Posted by deangonzales on March 6, 2010
According to the Westminster Confession of Faith 25.5 (see also LBCF 26.3), “The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error.” There are at least two ramifications that flow from this doctrinal assertion. First, no church or ecclesiastical organization should assume the posture of having arrived at complete doctrinal and spiritual maturity–including Reformed churches and organizations! Hence, when we take too much pride in being “ReformED,” we run the risk of losing sight of the Reformation principle of semper reformanda (”always reforming”) and of assuming the rather haughty posture that we’ve got a “corner on the truth.” As a result, we can tend to spend too much time criticizing others and develop an unhealthy resistance to receiving criticism (whether from outside or inside our circles). Second, since we’re not immune to errors and imbalances and weaknesses, we should be just as ready to learn from others outside our ecclesiastical circles as we are eager to help them see their faults. In other words, we shouldn’t assume that we’re the only ones who have something profitable to bring to the table, that everyone else needs to keep quiet and learn from us. Rather, while we may have some insights and wisdom to offer our evangelical brothers, we can expect they probably have some things to teach us as well.
With the preceding remarks in view, I’d like to commend to you two recent blog entries by one of our seminary students, Bill Streger, Pastor of Kaleo Church in Houston, which is part of the Acts 29 Network, an association of pastors and churches focused on reaching the unchurched and planting churches. In the first entry, entitled, “Uncool People Need Jesus Too” (see link below), Bill directs a caution to pastors within his own ecclesiastical circles. Basically, he warns them against allowing a good thing (i.e., a burden and effort to reach the younger “hip” generation) to develop into an imbalance (i.e., a failure to be burdened for and reach people who may not be young and “hip”). In the second entry, entitled, “What I Actually Meant” (see link below), Bill provides some qualifying remarks to clarify the intent of his original post. He assures his colleagues (some of whom took offense at his first post) that he was offering the admonition not as a broad-brush critique of the whole movement but as a general caution regarding a potential pitfall into which some may unwittingly fall.
Personally, I didn’t need Bill’s qualification. I understood that his remarks were simply a generalization and that he wasn’t impugning the motives of those whom he was warning. Moreover, I understood the cautions as coming from one who was overall appreciative of the good in his ecclesiastical circles but who simply wanted to encourage biblical balance and maturity. Nevertheless, as one who has sometimes offered self-criticisms of my own “movement,” I know what it’s like to be misunderstood. Of course, this is not to say that I’m always above reproach in the way I communicate criticisms. Sometimes I fail to make necessary qualifications. This is why I appreciated Bill’s humble willingness to post a second entry in order to clarify his intentions and even concede that he could have said it better the first time. In the end, though, I think every church, denomination, or ecclesiastical “movement” ought to remain self-critical in the spirit of semper reformanda. If you read both of Bill’s posts, you’ll see that he highly esteems the Acts 29 Network, its leaders, and the brothers who are part of it. But he also recognizes the truth expressed in the Puritan confessions, namely, that no church or body of churches has “fully arrived.” Consequently, he’s willing to be self-critical in the interests of helping his church and his sister churches to become aware of pitfalls and to grow in “the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph 4:13, ESV).
I believe that we, as Reformed Baptists, can profit from Bill’s caution against the tendency to be trendy and to mimic other ministries in ways that are unwarranted or imbalanced. Perhaps more importantly, we can profit from Bill’s willingness to be self-critical. There’s always a danger of becoming so enamored with our strengths that we become blind to our weaknesses. May the Lord help us!
“Uncool People Need Jesus Too” by Pastor Bill Streger
“What I Actually Meant” by Pastor Bill Streger
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
Posted by deangonzales on February 27, 2010
Matthew 20:20-28 speaks of human ambition. Webster’s Dictionary defines “ambition” as “an ardent desire for rank, fame, or power.” Another dictionary provides a fuller definition. Ambition is “an earnest desire for some type of achievement or distinction, as power, honor, fame, or wealth, and the willingness to strive for its attainment.” The sons of Zebedee were obviously men of ambition. They aspired after greatness. They also had a mother who earnestly wanted to see her two sons achieve their aspirations. And lest we think they were the only disciples who entertained ambitions to greatness, we do well to interpret the indignation of the other ten disciples recorded in verse 24 not as an indication of true humility but as an expression of envy that John and James had beat them to the punch. They too aspired to greatness.
The question I’d like us to ask is, Is it wrong for true disciples of Christ to aspire after greatness? Most of us would probably answer that question affirmatively. Of course it’s wrong! Human ambition doesn’t seem to fit with Christian virtue. However, I want to suggest to you that human ambition in-and-of-itself is not necessarily sinful. Notice carefully that Jesus does not oppose the ambition of James and John per se. He’s not against their aspiration to “greatness,” and he doesn’t condemn their desire for achievement. Instead, Jesus redefines true greatness in the kingdom of God, and he contrasts the Christian approach to achieving greatness with the world’s approach. Look again at verses 25-28:
But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
Note two things about Jesus’s response to His disciples’ ambition:
1. Jesus doesn’t condemn human ambition but encourages it.
Mark Christ’s words in the first part of verses 26 and 27: “Whoever would be great among you must be …” (v. 26). “And whoever would be first among you must be …” (v. 27). Jesus isn’t mocking the disciples. He’s not being sarcastic. He’s offering them biblical counsel. He’s showing them the way to true greatness. “If you want to be great—if you want to achieve, then this is the method you must follow.” Therefore, we shouldn’t interpret Jesus’s teaching as a blanket condemnation of all human ambition. As a matter of fact, the Bible supports the notion that human ambition is a God-given impulse.
How many of you have met an ambitious oak tree? What about an ambitious fish or bird or cow? It’s true that some animals can be aggressive. And it’s true that some animals can be competitive. There’s always the dog in the pack that aspires to be the “alpha-male.” But whatever ambition animals may possess is only a faint semblance of human ambition. Animals don’t strive for fortune and fame. Animals aren’t preoccupied, like us, with accomplishment and achievement. But there’s a drive within you and me to do something that’s lasting: to leave our mark, to accomplish some great deed, to be successful and find fulfillment. Where did that drive come from?
I want to suggest that it came from the God who created humans in his own image and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Gen. 1:28). That “creation mandate” not only specified mankind’s God-given task. It also implies a goal toward which humans are to strive. Adam and Eve were to be fruitful and fill the earth with other images of God who would labor together to beautify the earth and harness its natural resources for the glory of God and good of man. And as a reward for their labors, God would grant them a “name,” and they would join him in eternal Sabbath-rest. And God endowed the human heart not only with a conscience that would urge man to imitate his heavenly father morally but God also endowed the human heart with an aspiration to complete his God-given task and to enjoy as a reward fullness of life—something he did not yet experience in the Garden of Eden. I believe this is what Solomon is alluding to in Ecclesiastes 3:11 where he says, “[God] has put eternity in their hearts.” One OT scholar explains it this way:
[The] blessing … promising a consummation of man’s original glory as image of God was … built into man’s very nature as image of God. This eschatological prospect was in-created. It was an aspiration implanted in man’s heart with his existence as God’s image…. The bare perpetuation of man’s original measure of blessedness would actually have been a curse, not a blessing, for it would have amounted to failure in his endeavor to fulfill God’s commission to be fruitful and to extend his dominion..
Brothers and sisters, you and I were made to have aspirations. To borrow from a good friend’s oft-repeated axiom: we were created with a drive and desire to pursue our maximum kingdom potential. This explains why people in the world strive to achieve and accomplish and find fulfillment. True, their ambition for greatness and achievement has been corrupted by sin as we’ll see. But it still testifies to the fact that they’re made in the image of God. My point is this: human ambition is not wrong provided that it’s properly defined and carried out with the right motives, which leads me to the second observation regarding Jesus’s response to his disciples’ ambition:
2. Jesus contrasts godly ambition with worldly ambition
In verse 25-28, Jesus summons his disciples and says to them:
You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.
It’s important that we interpret Jesus’s words correctly. Jesus is not saying that the Gentiles are wicked simply because they happen to be in power. Nor is He saying it’s wrong to aspire to occupy the role of a leader such as mayor or a governor or even a king. In other words, Jesus is not commending some kind of egalitarian society in which there are no structures of human authority. Instead, I think the right way to understand Jesus’s contrast is to see him contrasting one form of ruling and subduing the earth with another form of ruling and subduing the earth. Like Adam in the Garden, the nations seek to rule and subdue the earth independent of God’s rule and in violation of God’s law. Moreover, they’re ambition is not God’s glory and the good of mankind but their own glory and their own personal good, often at the expense of others. This was true of the Caesars of Jesus’s day. And this is true of many of the rulers in our day. They have no regard for the God of heaven. And they take advantage of their people in order that they might live in luxury and build their palaces and monuments and legacies.
But it’s not just the dictators or prime ministers or politicians in Washington who are guilty of this prideful ambition. Every human who rejects God and his law, who seeks to be his own master, and who attempts to carve out his own destiny with himself at the center falls under Jesus’s censure. Even Jesus’s disciples fell under his censure! It wasn’t wrong for James and John to be ambitious. It wasn’t wrong for them or the other disciples to aspire after greatness in God’s kingdom. Brothers, there’s something wrong with us if we don’t have that aspiration!
What was wrong was their conception of true greatness and the way in which it is attained. True greatness, according to Jesus, consists in adopting the posture of a servant: “Whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave — just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:26-28). What is the posture of a servant? I think it involves the following:
(1) Servants are not their own masters but they’re under the authority of another.
God created Adam to be His vice-regent, and He gave Adam dominion over the earth. But that dominion was never to be absolute. Adam had a master. And Adam’s Master expected Adam to carry out the creation mandate in accordance with His revealed will. But Adam failed to do this when he disobeyed God’s word and ate the fruit, saying in effect, “I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul.” Certainly not the disposition of a humble servant!!!
(2) Servants do not live for themselves but seek the good of others.
By definition a “servant” is someone who has a master and someone whose function is not just to serve himself but to serve others. The first Adam was just a man, but he grasped after equality with God. He didn’t want “to serve.” He wanted “to be served.” The Second Adam, however, was the God-man. Yet, though he was equal with God, he didn’t grasp after equality with God but took the form of a servant and died on a cross in obedience to his Father’s will so that others might share in his glory. That’s what Jesus means when he says, “Even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” “Son of Man” is a Messianic title. It refers to Jesus’s sovereignty and lordship. He is the Lord of lords and the King of kings. Nevertheless, the greatness of Jesus is unlike the greatness of human kings and governments.
- Jesus greatness is characterized by humility
- Jesus greatness is characterized by submission to the will of God
- Jesus greatness is characterized by seeking the good of others.
That, dear brothers and sisters, is the kind of ambition God wants us to have.
Closing Applications
(1) Behold the high calling of servanthood.
This is the privilege and calling of all believers from apostles all the way down to ordinary laypeople. This should be our great ambition. This is where we should find our greatest fulfillment. Not in selfishly making a name for ourselves. Not stepping on others in order to climb up the ladder of worldly success. Rather, our greatest joy and our deepest fulfillment ought to come from wholehearted devotion to God and self-sacrificing service to others.
For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more (1 Cor. 9:19).
For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake (2 Cor. 4:5).
For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another (Gal. 5:1).
When people say, “What’s your church all about? What’s one of its primary distinctives?” The answer should be, “Servanthood. We are people who live not to be served but to serve.” That brings me to my second and final line of application:
(2) Behold what an example of servanthood we have in Jesus
Jesus did not merely define true greatness and proper ambition for his disciples. He demonstrated it! Indeed, it wasn’t long after the incident recorded in our passage that Jesus’s disciples would find themselves in an upper room celebrating the Passover while their own Lord and Master took a towel, assumed the role of a servant, and began washing their feet. And after he finished, he would say to them, “If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you” (John 13:14-15).
Brothers and sisters, do you want to be great in the kingdom of God? Do you want to offer a great and lasting service to the church? Then let the same attitude and posture that characterized Jesus Christ. Turn with me to Philippians 2 and note how Paul develops this theme:
Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:6-11).
That’s “greatness.” Jesus wasn’t opposed to greatness. He, as a man in the image of God, aspired after greatness in the kingdom. And he holds out to you and me the prospect of ruling and reigning with him forever! Do you aspire after that? Then listen to Paul’s counsel:
Therefore if there is any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and mercy, fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus (Phil. 2:1-4).
Do you aspire to “rule and reign with Christ”? I hope you do. I certainly do. If that’s our ambition, then let us pursue that goal by “taking the form of a bondservant.” Let us reject selfish ambition and conceit. Let us rather esteem others better than ourselves and look out for their interests, not just our own. Then and only then will we fully appreciate the high calling of servanthood.
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
Posted by deangonzales on February 24, 2010
Sometimes Biblical commentary seems more indebted to Sunday school flannelgraphs than to actual exegesis. This phenomenon is especially prevalent when studying the Old Testament historical narratives. Sections of Scripture which fall into the “Bible story” category are too often treated as just that- simple Bible stories. Deprived of Pauline intricacy or Davidic poeticism with which to interact, even some serious commentators tend to fall back onto a simplistic analysis that either misses or mishandles the implications of the text.
Those frustrated by this phenomenon will find Where Sin Abounds by Robert R. Gonzales Jr. to be refreshingly different. Gonzales offers an analysis of the book of Genesis, seeking especially to trace the spread of sin from the Fall through the patriarchal narratives. This brings him to a field of study which has been historically ripe for the sort of mishandling criticized above. A prime example of this shallow commentary is the tendency to minimize or excuse the sins of the patriarchs. Those episodes from Genesis which didn’t tend to make it onto the flannelgraph (the persistent “wife ruses” in Genesis 12:10-20, 20:1-18, 26:1-11; the Dinah episode in Genesis 34) often seem to receive only brief notice, and the justifications offered up to absolve the Patriarchs and their families of some truly despicable acts are often untenable to even the most generous reader. Gonzales appropriately labels this error “the plaster saint syndrome” (p. 4), and his extensive cataloging of the commentaries, papers, and monographs which tend toward this error provides ample proof of the necessity of this project.
Complicit in this exegetical whitewashing of Patriarchal sin is an artificial thematic construct imposed by most exegetes on the text; namely the division of Primeval history with sin as its major theme, and Patriarchal history with grace as its major theme. Gonzales’s purpose is therefore twofold. He seeks both to show that the spread of human sin remains a central theme throughout the entirety of Genesis, and that it is this very truth which emphasizes the depths of God’s grace. This insight into the relation of sin to grace is the same insight offered by Paul in Romans 5:8, “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Gonzales’s main theme is therefore well summarized on page 57, wherein he writes “As surely as mankind multiplies and fills the earth, so human sin advances in stride. This sad story of human depravity in turn provides the foil against which divine justice and mercy are gloriously displayed.”
The introduction presents the rational for the study and lays out the relevant boundaries. Where Sin Abounds is not an exhaustive commentary (and therein lays my only major criticism- the sections of general commentary were quite well done, leaving this reviewer wishing that Gonzales had written an exhaustive commentary). Rather, Gonzales seeks to use the best tools of Exegetical, Systematic, Historic, and especially Biblical Theology to specifically and exhaustively interact with sin and its spread in the book of Genesis. The remaining chapters are organized into three major parts dealing with sin and the curse in the Fall narrative, the Primeval narratives, and the Patriarchal narratives.
One feature of Gonzales’s analysis which is consistently helpful throughout the book is his willingness to interact with historical critical approaches to the text while retaining a firm stance in conservative orthodoxy. Some conservative exegetes are wary of using this modern scholarship; for fear that it will undermine inerrancy and lead to a liberal view of Scripture. Gonzales is able to use the best elements of this field, all the while upholding inerrancy. For example, in pages 75-77 Gonzales deals with the identity of the “sons of Elohim” and “Giants” of Genesis 6. He presents and evaluates three popular interpretations, and then prescribes the third view: the subjects of these titles were “ancient suzerains who engage in unrestrained polygamy (or even rape!?, 6:2b), build royal harems, and exercise despotic tyranny. Their offspring… perpetuate their evil, filling the earth with corruption and violence (6:11, 13), and thus earn the epithet, “men if fame [infamy!]”… (6:4).” This conclusion is arrived at by utilizing modern scholarship of “divine-kingship ideology of the ancient Near East,” yet without sacrificing Biblical inerrancy. If Gonzales were to write a full Genesis commentary, it would be intriguing to see how he would use this method in other sections of the book, such as the Creation and Flood accounts.
An area of special value is the analysis of the Fall and its aftermath. Intriguing questions are raised, and fresh insights are offered into a familiar account. Readers may find their current understandings of the garden environment, the identity of the serpent, and Yahweh’s post-Fall theophany/inquest called into question by Gonzales’s exegesis of the text. Another section of note is chapter three, titled The Spread of Sin among Pagan Societies. Although it is not a major feature of the book, Gonzales shows in this chapter that the presence of slavery and polygamy (among other sins) in the covenant community is not proof of God condoning these activities, rather it serves to show how pervasive and systemic the spread of sin had become throughout all mankind. God no more approved of Patriarchal polygamy and slave keeping than he did of Patriarchal murder.
Gonzales is especially concerned with the sins of the Patriarchs, and these chapters make up more than half of the book. As the initial generations of God’s chosen people live and die, theirs sins not only accumulate, but at times even overshadow the sins of their pagan neighbors. Neither Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, nor any other of the classic characters emerge untainted by persistent and grievous transgression against God and His Law. What are we to think of the great bulk of sin laid at the feet of these familiar heroes of the faith? It is of course unacceptable that any Christian would respond by smugly looking down on them, unless he is prepared to claim to be without sins of his own. Even if he did make such a claim, 1 John 1:8 would tell us that he is a liar (and therefore a sinner!). While reading Where Sin Abounds may indeed cause many of the “plaster saints” to lose some of their luster, there is one hero who actually emerges all the more righteous and all the more glorious. That “character” is the LORD God Himself. The more sin and human frailty we see in men, the more our understanding of God’s grace grows and expands. There is a sense in which the greatness of a Redeemer is measured by the depravity of those he chooses to redeem. Or, as Paul put it- where sin abounded, grace abounded much more (Romans 5:20b).
Where Sin Abounds is a book which has a specific and limited goal, and it accomplishes that goal well. Sin does indeed remain a central theme in Genesis, from chapter three all the way to chapter fifty. God did not deal with Abraham and his descendents in a special way because of their lack of sin, he dealt with them in a special way in spite of their sin and because of His grace alone. We who are Abraham’s children according to Galatians 3:29 can take great comfort in this- For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8)!
Where to purchase Where Sin Abounds?
Westminster Bookstore
Amazon.com
Barnes & Noble
Wipf & Stock (the publisher)
According to the Westminster Confession of Faith 25.5 (see also LBCF 26.3), “The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error.” There are at least two ramifications that flow from this doctrinal assertion. First, no church or ecclesiastical organization should assume the posture of having arrived at complete doctrinal and spiritual maturity–including Reformed churches and organizations! Hence, when we take too much pride in being “ReformED,” we run the risk of losing sight of the Reformation principle of semper reformanda (”always reforming”) and of assuming the rather haughty posture that we’ve got a “corner on the truth.” As a result, we can tend to spend too much time criticizing others and develop an unhealthy resistance to receiving criticism (whether from outside or inside our circles). Second, since we’re not immune to errors and imbalances and weaknesses, we should be just as ready to learn from others outside our ecclesiastical circles as we are eager to help them see their faults. In other words, we shouldn’t assume that we’re the only ones who have something profitable to bring to the table, that everyone else needs to keep quiet and learn from us. Rather, while we may have some insights and wisdom to offer our evangelical brothers, we can expect they probably have some things to teach us as well.
