripture.

The god of your imagination tells you that folks will get saved if you just love them. When they realize you love them they will just naturally love you and of course love Jesus when you tell them He loves them too.

The God of Scripture tells us His Son sits at His right in glory waiting for the command to return as the Righteous Judge.

The god of your imagination tells you that if you are lonely or depressed just imagine Jesus as your lover and dance partner; never mind that He sent His Holy Spirit specifically for that purpose.

The God of Scripture tells us that of first importance to our spiritual growth is what He has revealed in His inspired, written word.

The god of your imagination tells you that what you ‘feel’ about what He says is more important that what He says.

I could go on and on contrasting the God of Scripture and the god of your imagination, but I will stop now. Be angry at me, hate me for having said what I said. Then search the scripture for everything God tells you about Himself and show me FROM the scripture you have actually read, where I am wrong, so that I might repent of being a liar.

“He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.” – Matthew 10:39

The text of that video is the summary of a sermon delivered by Paris Reidhead sometime in the mid-sixties. The full sermon, Ten Shekels and a Shirt, can be listened to, or downloaded from Sermon Index Net along with the transcript and a short article about it’s origin. It you canwatch the video or listen to the video and remain untouched by the Spirit of God, please check your pulse.

This was originally published almost a month ago here and the only comment was a pingback from another post here that referenced it. I am pasting it to the front page because I think it a serious issue. Although Dt. MacArthur is speaking as a pastor to pastor’s, it applies to all of us who name the name of Christ, and especially to those of us who share our beliefs with the world via the Internet.

From this John MacArthur article:

“That’s a fashionable concern, judging from the trends in devotional booklets, home Bible study discussions, Sunday-school literature, and most popular preaching.

The question of what Scripture means has taken a back seat to the issue of what it means “to me.”

The difference may seem insignificant at first. Nevertheless, our obsession with the Scripture’s applicability reflects a fundamental weakness. We have adopted practicality as the ultimate judge of the worth of God’s Word. We bury ourselves in passages that overtly relate to daily living, and ignore those that don’t.

Practical application is vital. I don’t want to minimize its importance. But the distinction between doctrinal and practical truth is artificial; doctrine is practical! In fact, nothing is more practical than sound doctrine.

Too many Christians view doctrine as heady and theoretical. They have dismissed doctrinal passages as unimportant, divisive, threatening, or simply impractical. A best-selling Christian book I just read warns readers to be on guard against preachers whose emphasis is on interpreting Scripture rather than applying it.

There is no danger of irrelevant doctrine; the real threat is an undoctrinal attempt at relevance. Application not based on solid interpretation has led Christians into all kinds of confusion.

True doctrine transforms behavior as it is woven into the fabric of everyday life. But it must be understood if it is to have its impact. The real challenge of the ministry is to dispense the truth clearly and accurately. Practical application comes easily by comparison.

No believer can apply truth he doesn’t know.”

How well I remember this sort of Bible study! I have not always been as adamant about first finding out what scripture actually SAYS, and then applying it, as I am these days. Not only have I learned NOT to trust my feelings, I sincerely believe that there is more than enough to apply from what Scripture SAYS to keep me from trying to get something ‘special’ just for little old me. If there is something I need as a personal admonition, encouragement or application, I am confident I will receive a much clearer message studying what is plain from reading and inductive study than ‘comtemplating’ until I get some ‘deeper revelation’.

A”ll Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17

It’s scripture that is breathed out by God, NOT my interpretation, my insight, or my feelings. I can trust the plain teaching of scripture 100% of the time and, unlike what’s in my head and in my heart, I don’t have to figure out who’s really ‘speaking’.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

There is a very insightful article, Encountering Voices in the Silence of Contemplative Prayer by Pastor Larry DeBruyn  here . The article discusses the teachings of the Contemplative Prayer Movement (CPM) leader Richard Foster concerning discerning whose voice we are listening to in the midst of our ‘contemplation’ and compares Foster’s teaching in the light of scripture. Early in the article Pastor DeBruyn quotes Foster:

“Learning to distinguish the voice of God . . . from just human voices within us . . . comes in much the same way that we learn any other voice. Satan pushes and condemns. God draws and encourages. And we can know the difference.” [1]

If the voice is negative it’s Satan. If it’s positive and affirming, it’s God. Foster apparently doesn’t offer any advice for discerning whether or not we are listening to our own voice. I guess if we are truly ‘spiritual’ we don’t talk to ourselves in the silence of contemplating God. Later in the same article the author discusses the voice of the Holy Spirit – God’s ‘voice’ in the life of the believer:

“We live in the age of the Holy Spirit and His spiritual communication and communion with the soul of the believer. But the Spirit’s communication is not always pleasant. Of the Holy Spirit’s communication Jesus predicted, “And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment” (John 16:8). Even the Comforter does not always comfort. Sometimes He convicts, and conviction of soul is not pleasant to experience. It upsets. None of us likes criticism. We do not like to be told we are wrong. Yet without the voice of the Spirit’s conviction, we would continue in sin, pursue unrighteousness, and deny we are accountable to God for our behavior. So when, for legitimate reasons, the Spirit’s conviction comes over them, will Christians be so deluded by the positivity and feel-good mindset that saturates today’s evangelical church that they will ignore the Spirit’s conviction, or worse, that they will assign godly conviction to be the bullying voice of Satan?” (Emphasis mine)

A dear Christian friend I met here in Blogland emailed me some time ago wanting to know if she was to only speak positive things all of the time. Apparently other believers in Blogland, or maybe in her church, were telling her that she should. Those who offer such ‘counsel’ are likely among the deluded Christians spoken of in the previous paragraph, because such advice runs counter to Scripture. Nothing personal intended here – I don’t know of a single believer who is immune from the enemy’s deception.

I also don’t know anyone in these blogs who is personally involved in the sort of contemplative prayer that runs dangerously close to the pagan mysticism of Eastern religions. So why make a fuss? I have a few good reasons.

• I’ve been there and back – all the way there and back.
• I can’t think of any ‘personal word’ from God to this guy that could not be traced to something read or taught from Scripture that the Holy Spirit has brought to mind.
• Claiming that the work of the Holy Spirit, who works in all believers similarly, is God speaking specially to ‘ME’ serves to feed fleshly pride.
• Once pride takes hold and begins to germinate, I won’t be satisfied with mere ‘special insights’. The enemy will use the seed of pride to tempt me to ‘deeper/higher’ levels of spirituality. Satan’s ‘operational tempo’ seems to always be perfectly matched to the growth rate of the individual believer. He will never tempt us with something he knows we will scoff at, only that which could be appealing.

To believers reading this, please receive it as a word of caution. Yes we serve a God who is personal, loves us personally, even chose us by name – just don’t get too personal.

Endnote:  [1] Michelle McKinney Hammond, “Fear of Silence,” Be Still (DVD © 2006 Twentieth Fox Home Entertainment LLC).

________

I also encourage examining other discernment resources available at Discernment Ministries.

“We cannot blink the fact that gentle Jesus, meek and mild, was so stiff in His opinions and so inflammatory in His language, that He was thrown out of church, stoned, hunted from place to place, and finally gibbetted as a firebrand and a public danger. We have very efficiently pared the claws of the Lion of Judah into a household pet for pale curates and pious old ladies.”

Dorothy L. Sayers

So what’s an IPR? I’m glad you asked – it stands for ‘In Progress Review’. That’s what this post is about. I’ve been cruising around Christian Blogland for six months now and it seemed wise to reflect a bit an decide whether or not to continue. Is it a worthwhile endeavor, bringing glory to God, or is it mostly about professing believers finding another form of self-satisfying fellowship that tends to sacrifice truth on the altar of ‘tolerance’?

Offered in a blog comment by the post’s author, to all who might read the post: 

“To all: I know this is a many-sided topic, and to those who would try to pick it apart theologically … know I’m not trying to do that.”

The particular author is irrelevant, as is the topic of the post. There is, however, an underlying sentiment that’s a serious matter that is not only prevalent in ‘Christian’ blogging, but one that pervades postmodern evangelicalism. I am not referring to the author’s desire that there be no useless personal arguments, if that is what was meant by ‘picking apart’. What concerns me is the addition of the modifier “theologically” to picking the topic apart.  Although the author was speaking reflexively (“I’m not trying to do that.”) the clear implication of the comment, in a larger context, was for “all” to also avoid theological debate. 

I realize that I just changed the phrase ‘pick apart theologically’ to ‘theological debate’, so don’t go pinging off the walls and accuse me of changing the subject. I am not accusing the the post’s author of not wanting theological debate, but avoiding theological debate is the matter at hand in this post.

Found by ‘accident’ when clicking a link to an interesting sounding book this morning:

“At its most basic level, the word theology is “God talk,” the Greek theos originally meaning “God” and logos meaning “word, statement, speech, discourse.” God is then the ultimate subject and source of theology. Included in theology is the study of the nature of God himself, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. But theology also includes the scope of the Bible itself: the study of the Word of God subject by subject, like the doctrine of sin, the doctrine of grace, demons, angels, and many others.”

Now to the heart of the matter. . .

I fully realize that I have only had this blog up for six months, but I think my observations are accurate concerning the realm of ‘Christian’ blogging, where I hang out a lot online. These observations concern ‘Christian’ blogging about ‘things spiritual’, or ‘God stuff’. My observations:

‘Christian’ discussion blogs seem to fall into two categories, 1) those that want to discuss the objective truth of scripture, with or without personal application thrown in the mix and 3) those that seem to be more subjective in nature – “what this scripture means to ‘me'” having priority over the objective truth of scripture – “what does this scripture SAY”. It is to the latter that I address these observations, after watching a ‘blogged bible study’ that has gone through the first 10 chapters of John’s Gospel.

• While there is some discussion about the text of a chapter under consideration, there is far more discussion concerning participants’ ‘personal’ insights that might or might not apply to the specific text, and that are nearly always attributed to the Holy Spirit..
• There is a considerable amount of affirmation of these ‘personal’ insights, between participants and from most who merely observe and comment.
• Discussions of the text sometimes miss the central theme of the chapter when read with the overall context of the Gospel itself. This will manifest itself in discussions focusing on real or imaginary sub-themes, accompanied by more of the aforementioned personal ‘affirmations’.
• ‘Wolves’ disguised as sheep like to lurk behind the scenes and enter the dialogue to add to all of the ‘affirming’ going on and to attest to the most vacuous of ‘personal insights’ being extremely ‘profound’. This serves Satan well.
• Those who would attempt to bring scriptural clarity and/or a measure of specificity to the ‘dialogue’ in order to render it meaningful and profitable for real Christian growth are often deemed intolerant and arrogant, especially when scripture touches a nerve. That’s known as ‘shooting the messenger’, for those who missed it.
• “Let’s all just get along…” is the rule of the day. Feeling good about ourselves is more important than being cut by the Sword of Truth.

I could continue, but I won’t. This is NOT a personal attack against any specific individual. What these observations reflect is the ‘sold out’ nature of postmodern evangelicalism to a ‘me’ centered Christianity, rather than the God-centric faith of Scripture. I also realize that there are many true believers who are caught up in this postmodern distortion of biblical Christianity because they were brought up in it. For those, my heart aches. The greater grief in all of this is the grief to the Holy Spirit who indwells all believers, the insult to the Son who died that we might live, and the dishonor it brings to the Father.

To blog, or not to blog, that is the question. . .