|
| Reflections on The Purpose-Driven Life campaign
《標竿人生》一運動, 已經進入尾聲, 筆者可謂感觸良多, 以下略為分享, 盼弟兄姊妹慎思明辨。
首先, 對於該運動對我們教會靈性上的影響, 筆者並沒意思下定論。屬靈的果子 (不論好壞)
需經一段時間才能辨別, 現時下定論未免言之過早。
第二, 雖說我們上未能評估該運動對教會靈性的影響, 卻確實有值得感恩的事: 弟兄姊妹們普遍認真閱讀、討論, 其中相信有所學習, 此其一; 其次,
不少弟兄姊妹願意承擔其中各樣的工作, 藉此彼此侍奉, 同時突破固有的恐懼, 此其二; 再者,《標竿人生》一書實在給我們許多需要學習的功課, 對較資深的信徒又給予不可多得的提醒, 此其三。
第三, 該運動也蘊含一些弱點, 值得我們注意、警惕。首先, 《標竿人生》一書多處對經文處理不當, 選擇的譯本往往未能反映原文的意思 (亦即神的信息!), 斷章取義的例子更比比皆是。若然我們相信只有聖經的真理才能使我們分別為聖 (約翰福音17:17),
按正意分解神的道便是個人成長乃至於教會健康不可或缺的元素。反之, 誤解或扭曲經文則是我們在個人及教會生活中必須避免的誤區。
另外, 《標竿人生》向我們道出神對我們的要求, 換言之, 它說明神的律法。但如馬丁路德所言, 「律法不賜予能力。」律法縱然聖潔、公義、美善, 卻因肉體(即我們在亞當裡的舊人) 的軟弱,
無法救我們脫離罪與死的律。也就是說, 律法無法提供對抗罪惡、努力行善的力量。感謝上帝! 祂不但在西乃山頒布律法, 亦不光在山上給我們登山寶訓, 更在各各他山上成就福音的應許, 使我們的罪歸算於釘十架的耶穌, 基督完全的義歸算到我們的帳上。「律法是我們訓蒙的師傅，引我們到基督那裡，使我們因信稱義,」它的角色永遠不代替福音, 也不能在福音之上。反之, 這用熱血寫成的好消息必須成為我們信仰乃至於人生的中心, 亦必須是我們立志行善的原動力。
我們需要的, 不僅是標竿人生, 更是應許人生, 亦即是福音人生。
The Purpose-Driven Life campaign drawing to a close, this author wishes
to share a little of his feelings and reflections.
First, it needs to be said that the
author has no intention of evaluating the effect of this campaign on the
spirituality of our congregation. Spiritual fruits, whether good or bad, take
time to grow and discern, and it is too early to give an evaluation.
Second, though we cannot evaluate
with certainty the spiritual effects of the campaign, there are several things
to be thankful for. Firstly, our congregation in general adopted a serious
attitude towards the readings and discussions, and I believe many have learned
from these endeavors. Secondly, not a few of our brothers and sisters were
willing to take on various tasks in the campaign, in the process serving each
other and overcoming their fears. Thirdly, the book The Purpose-Driven Life provides many lessons which we need to
learn, lessons which would have been new to newer believers and invaluable
reminders to the Lord’s older sheep. These are all things we ought to give
thanks for.
Third, there are weaknesses which we
need to be on our guard against. Firstly, the book mishandles Scripture at many
points, including the choice of translations which poorly reflect the meaning
and intent of the original texts (and therefore God’s message!), and
out-of-context quotations of Scripture were disturbingly frequent. If we
believe that we are sanctified by the Truth of God’s Word alone, then correctly
dividing the Word is an essential element in the growth of believers and the
health of the Church. Correspondingly, misunderstanding, misapplication and/or
distortion of Scripture must be conscientiously avoided in our personal and
corporate lives.
Also, The Purpose Driven Life makes clear what God requires of us, that
is, it explains to us God’s Law (or at least Warren’s interpretation of it). But as Martin
Luther said, “The Law does not give ability.” The Law, though holy and
righteous and good, cannot deliver us from the law (i.e. phenomenon) of sin and
death, weakened as it is by the flesh (i.e. our old, Adamic, sinful nature). Thanks
be to God! Not only did He give the Law on Mount Sinai, not only did He give us
the Sermon on the Mount, He fulfilled the promises of the Gospel on Golgotha,
so that our sins may be imputed to the crucified Jesus, and the perfect
righteousness of Christ may be imputed to our accounts. “Therefore the Law has
become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith,”
and as such, it never takes the place of the Gospel, nor does it take
precedence over the Gospel. On the contrary, may the Good News, written in
blood, be the center of our faith and life, and may it provide the only correct
motivation for our good works.
What we need, then, is not merely or
even primarily a Purpose-Driven Life.
We need the Promise-Driven Life, the Gospel-Driven Life.
| | |
| Gleanings from the Christianity Explored conference last SaturdayIn case you are wondering where I "disappeared" last Saturday, I was in New York city for a day conference on the new (to USA) Christianity Explored course. The course is an evangelistic Bible study program, meant to "let the Gospel tell the Gospel". In particular, it focuses on the themes of Jesus' identity, mission and call in Mark's Gospel.
Some (fairly random) gleanings:
"If the pastor is not the chief repenter, the Gospel is a theoretical solution to the theoretical problem of sin for theoretical sinners, if there are any present."
"He that has slight thoughts of sin never has great thoughts of God." --John Owen
"The Gospel is the message AND the method."
"You are not good people going to Heaven, but sinners going to Hell."
"The Lordship of Christ means that I am for what Jesus is for, and against what Jesus is against."
"How can God be right and make me right when I am wrong? By the Gospel!"
"Are our friends' sins going to be paid in Gehenna or at the Cross of Christ?"
| | |
| On the Regulative PrincipleSo after a week of (very) busy schoolwork, I am back to put on my (very amateur) theologian's hat.
During my lesson on the Second Commandment, I actually avoided mentioning the Regulative
Principle (the teaching that as far as worship is concerned, whatever is not commanded is forbidden). But
the question nevertheless cropped up (after the class was over) because
of Deut 12:32, in which God commanded the Israelites to neither add to
nor subtract from His commands, with worship regulations in the
context. I did raise the point of normative vs. regulative principle of
worship, and informed them that the Anglican "official" view (if there
be such a thing amidst all the "Anglican fudge" about almost
everything) is the normative principle.
At
this point, I am thinking of writing a more detailed response to my
students. Obviously, my teaching should be informed, but not dictated,
by Anglican tradition (I am certainly not in favor of High Church
Anglican practices). So, my thinking is as such:
The Bible does
teach the regulative principle of worship, i.e. all forms of worship
(both in the narrow and broad sense, i.e. what goes on within the church and outside) are either commanded or forbidden.
The Bible, both OT and NT, gives clear commands regulating worship in
very specific ways (esp. 1 Corinthians for NT believers)-- (a) Bible
reading and exposition ("prophecy" or "teaching"), (b) mutual
edification through Christian music ("psalms, hymns and spiritual
songs"), (c) public prayer and perhaps testimony, (d) public initiation
into the Body of Christ through baptism, and (e) followship with each
other and with God in the Lord's Supper, are commanded and must be
observed regularly. These must have first and last place in worship,
and no practice must be tolerated that contradicts, or seems to
contradict, any direct biblical teaching.
However,
having given us His commands in the Bible, God guides us in applying
them in our community through (a) Spirit-directed use of reason, (b)
"sanctified" common sense, (c) inner light of the Spirit in individual
believers, (d) the Spirit's work in the Church throughout the ages, and
(e) Spirit-guided discussions among church leaders within the
particular congregation in question. That is, there is no set of
application that will be suitable for all congregations in space and
time. The underground churches in Iran need not preach in the same way
as open-air preachers in America, nor do present-day churches need to
worship in the exact same manner as the first-century Corinthian church.
One
topic of particular concern to Anglicans is certainly the presence in
our worship services of many practices that cannot be found in the
Bible, such as the wearing of vestaments by clergy, kneeling before the
ministers to receive communion, use of written liturgies, etc. I think
the solution proposed above (which I gathered from John Frame)
satisfactorily addresses those issues-- the clothes worn by the
preacher, the exact method of dispensing the Communion bread, the way
public prayer is conducted, etc., are all things to be decided by the
congregation with the Spirit's guidance.
Perhaps we should be more concerned about the implications
of those actions. For example, does kneeling to receive Communion from
the minister suggest a negation of the priesthood of all believers?
Should not Communion be received together-- the ministers together with
the laity-- to drive home the equality of all believers before God? And what about the requirements for approaching the Lord's table? Should we welcome all and sundry, including those whose public teachings would probably exclude them from the title of "Christian"?
Also,
the role of choirs and "worship teams" should be examined. Choirs can
lead the congregation in singing, of course, but should they also give
"hymn offerings" to God without congregational participation? There
ought to be no audience in a worship service save God Himself. What
about "worship leaders"? The unfortunate terminology suggests that
there is a special class of believers who leads us in our worship, who
might even mediate our worship. And where did we get the idea that
"worship" is restricted to singing, as if hearing the Word and
partaking the Communion are not acts of worship?! (Some "worship
leaders" actually end their time by saying something to the effect that
"worship is over, now is the time for the Word".)
Similarly,
we ought to be a lot more careful in how we choose our songs-- many
modern hymns are either shallow or outright erraneous in content. Sure,
our music has been updated, but at what cost? "Worship leaders" are all
too guilty of lacking biblical discernment, and pastors seem to
supervise them too loosely (if at all), and
do not correct them if error is presented. This careless attitude
towards public ministry ought to stop.
Perhaps
the mcChurch mentality is to blame. After all, who cares about content
as long as the crowds keep showing up at our church instead of the one
down the road? And if we are too open about correcting error, some
"seekers" may be offended-- shouldn't we be sensitive to them? Isn't
worship about them anyway?
We are all in need of Spurgeon's
vintage, but very contemporary reminder: our task is to feed the sheep,
not entertain the goats. That applies to the managerial church-growth
model as well as to the postmodern (Emergent?) approach to church (and
indeed to all understandings of "church"). Who is the Head of the
Church? Who gets the glory? Who is the center of our worship? What is
the nature and function of the Church? I am afraid that the post-modern
approach, despite all its virtual and peer-to-peer relationships (very
commendable in and of themselves-- certainly, our email correspondences
show the power of such relationships), will fail to grasp these
doctrines (a dirty word these days!) just as their predecessors forgot
them.
| | |
| God's will-- "secret things" and "revealed things""The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law." (Deuteronomy 29:29) This verse distinguishes two categories: "secret things" and "revealed things". It is fairly easy to determine what are the "revealed things": the Ten Commandments are a good example. But what happens when we get to questions about marriage and education, whether we should pursue this calling or relocate to that city? Surely we would search our Bible concordance in vain to find a text informing us of God's will for our life in these areas. (Of course, this also applies to other questions like which church we are to attend, in what capacity we are to serve God in our church, whether and where God wants our church to set up a service center or build a new sanctuary, etc.) That does not mean, of course, that God has not determined our future down to its most trivial detail; what it does mean is that He has not decided to let us in on them. If God really is in charge, there is no "perfect will" we step in or out of, depending on how good we are at reading tea leaves or discerning "signs" of God's leading. He even works sin, suffering, and evil out to our good (Romans 8:28), so that everything is a part of His plan to bring Himself glory.
What this does for those burdened with anxiety over knowing God's will is amazing. It places our search for God's will, not in the subjective hunches we often attribute to the Holy Spirit, but in the revealed will of God. We may not get an advance copy of God's game plan as to the people, places, occupations, and moves He has in our future, but we already have more than we seem to have digested in God's revealed Word concerning the direction of our lives as Christians. To those seeking God's will for their life, the prophet Micah replies, "He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." (Micah 6:8)
--Quoted from Michael Horton, The Law of Perfect Freedom-- Relating to God and Others through the Ten Commandments (underlined text my own comment, italics added for emphasis)
| | |
| Great article by John Piper-- must read for every Christian!In case you did not know, John Piper is the senior pastor of Bethlehem church in Minneapolis, and is famous for his Desiring God and Don't Waste Your Life, among other books. His sermons are great-- sound doctrine, careful exposition of the text, insightful application. This piece on Martin Luther was intended for pastors-- but all who are involved in Christian ministry (i.e., all Christians) will find it very edifiying.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/MostPopular/1470_Martin_Luther_Lessons_from_His_Life_and_Labor/
| | |
|
