The most important gift?
The other day when in church the leader prayed for the student bible study. Included in this prayer were the words asking God to find people in that group who could go into full time bible teaching ministry. i.e. formal paid bible teaching role.
Now you'd think this is an innocent prayer? but what does it actually reveal?
Maybe it will become clearer when I recount an experience I had on a christian conference earlier in the year. What I mean by this is when a whole bunch of people go away for a weekend to a conference centre and spend the greater part of the weekend listening to good wholesome bible teaching. A good thing for a christian to do.
My brother and I were on this conference, he pointed out to me that if you're not in full time teaching ministry, in this environment then you're somehow second rate. Constantly we were fed the lines that say, we need more people in this bible teaching role, if you think you're able, or if God is putting the thought in your heart, take up the challenge. It is pushed so much that you kinda feel that you're second rate if you're not in that role.
What has happened is the same thing that happened in Corinth. We have elevated the gift of teaching to be inappropriately above the other gifts.
I'm not alone in seeing this mind you, the other day I heard from the pulpit one of other ministers say exactly that when he was teaching on 1 Corinthians 12 - 14 about how they had elevated prophecy and tongues.
Please, do not hear me say that bible teaching is unimportant, I'm not saying that.
What I am saying is that there are other gifts which are important in the life of the church. After all, as Paul says in Corinthians, not everyone has the same gifts. The gifts of encouragement, hospitality, spiritual gifts are not only spoken about in 1 Corinthians 12-14.
The concern that I'v got is, what about the rest of us? What about those of us who have not chosen to become bible teachers. We are the "layity". Because of this situation we feel second rate, we do not feel important, like we are playing a meaningful role.
The problem is, it is the layity that is the engine room of the church. Like in sport, it's all about keeping the fans happy, well, in the Church context, it's all about growing the body. This does in fact link in with my other post about the central goal of the church.
If the goal of the church is to grow the body of christ, then everyone, from the smallest baby to the oldest man has a role to play. They can love, support, encourage, pray, provide advice, simply befriend, etc etc... things which do not involve formal bible teaching, but still contribute to growth.
If the goal of the church is to teach the bible, then yes, you're going to end up in a situation where you have a few elite who are involved, while the rest of us are recipients of that.
posted by Michael Wiles at 12:11 pm
7 Comments:
i agree, i do not like the way the reformed church elevates "good Bible teaching" over anything else. it makes me sick. - Wendy
Wendy, I see you put "good Bible teaching" in quotes - I'm guessing you mean that what they think is good Bible teaching actually isn't? If it is, then I agree - all this intellectualism annoys me. Stir my heart and my head will follow.
Someone whom it seems to be a cliche to admire is CS Lewis. Well, he was a layman. But his influence on the Christian church is still massive.
Every young person who takes Christianity seriously seems to feel it is their duty to go into ministry. It's so encouraged by the church that those of us who go into secular careers almost feel like we've rejected God. I'm not gullible enough to fall for that, but I'm convinced many feel that way.
Wendy, when you say "the reformed church", do you mean Protestant churches like mainstream denominations (Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopal etc), as opposed to Pentecostal churches. I'm not sure I understand what reformed means in your context because I understand it to be "faith alone in Christ alone by his death on the cross alone". This is why I need to read up on the reformation :)
I don't think Wendy is saying that good bible teaching is not important. She's just saying that an inappropriate emphasis should not be placed on it.
The problem with elevating bible teaching (good or not) is that we reach a situation where the eye can say to the foot, "I don't need you", or not so extreme, "you're not important". A situation that Paul in Corinthians is keen to avoid.
Weird thing is, one of these so called bible teachers would be very quick to deny their pre-eminence however...
i think that biblical and Spirit lead teaching is important but that is different from what is known as "good bible teaching" amongst some circles. i think that that phrase is a form of propoganda. It is as you point out Peter, many times incredibly dull. I also find the proponents of it to have a superior attitude about their form of church and christianity, which is probably the part that sickens me. That and the fact that in my own experience i have not gotten a lot of out of their version of "good bible teaching".
Reformed in the sense I am using it probably also doesn't have as much to do with the reformation as the word would suggest. I am using it to refer to churches and denominations which follow the so called 5 doctrines of Calvin. Most methodists and baptists for example are not "reformed" in their theology. Examples in the S.A. context are the Church of England in S.A., the Grace Baptists, Brethren, Reformed Presbyterian, and a small collection of churches that call themselves reformed.
It seems to me that most of your critiques of the church are of the Reformed church in particular, not so much the church at large. What do you think? - Wendy
Yes, my critiques are at "my church" and the churches directly affiliated with it. Namely, the Church of Englad in South Africa. I know, it's a particularly unfortunate name but it's the name we've got and nobody has come up with a better one.
However, that does not mean that the church at large have things in common with my local church. For some of my comments, I think this would be the case.
You be the judge on whether it applies to your local church, or to the church at large.
Coupled to the emphasis on "good bible teaching" in many churchs (and I'm talking about more than 5 point) churchs is the constant warning against "emotionalism".
I do see a condemnation of emotionalism in scripture, when Michal, David's wife, warned him that he looked foolish dancing before the Ark of the Covenant. He put here away.
I've seen hype and what could be termed emotionalism in charasmatic churchs.
In these cases its not that adressing the heart is wrong but that sometimes some leaders only adress it superficially. The problem with these situations is that they don't go deep enough into the heart, probably with some accompanying emotion, and not that they attempt to adress the heart.
Andrew
Howzit Mike and fellow bloggers. Interesting post. I might be catching the wrong end of the stick here but there was an article I read once that might be of help. It certainly shaped my thinking on the whole head vs heart thing.
I hope it fits, otherwise I'll just copy the url in. I is probable a mission to read the whole thing in the format of these comments. My suggestion is to copy an paste it onto a document. But have a look it is well worth the read.
Dylan
"Head" Religion Versus "Heart" Religion: A Fallacious Antinomy
Andrew Sandlin
The recent issue of a tabloid prominent in American fundamentalist circles contained the following statement, "If you want to write to me and straighten me out intellectually, save your paper and postage. I have something in my heart you are not going to reach through my head. My heart faith burns with a Living and powerful book. Let me go on in my 'ignorance'!"1
Back of these statements I find several disturbing assumptions.
First, the author seems to assume that "head" and "heart" are somehow averse to each other. This seems to be a common assumption among Bible-believing people, although it is incorrect. Clearly in the Bible, the term heart, no less in the Old Testament than in the New, refers to the immaterial elements and functions of man in their totality. For many Christians, on the other hand, the heart seems to refer mainly to human emotions (when they say, "The Lord stirred my heart," what they mean is that the Lord stirred their emotions). As used in Scripture, the heart does in fact refer sometimes to emotions (1 Sam. 2:1; Lk.24:32). It refers to all sorts of other immaterial human phenomena, however.2 The term heart sometimes refers to human reason (note Pr. 23:7 and Mt. 13:15). It is a mistake therefore to say, "I have something in my heart you are not going to reach through my head," as though the "head" (and by this term I am certain the author means mind) is somehow not within the province of what the Bible terms by "heart."
Second, this naturally leads to the error of creating an antithesis between the mind and the other functions of the heart: spirituality, volition, emotion, and so forth. And this is precisely what the author has done. He has stated he does not want anyone writing him letters to "straighten [him] out intellectually." In other words, in his "heart" (the truly "spiritual" part of him), he knows he is right, and all of one's reasonable arguments cannot change him. Implicit in this statement is the assumption that the mind is somehow inferior to genuine spirituality, and perhaps is even an enemy of it. We may probably safely infer from the writer's statement, in addition, that the "head" (mind) involves reason and that human reasoning easily leads one to become an enemy of Christian truth. If this in fact is not the author's meaning, that view is certainly held by many Christians today. One suspects their serious mistrust of the human intellect is a reaction to theological liberalism, which is a stepchild of Deism and "free thinking." They seem to believe that emphasizing the intellect leads almost inevitably to a denial of the Christian Faith.
Yet that view cannot be sustained from the Bible. Some of its advocates may appeal to 1 Corinthians 1, 2; but they apparently do not recognize that Paul is not depreciating knowledge and reason (note 2:6), but the worldly wisdom of the "natural man" (2:14). The contrast in Paul is not between spiritual reason and human reason, but between spiritual reason and carnal, unregenerated reason. The Bible indeed depicts the mind and human reason as utterly depraved-as it does every other part of man (Rom. 3:10-18). But to say that the mind and human reason are utterly depraved is not to say they are constitutionally impaired. Indeed, Christians consistently appeal to the mind and reason of the unconverted. To be sure, because the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, he is unable to be converted apart from the regenerating power of Holy Spirit. But the problem is with his ethical depravity, his self-autonomy that has corrupted his way of thinking; it has not affected his ability to reason. The unsaved do not understand spiritual things because they have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18), not because their mind is constitutionally unable to grasp spiritual truth. The problem is ethical, not metaphysical.
Third, by circumventing and depreciating the mind, the author has abandoned understanding as a vehicle addressed by the word of God, whether in the unsaved or the saved. Those unconverted individuals in the parable of the sower characterized as "way side" soil (Mt. 13: 4, 19) are those who do not understand the message. It is impossible for one to be converted unless he understands the message of salvation, and understanding is a function of the mind: it is impossible to be converted apart from reasoning. That reasoning, to be sure, must be induced by the Holy Spirit; but that does not mean that human reasoning is somehow supplanted by some mystical, heavenly reasoning man is not able to grasp.
The same applies to Christians, whose love should "abound yet more and more in knowledge and all judgment" (Phil. 1:9). If the author mentioned above was saying, "I have become certain about a belief or practice because my emotions have been stirred and, thus, don't bring up anything intellectual," he is seriously mistaken. The Christian faith and message address themselves first of all to the mind, and then work their way to the will, the spirit, the emotions, and so forth,3 all of these being aspects of what the Bible terms "heart." To isolate one of these aspects from the other, in this case, to imply that reasoning is inferior to emotion or volition, is just as inaccurate as to say that reason eclipses the will and the emotions (that would be a gnostic tenet).
To disparage the intellect as the author has done is to dispose of the very instrument God ordained for the apprehension of Christian truth. And it makes one vulnerable to all sorts of emotionalisms and mysticisms and irrationalisms and other unbiblical farces one can embrace simply on the basis that they "make him feel good."
This sort of anti-intellectualism is a dominant blight among modern Christians.
Post a Comment
<< Home