The Nines 2011: the full text

Thanks for joining me at the Nines today -- my name is Frank Turk, and I'm a blogger, and you can read more about me in the author bios if you find any of today's talk especially compelling.

Before I have a go at this, I was tempted to tell you about my “last week” and my “this week” as I prepared this talk.  But as far as that goes, you probably don’t want to know “how I do it.”  I work in the supply chain for global renewable energy, and my job is like being Batman but without the unlimited Wayne Industries resources and without the awesome bat-cave office space but with all the same assortment of crazy people who need to be corralled, contained or incarcerated.

I mean: I’m a guy who works in a wholly-secular industry with its own theology and end-times strategy, and I get it that it seems good to be a professional person with a word of wisdom because I do such a great job.

But here’s the thing: I know for a fact that my way of doing anything is prone to one thing only, and that’s making much of me – making sure I stay important and I stay needed.  That’s why I see myself as Batman, right?  Dark, cool, and utterly necessary -- even if people have to fear me.

But look: I believe in the Real Jesus.  And the first thing that has to mean is this: I am not Him  - I can’t be him.  I can’t lead like Jesus because I am not Lord of All: I have to lead like someone Jesus has saved.  If I can start my engagement with other people by knowing there is a Real Jesus, and I am not him but a subject of his ridiculously-generous sacrifice, I can probably knock off about two-thirds of my natural tendency to pounce on the wicked from the shadows -- because I have to realize that I am the wicked, and I could have been rightly struck down by God, and instead he saved me.

The guys who followed Jesus around had this same problem.  You can imagine when James’ and John’s mother asked Jesus if her boys could be his left-hand and right-hand men, the other apostles were a little worked up.  But he said to them, “Look: the kings and leaders of the people without God are in the authority business, worried about who is the one guy in charge – but it isn’t supposed to be like that with you fellows.  With you, whoever would be great among you must be a servant.” The Greek there is the word for “waiter”.  And Jesus made sure to say this so we understand his point: “You must be a servant even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Another time Jesus said it plainly: “I am the good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep.  A hired hand is not a shepherd, who doesn’t own the sheep, and he runs away when a wolf comes because he doesn’t care anything for the sheep."

 Jesus says that the way you get great in his order of things is by laying down your life for other people, not by becoming like the best in class among the those who have a different economy than God does.

Let me be honest: I find myself caught in this trap all the time.  So when I sit down to do my work, or something like ministry, I know I need to check myself to make sure that the means and motives of the ungodly are not pushing out my fundamental love for Jesus, and also for his people – some of whom are not yet saved.

Think about it: are you seeking how to lead God’s people until Jesus returns?  if that’s true, what are Jesus’ means and methods for achieving his ends?

I only have about another minute, so here’s a short list of Jesus’ means & methods:

• saying the things God has said rather than the things the world says
• confessing our sins not just in general, but specifically when we blow it
• loving our wives the way christ loves the church
• suffering for those who cannot pay us back
• giving up glory the way christ gave up glory to show people real love rather than just good manners

I can’t lead the right way – that is, the way Jesus calls me to – if I do it my way.  I have to do it his way, which is the way that saved me in the first place.  And if instead I want to be a leader who sits at his left hand or his right hand, Jesus tells me plainly: I am doing it wrong.  I need to be a servant for the sake of others, and to die for them.

And listen carefully: if that’s true for a guy who works at a secular job, how much more true is that for those of you who are working inside God’s house with God’s People?  Does your model of leadership look like a servant who dies for the sake of other people – or does it look like you’re getting all the right people on the bus so that you can get into the fly wheel effect and out of the doom loop?

Think about that today because Jesus wants you to think about that.  That is explicitly how he said to do it, and this is your chance to listen to him.

My name is Frank.  Enjoy the rest of the day.

A few facts for Yahoo! & Daniel Gross

On Saturday, 6 Aug 2011, Yahoo! linked on its from page to an opinion piece by Daniel Gross on the action of the S&P to downgrade US National Debt. First, shame on Yahoo for linking this on the front page as news rather than commentary. That's irresponsible at best.

Second, the "facts" in paragraphs 5 and 6 are, at best, broad-brush and imprecise.  At worst they are partisan fabrications.  For example, if you look at this chart:

You'll find that person income taxes are about average when compared to every year since 1950 when compared to GDP.  Corpoarte taxes may be at an all-time low, but that trend was started under Reagan and continued by every president since him, including St. Bill Clinton. 

However, what that graph also shows is that the last time the overall tax percentage was this low was at the end of the Clinton administration. That seems irrelevant until you look at this graph:

While taxes as a percent of GDP were at the lowest point of the previous 5 decades, tax -revenue- was at its highest point ever, which caused the Clinton surplus.

Read that again, and check the statistics.  It is an utter falsehood to say that the only way to produce more revenue is to raise taxes, and to say that it's the majority opinion  in this case is also a massive falsehood.  S&P did not change the US rating because Republicans wanted what they wanted.  This is what their report says:

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process.

It is unconscienably-partisan of Daniel Gross to read that statement (if he did) and interpret it to say that this is a Republican failure: plainly, -short-term- agreement on cutting entitlements and on raising -revenue- (not raising tax rates) is what S&P used to determine its action.

This is a horrible case not merely of bias in reporting but of actual misrepresentation of the facts, and Yahoo! and Daniel Gross ought to issue a retraction.

A brief aside -- looking you straight in the icon

This morning I tweeted the following:

I just wanted to say 2 things about that:

[1] I know a LOT of people have more followers than me. A LOT. But in the end, I'm just a guy with a blog, and there are 1600+ people who think that my tweets are worth a look. When you realize that this is more people than the average pastor gets to preach to weekly, it's a little terrifying.

[2] When I was in college, I was a very active part of the radio station -- I had a well-received morning show, and I was ultimately Program Director my last semester. One of the things that is true about radio is that it's easy to be somewhat-causal about talking into a mic -- because it's easy to say things when you don't have to look anyone in the eye to say what you're saying. Having looked all of you straight in the icon, though, I feel the seriousness of what is happening here -- and I hope that it serves me as a reminder of the impact of what happens when I tweet and blog every day.

Both Sides of the Story (2 of 2)

I was going to transcribe Dr. MacArthur's statement in the interview, but here's what he posted yesterday at his blog:

On the surface, it may sound noble to hold to a unique theology that has been independently forged, but such thinking (too common among today’s young-and-restless reformers) is dangerous to the health of the church. Allow me to publicly state that if this is not what Darrin Patrick meant to communicate, I would certainly love to embrace any clarification.

Meanwhile, let me clarify my remark: I was not questioning Darrin’s personal orthodoxy – his theology is clear in the book. The issue is rather the danger of developing a unique theology and a radically individualistic philosophy of church leadership. When one’s “own theological beliefs” are self-styled and unique, those beliefs need to be questioned. Protecting the soundness of our theological convictions is a commitment that we all must make. It is increasingly clear that the vanguard of evangelical Christianity is intent upon actively promoting change at every level within the church, and young men in particular should not be encouraged to think radical individualism is a positive mindset for church leadership and ministry style.

Good ecclesiology demands that there exist an awareness of, appreciation for, and deliberate connection to the flow of redemptive history. Patrick’s statement, it seems to me, is quite out of harmony with Paul’s charge to Timothy: “What you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Timothy 2:2). The goal certainly should not be to encourage young pastors to distrust or remodel what they have learned from faithful men.

I don’t know Darrin, and I’m not attacking him or challenging his statement of faith; I’m cautioning that this championing of “uniqueness to the way [young pastors want] to do ministry” is a dangerous trend, not a healthy one.

Thoughts?

Both sides of the story (1 of 2)

Darrin Patrick's The Church Planter has gotten some play this week, and there's one passage in particular that some people are wondering about. I'll bet most of them don't have the book (on both sides of the discussion), but Google Books does have the book because nothing is sacred anymore. HT: Jared Wilson.

Here's the passage causing unrest:

If you read that passage, what would you say Darrin was talking about? Discuss freely, but avoid uncivil rioting. Keep your torches and pitchforks at home.

The Nines - Welcome!

If you're stopping by today, it's probably because of my video today at the Nines -- so thanks for that!

For those of you who missed it, I'm publishing the text of my talk right here, and I'll be in and out all day chatting with you about that video or maybe some of the other videos as they come up.

Enjoy!

---

OK -- Thanks for streaming the Nines this year. Tell your boss we're sorry for impacting national productivity today. My name's Frank Turk, and you have probably never heard of me. I'm a blogger, which is like saying, "I own a Star Wars costume," or "I play World of Warcraft," -- it's a hobby that generally makes people think you're a weirdo who lives in your mom's basement. As you watch today, keep in mind that at least I own my own home. I don't have a mega-church or a book I'm selling. I work a day job in renewable energy, I have a wife whom I love, and two kids I'm trying to be a good father to.

Now, in spite of being a blogger, with the reputation of being a little rabid, you'll be relieved to know that I suspect that most of you who are watching are Christians -- that is, like the people in Antioch who were first called by that name, you have heard the Gospel even if it's only the Gospel a guy like Barnabas would preach as opposed to an apostle like Paul, and you believed it, and you have been trained up in some way. And you're probably in ministry, right? Maybe it's not full time, but you're at least committed to your church and your elders or pastors to try to do what's right for people. And let me say that if you're not one of the people I just described, you should be.

But why? Why should you be anything in particular rather than someone who is doing what is right in his own eyes, and then calling that "Christian" or "Christian Ministry"? My opinion here is that it's not because I have a really clever argument, or that 100,000 Westminster seminarians and professors can't be wrong. It's because Jesus of Nazareth is a real person.

But hold on -- I know that sounds obvious, OK? I know it sounds like something too stupid to mention when I have only 6 minutes and this is my best shot at speaking to any of you ever again. But here's what I'm thinking: at some point, everything that we do which is clever or professional has to get put in the same box as the man Jesus, who was crucified.

My brother-in-law David tells a story about the first time he visited Boston. David's ex-military, and He says that he can remember all through school people told him about American history -- about the events that happened that caused us to be a country, the list of facts. But in Boston, he found himself out in the harbor looking down into the water, and when he looked into the water and out at the harbor he realized: "Wow. This is were they dropped the tea into the harbor." And at that moment, all those men and all the stories about them weren't just facts or true statements anymore: the real people became obvious to him, and it changed the way he thought about our country and his part in it.

It reminds me of the end of the story of Job, after all the boils and marauders and donkeys and friends telling Job how it's all his fault, Job tells God, "I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you, and I repent." For My brother-in-law David, American history became real when the facts weren't just facts; for Job, God stopped being a story when he finally saw YHVH with his own eyes.

That's why we have to see Jesus as a real person. I mean, Jesus is God, but he didn't try to remain equal with God. Instead he gave up everything and became a slave, when he became like one of us. Jesus was humble the way only God can be humble. He obeyed God and even died on a cross. And when we say this, we should say this, when we tell people this, they should get it -- as if we said something like, "this is where they dropped the tea into the harbor."

Jesus is not just some icon of spiritual truth; his story is not just a story about truth: he's the one guy who understands our weaknesses because he has suffered through them, and then he died for them.

And here we are -- making and watching videos about how to change the game at church. I think the game was changed when the angels sang, "Glory to God in the Highest! And on Earth, peace to men on whom his favor rests," and now it's our problem to catch up with that -- to live as if that really happened, so we can make much of this Jesus, and enjoy him forever.

If we forget that, the rest of this stuff is just a hobby that makes us look pathetic -- or worse, a way we make ourselves look good and feel good in spite of who we really are. But the people in Antioch, when they heard about the real Jesus according to Barnabas, they stuck with it. They wanted to know more, and Barnabas had to send for Paul -- a guy who knew the Scripture, and knew the real Jesus -- to teach about this real guy, and to live as if he really did walk out of the grave and now sits at the right hand of the father -- because the simple proclamation was not enough. They needed someone to teach them well, so that in Antioch the disciples could be first called Christian.

Those aren't just big words: that's the way God changed the game for the whole world, and now you and me have to do something about it -- because it's real. We should act like the people we minister to are Jesus' people -- and he's going to come back for them. And the churches we serve in is Jesus' house -- which we will either make something into something precious to him, or something he'll burn unlike a pile of leaves in the yard. And when we gather together it's because of His reputation -- not ours.

If your game will change that way, you'll have had a pretty big day. So be with Jesus' people in Jesus' household on His day this Sunday, and treat him like a real person.

Does Orthodoxy Matter?

---

Back in the day, I actually started blogging because of the Letter of Diognetus. This post from 2005 talks about the letter in depth, and why it tells us that orthodoxy matters.

---

Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonoured, and yet in their very dishonour are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honour; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred.

”Yes, yes, “ I can hear the rabble in NJ moaning, “I’ve read it. More ‘good works’ hoo-ha which doesn’t actually make your point, cent. What’s this got to do with orthodoxy?"

In fact, it has everything to do with orthodoxy – because it is not all the author has to say about these “Christians”. A little background on the origin of this letter and its apparent writer and/or intended reader: It was clearly composed during a severe persecution. The manuscript attributed it with other writings to Justin Martyr; but that earnest philosopher and hasty writer was quite incapable of the restrained eloquence, the smooth flow of thought, the limpid clearness of expression, which mark this epistle as one of the most perfect compositions of antiquity. The last two chapters (xi, xii) are florid and obscure, and bear no relation to the rest of the letter. They seem to be a fragment of a homily of later date. The writer of this addition describes himself as a "disciple of the Apostles", and through a misunderstanding of these words the epistle has, since the eighteenth century, been classed with the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. (source: Catholic Encyclopedia, so excuse some of the flower stuff)

So in extolling the Christians, this work is certainly an apologetic work. But when it ascribes these amazing works to these Christians, what does it say the basis of this work is and must be? Well, let’s look.

First, it says this about the Jews:

I imagine that you are most desirous of hearing something on this point, that the Christians do not observe the same forms of divine worship as do the Jews. The Jews, then, if they abstain from the kind of service above described, and deem it proper to worship one God as being Lord of all, {are right}; but if they offer Him worship in the way which we have described, they greatly err. For while the Gentiles, by offering such things to those that are destitute of sense and hearing, furnish an example of madness; they, on the other hand by thinking to offer these things to God as if He needed them, might justly reckon it rather an act of folly than of divine worship. For He that made heaven and earth, and all that is therein, and gives to us all the things of which we stand in need, certainly requires none of those things which He Himself bestows on such as think of furnishing them to Him. But those who imagine that, by means of blood, and the smoke of sacrifices and burnt-offerings, they offer sacrifices {acceptable} to Him, and that by such honours they show Him respect,-these, by supposing that they can give anything to Him who stands in need of nothing, appear to me in no respect to differ from those who studiously confer the same honour on things destitute of sense, and which therefore are unable to enjoy such honours. (III)

This says in fairly clear terms that trying to appease God with sacrifices – as the Jews have done – is not really any better than offering sacrifices to idols. Why? Because God has no need of anything man can offer: there is nothing man has which God does not already possess, and which man somehow “gives back” to God in a meaningful way that God needs. So whatever the Christians are doing, it is not as a sacrificial offering.

Next we should read this:

I suppose, then, you are sufficiently convinced that the Christians properly abstain from the vanity and error common {to both Jews and Gentiles}, and from the busy-body spirit and vain boasting of the Jews; but you must not hope to learn the mystery of their peculiar mode of worshipping God from any mortal.(IV)

Think on that: the Christian abstain from error, and the reader is warned not to try to learn how to worship God from any mortal.

From whom then should he learn?

For, as I said, this was no mere earthly invention which was delivered to them, nor is it a mere human system of opinion, which they judge it right to preserve so carefully, nor has a dispensation of mere human mysteries been committed to them, but truly God Himself, who is almighty, the Creator of all things, and invisible, has sent from heaven, and placed among men, {Him who is} the truth, and the holy and incomprehensible Word, and has firmly established Him in their hearts.(VII)

So Christians did not learn to act a certain way from each other, or from the Jews, or from the Greeks – they learned it from God Himself who “sent from heaven … the holy and incomprehensible Word”. That’s pretty high talk, I think, coming from a pre-Nicene apologist.

But there’s more:

{God} did not, as one might have imagined, send to men any servant, or angel, or ruler, or any one of those who bear sway over earthly things, or one of those to whom the government of things in the heavens has been entrusted, but the very Creator and Fashioner of all things … As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God37 He sent Him; as to men He sent Him (VII)

So Him who was sent was actually the creator of all things! WOW! Doctrine! And that’s not all:

This [messenger] He sent to them. Was it then, as one might conceive, for the purpose of exercising tyranny, or of inspiring fear and terror? By no means, but under the influence of clemency and meekness. As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Saviour He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God. As calling us He sent Him, not as vengefully pursuing us; as loving us He sent Him, not as judging us. For He will yet send Him to judge us, and who shall endure His appearing?(VII)

We might debate whether this writer is a 5-pointer or not, but the reality is that he says that Christ was sent, as very God, to save men prior to the coming righteous wrath of God. That’s 100% doctrine – all critical, essential doctrine. But, as we are asking in this monologue, who cares? Does it matter? This writer seems to think so – because he says:

Do you not see them exposed to wild beasts, that they may be persuaded to deny the Lord, and yet not overcome? Do you not see that the more of them are punished, the greater becomes the number of the rest? This does not seem to be the work of man: this is the power of God; these are the evidences of His manifestation.(VII)

That is to say, what these people are doing is the evidence of God’s power in them. Certainly, this is directly applied to the fact that their numbers grow in spite of persecution, but it is also applied indirectly to their “manners” when it is said that they have learned their way of life directly from God.

But what kind of doctrine is this? Is it a kind of “mere Christianity” that only covers the barest essentials? I think if we stop right here and don’t read another word of the Epistle, we might have to say so. But see what comes next:

For, who of men at all understood before His coming what God is? Do you accept of the vain and silly doctrines of those who are deemed trustworthy philosophers? of whom some said that fire was God, calling that God to which they themselves were by and by to come; and some water; and others some other of the elements formed by God. But if any one of these theories be worthy of approbation, every one of the rest of created things might also be declared to be God. But such declarations are simply the startling and erroneous utterances of deceivers; and no man has either seen Him, or made Him known, but He has revealed Himself. And He has manifested Himself through faith, to which alone it is given to behold God. For God, the Lord and Fashioner of all things, who made all things, and assigned them their several positions, proved Himself not merely a friend of mankind, but also long-suffering [in His dealings with them.] Yea, He was always of such a character, and still is, and will ever be, kind and good, and free from wrath, and true, and the only one who is [absolutely] good; and He formed in His mind a great and unspeakable conception, which He communicated to His Son alone. As long, then, as He held and preserved His own wise counsel in concealment, He appeared to neglect us, and to have no care over us. But after He revealed and laid open, through His beloved Son, the things which had been prepared from the beginning, He conferred every blessing all at once upon us, so that we should both share in His benefits, and see and be active [in His service]. Who of us would ever have expected these things? He was aware, then, of all things in His own mind, along with His Son, according to the relation subsisting between them.

Man! PREACH IT! No man knew anything about God, apparently, until God revealed Christ to men – and that thereafter “we should both share in His benefits, and see and be active”. So whatever we know about God is what causes us to act in worship of God – and among those things is the counsel of God’s will to save us. HUH!

But there is more still:

If you also desire [to possess] this faith, you likewise shall receive first of all the knowledge of the Father. For God has loved mankind, on whose account He made the world, to whom He rendered subject all the things that are in it, to whom He gave reason and understanding, to whom alone He imparted the privilege of looking upwards to Himself, whom He formed after His own image, to whom He sent His only-begotten Son, to whom He has promised a kingdom in heaven, and will give it to those who have loved Him.

Faith is the means of receiving God’s blessings; God made man in His image; God sent the Son and has promised a kingdom to those who have loved Him.

That’s not a “mere” definition of the faith: it’s a thorough definition of the faith – especially when considered in the context of the refutation of the non-Christian entities already denounced by the writer.

And it all comes back to the description of orthodoxy – of the right relationship of man to God. The Christians are described in this letter as having been taught rightly by God through the Son for the sake of acting right in all the things they do – and the content of that teaching is plainly spelled out.

So when we come across a person who says that orthodoxy does not mean we are exclusive about the kinds of people we bring into the house with many mansions, and that it doesn’t matter if we venerate the dead, or that it doesn’t matter through what source we claim to receive the right teaching, you can point back to the right-acting Christians in the letter to Diognetus and ask the question, “how were these Christians defined, and what made them act the way they did?” The answer is a very strong argument in favor of orthodoxy as a standard and not a sliding scale.