Inform Your 'Faith'

What or Who Do You Follow??

0 comments Posted by Russell Tusing at 11:39 PM

I think this is an especially pertinent question in our post modern culture that is obsessed with figure head mentality and cultural tribalism. The cult of personality as it were continues to linger. It is commonplace for people to gravitate towards characters or personalities who exemplify certain characteristics and proclivity's that they either identify with or characteristics and proclivity's that they are devoid of. There is also the crux of providing an appealing atmosphere or sub-culture that becomes the locus of attraction.

Within this culture personalities are embraced for all the wrong reasons. They are promoted or embraced because they are different, because they are dynamic, because they are 'controversial', because they are seemingly anti-establishment in rhetoric or theatrics, so forth and so on. I fear that when this is appealed to, though, all that is being accomplished is that of 'caricatures'. In other words, personalities attract only those folk who identify with those characteristics. This is disingenuous though. It is not so much the message that attracts people or the 'truth' that attracts people but the methodology, the theatrics or the personality.

This creates a culture of superficiality and 'drones' who are committed to the new hype or the latest rhetorical fad instead of the message. (There are of course exceptions to this.)

Christ's own ministry underscores this point...Jesus attracted large crowds because of His dynamic personality and 'miraculous' ministry or activity that generated an electric atmosphere. However, we find that when He spoke difficult truths or when His rhetoric became perspectivally intrusive many abandoned Him.

I think it beneficial for ministers or ministries to counteract this generic 'attraction' or superficial 'gravitation' by balancing their respective 'cultural ghetto' or 'theatrical leitmotifs' with truths that are presented in a counter-cultural manner to that 'cultural market'. Is the church to be focused on such fleeting cultural dynamics?? I think not for it inevitably breeds cultural relativism and cloistered communities. Of course we should become all things to all in order to win some (I Cor.9:19-23)....so long as we aren't reinforcing 'fleeting trends' (Rom.12:2) to the extent that those cultural traditions become the element of interest and not the message of the gospel.

Not only do we need to counteract the modus vivendi of advancing culture over message we also need to contend with promoting ministers over Christ. People have the tendency to also gravitate towards 'servants' rather than He whom servants serve as I have alluded to above. (To be sure these two are more often than not inextricably bound.) Whenever and wherever ministers do not counteract the attraction of people to personalities or personal allure they risk creating a loyalty and/or dependency upon themselves amongst the rank and file of their congregations. This is known as the 'fanbase' in the variegated sphere of entertainment.

Paul addressed the church at Corinth regarding this mentality of polarizing to figure heads. Some were following Cephas(Peter), Apollos, Paul et cetera. (I Cor.1-4) Paul repudiated this credulity and went on to describe those who who were romanticising 'men' as babes and men of the flesh (I Cor.3:1-5). Paul eventually interjected that they were to be regarded as servants of Christ and stewards of the gospel (I Cor.4:1) Paul consciously and deliberately counteracted figure head mentality by saying elsewhere, "follow me, as I follow Christ" (I Cor. 11:1). We must vigorously reinforce Christ within the hearts and minds of the church. He alone is head of the church..Ministers are but servants of Christ, under-shepherds of The good Shepherd!! We must not be in the business of making personal disciples but in making Christian disciples.

Some will contend that Paul also listed Christ followers as an unhealthy faction in I Corinthians 1. This shows a superficial handling of scripture. For that would itself contradict Christ's own statement, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself pick up his cross and follow me" (Mark 8:34) Paul's remark in I Corinthians about those who tout following Christ exclusively was in the context of division. Paul's point there was not that following Christ was wrong but that using that attitude as an elitist claim that contributed to division.

We must make concerted effort to direct peoples attention to Christ and Christ alone. This means comporting ourselves in a humble manner that always defers to Jesus in all things. When aggrandized and honored we must respond by attributing whatever is being praised to the grace of our Lord. As Paul advanced, "I am what I am by the grace of God" (I Cor.15) and again,"Let him who boasts boast in the Lord" (I Cor.1:31)

Lawful Lawlessness??

0 comments Posted by Russell Tusing at 12:08 AM

I was conversant with two friends this morning in a local watering hole and during the course of the conversation I was reminded of a noxious mis-use of scripture. A malversation that is more common than we might like to concede. This mis-use or misrepresentation is found whenever scripture is used at the expense of violating other aspects of scripture. It goes without saying that we are all susceptible of unwittingly overlooking various verses when gravitating towards others. However, during this conversation it ostensibly appeared that the mis-use was egregiously perpetrated. One principle of biblical import was advanced while ignoring other biblical injunctions and precepts in order to "justify" or "give credibility" to a certain action.

This is a common tactic when an individual is intending to divert attention from a sin or sins. An isolated verse is mis-used to substantiate sinful actions or to blind others from our sinful intentions. We all know when we are culpable of doing this for we know our own thoughts and motives (I Cor.2:11). Even if we have convinced ourselves (or deceived ourselves into thinking) that our unjustifiable mis-use is in some way righteous the Holy Spirit "who searches everything" knows our thoughts and motives.

What are we to do when the law of God or the word of God is used in such away that lawlessness is promoted? That may seem like an oxymoron at prime facie, first glance. I mean using the law unlawfully!! However, it is a pitfall we must all be conscious of when we are making application of scripture as well as when we are giving and receiving counsel. The apostle Paul alludes to this danger in his first epistle to young Timothy. He writes, "Now we know the law is good, if one uses it lawfully" (I Tim.1:8). That being true the converse is equally true. The good law can be used unlawfully. The inerrant word of God and be used erroneously. Paul was aware of this and so we should be aware of this as well.

Christ castigated the Pharisees for employing a Mosaic allowance in a manner that violated an explicit article of the Decalogue (Ten commandments). They advanced "Corban" to avoid fulfilling the command to honor mother and father (Mark7:9-13) Corban was a tradition or stratagem concocted to circumvent honoring parents by way of supporting them financially. This rouse was based upon the word of God relating to vows. Vows in the law precluded retraction. Once a vow was made, particularly a vow unto the Lord, it could not be broken (Lev.27, Num.30:1-2). The Pharisee's declared their possessions "Corban" and in so doing dishonored their parents.The Pharisee's utilized the law to violate the law!!

Joseph was also in a similar quandary. He found himself in a position to be legally right and justifiable in his actions while being veritably wrong. He was within lawful allowance, biblically, to absolve his betrothal with Mary once she was found to be with child (Matt.1:18-19). He would have been wrong in so doing for Mary had not been with another man as he supposed or better, deduced. Auspiciously, an angel appeared to him in a dream and convinced him otherwise.

What are we to do as I posed above? We are well served to evaluate our motives in how we use scripture and depend on the Holy Spirit of truth who convicts to guard and sanctify our hearts and mind. Scripture is not ours to use according to our whim. We need to pertinaciously and doggedly guard against mis-using scripture by superimposing our purposes upon scripture for our use thereby mutilating the purposes and meanings in scripture that God has intended. We need to surround ourselves with a community of believers, the church of Christ, who reinforce a biblical ethos. We stand before an on looking world and an on looking church.

Seasons of Suffering

0 comments Posted by Russell Tusing at 9:12 PM

Of late and recent I have been in a unique season of ministry. As lead minister in a local church I have had to prayerfully and contemplatively give much thought to and counsel regarding the reality of suffering. I have had the honor and privilege of serving the church while she has been undergoing.....well, a veritable "season" of suffering in many ways. The loss of loved ones, physical maladies and relational betrayals are at the top of the list. The grace of God has been noticeably present thankfully and the church has remained steadfast in His grace. Nonetheless, the cumbersome task for anyone who is in the throws of grief, mourning and suffering is how to endure and persevere. It goes without saying that all the associated pressures and real experiences do not simply cease to exist.
  That being said,  how ought we as Christians who exercise faith/trust in our sovereign Father interact with such seemingly debilitating and smothering occasions. Well the vox dei, or voice of God as found in scripture provides us with the right prescription!!
The observation recorded in the book of Ecclesiastes is a good starting point I think. The sage wisdom of its author should ground us in a reality that is divinely governed. He remarks, "For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: a time to be born and a time to die...a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to break down and a time to build up, a time to weep and a time to laugh, and time to more and a time to dance" and so forth (Eccl.3:1-8) Although the prodigious observer is making general observations regarding the existential ebb and flow of human existence it nonetheless reflects truth that God chose to be revealed then; and thus embraced now. One kernel of truth we find in the assertion of "times" and "seasons" is that though humanity is inundated with a broad array of empirical experience throughout, God is nonetheless aware that our present life consists of those variegated periods of varying existence and experience; the likes of which are polar existential opposites.
Our heavenly Father  is acutely aware of what season we may find ourselves in and relays to us through this biblical book that these seasons by definition have a beginning and an end. Seasons are periods of transition and change - that are in a very real sense necessary for sustaining life. Sin has surely altered the experience of human existence but not so much so that it has altered the quality and character of God's. He still sovereignly exercises superintendence over every season.....just ask Joseph after his brothers betrayed him. His "season" of suffering served to establish a "season" of proliferation and redemption!!   It must always be borne in mind that "not even a sparrow falls to the ground apart from Father God (Matt.10:29-31) and that He "sends rain on the just and the unjust"(Matt.5:45).
  Secondly, it would seem that Paul's outlook on suffering is especially instructional for us whenever we find ourselves in a season of suffering, grief or breaking down. Paul didn't have a nihilistic view of suffering by any stretch of the imagination. Nor did he exist in a state of denial regarding his suffering. (I Cor.2:3, II Cor.11:16-10, Eph.3:13) He wrote the Philippians, "For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain...My desire is to depart and to be with Christ for that is far better" (Phil.1:21,23). He penned that epistle while under Roman imprisonment as he was awaiting a hearing before the caesar, who was then Nero.
What is important to note though is that his attention was not in escapism but in how his suffering could be redeemed. He was more conscientious of how his suffering could serve the purposes of God and minister to the church as he pens, "But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith...(Phil.1:24-25).
Instead, of being consumed with his well being and instead of withdrawing from serving the church Paul looks to how his suffering can be redeemed for God's glory and how it can be utilized for the benefit of Christ's church.(Ephesians 3:13) [Parenthetically, I am reminded of Jonathon Edwards who buried approx. 10 of his children who died due to illness and disease yet remained unabatedly vigorous in gospel ministry.]
Other than succumbing to discontent and disenfranchisement because of his less than ideal circumstances Paul interpreted those accidents of history or circumstances of life as a means for God's providential activity through his personal role and ministry. It is easy to forget that God sovereignly and providentially used the sufferings of Christ for His glory and purposes. Christ's sufferings of course were essential in our redemption. Suffering and tragedy in this life, albeit difficult, are "seasons" of life that God formatively and redemptively uses. Our sufferings hear and now God redeems for His glory and our good.
As Keith Mathison opines, "Giving in to despair and cynicism is the easy way out when we feel overwhelmed by our circumstances. On the otherhand, casting our cares on God, refusing to worry, and doing what we need to do with faith, hope and joy is difficult. We must trust God in such circumstances...We must trust that He loves us and that whatever circumstances He brings our way are for a reason"
The aforementioned I think reinforces the words of Christ....."therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life" (Matt.5), for, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness" (II Cor.12:9). This bestowal of grace is given by, through and in Christ, who suffered in an immeasurable way. Who better to bestow grace upon those who are suffering than he who suffered most and is thereby able "to sympathize with our weaknesses" (Heb.4:14-16).
As Isaac Watts penned,
                                        "The agonies of Christ:
                                          Now let our pains be all forgot,
                                           Our hearts no more repine;
                                            Our sufferings are not worth a thought,
                                             When, Lord, compared with thine"

Credo ut Intelligam

Covenantal 'Nominalism'

0 comments Posted by Russell Tusing at 11:55 PM

Does your experience of covenant within the church reflect a conditional works oriented schema as grounds of acceptance or "justification"?? The following are a few characteristics that are produced from a church where such an erroneous emphasis on covenant is espoused.

If what you do or what you commit yourself to do is done as a means to be accepted by a person or persons within the church, particularly leadership, this is probably true. Even the bombastic Peter succumbed to this pitfall while in Galatia. While he was eating with the Gentiles certain Jewish men from James approached and Peter subsequently withdrew and separated himself...."fearing the circumcision party" (Gal. 2:11-14) This conveyed an acceptance and justification based upon something other than the gospel. Paul retorted, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile, and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?" Peter comported himself in a certain way that sinfully discriminated as he complied to a standard of acceptance contrary to the gospel. This is indicative of covenantal nominalism.

If what you do and say is governed by the interest of obtaining validation from a minister, this is probably true. This is a characteristic of covenantal nominalism. Instead, Paul admonishes even slaves to conduct themselves in a certain way "not by way of eye-service, as people pleasers....Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men" (Col.3:22,23)

If when your interests and pursuits don't strictly conform to what a respective group within the church propagates, this is probably true. This was a crux of the church at Rome. There was division within the church over certain ascetics and ethnic preferences. One strata supposed it good to eat anything while another didn't, one strata esteemed one day as better than another while another esteems all days alike (Romans 14) These factions were "covenanting" with one another based upon something other than Jesus Christ. This too is an expression of covenantal nominalism.

If what Paul describes as "man pleasing" (I Thess. 2:4) is the prevalent atmosphere and chief end within any given church......this is invariably true. This praxis permeated the church at Corinth. As false apostles entered into the fray the credulous Corinthians were captivated by their bravado, presentation and intrigue so much so that they were being taken hostage by their wiles to the extent that they "willfully subjected" themselves to their abuse.

As Paul describes this, "For you gladly bear with fools....you bear it if someone makes slaves of you, or devours you, or takes advantage of you, of puts on airs, or strikes you in the face." (I Cor.11:20). The Corinthians were rejecting Paul because of his inability to be loquacious and bold. They were determining who was acceptable or justifiable based upon superficial preference.(cf. I Cor. 1:10-17) As a result, they became subject to the malevolence of their personified preference. This is another outworking of covenantal nominalism.

What is covenantal nominalism? It is a paradigmatic schema, that evolved from Pelagianism, which postulates that individuals must meet a precondition (other than Christ) to be accepted or justified. The above indicators are merely bi-products of this soteriology (doctrine of salvation).

This framework that produces the aforementioned mood and practical effects emerged around the 14th and 15th centuries. It was propounded and popularized by the via moderna. Advocates of the via moderna, such as William of Ockham and Gabriel Biel, borrowed an analogy from the secular dynamics of economic and political covenants to disguise their Pelagianism from their critics. In so doing they appropriated the schemes of secular covenants into their religious rule(ethos) and practice(praxis).

The few characteristics I listed above are expressions of a church culture that transposes the New Covenant in Christ Jesus with a secular variety of covenant that systemically redefines grounds of justification in a more or less anthropocentric manner. Ideas have practical consequences.

Credo ut intelligam

The Primacy of Christ in Pedagogy

1 comments Posted by Russell Tusing at 11:11 PM

Jesus Christ should be the singular point of emphasis upon which all matters hinge. For that reason I am especially grateful for those notable ministers, many of whom are nationally recognized, who maintain a Christological emphasis in all things. Ministers, en toto must always infix their attention upon Christ in all oratory, discipline, doctrine, counsel et cetera. For present interests particularly all ministers are to govern their preaching and/or pedagogy Christologically. Christ must be inexhorably advanced in and through the teeth of our every assertion. Otherwise, variegated forms of religion prevail.

This singular and central priority was unabashedly reclaimed within the epistemological matrix of Medieval Christianity so much so that it was a defining schema. Yet, the seminal cry, "Solus Christus", which was dogmatically celebrated in that re-formative period, seems to have faded into the recesses of the evangelical consciousness. Inauspiciously, it would seem that, on the whole, priority pertaining to the primacy of Christ has greatly diminished in our day. Many high-churchmen and purist liturgists transpose the centrality of Christ with forms and symbolic representations. Many television evangelists attract crowds by way of supernatural lures and elaborate productions to dazzle the eyes and ears.....Christ is noticeably absent or marginalized. Outreach efforts are commonly designed simply to counteract poverty or provide charity. Often times these do-gooder efforts fail to pronounce Christ. Many a minister have transformed themselves into ethicist's and moralists without adequately couching such categories in the gospel of Jesus Christ thereby mass producing self righteous and mechanistic loyalists. Academia has been reduced to an impotent reservoir of pluralistic derelicts who deserted biblical Christology long ago for popular eccentricity and shadows of liberal pluralism. There is hardly even a noticeable vestige of the legacy they were founded upon.

Whatever else could be added, and the addition could indeed go on, I surmise at the very least that the primacy of Christ has been reduced to a passive whisper or benign assumption. This is perhaps not always sweepingly true within the technical equations of doctrine and theology (albeit, it is becoming more pronounced within this discipline as well) but it is glaringly obvious within the bounds of pedagogy and clerical pontification by and large!! And I endeavor to say that the former is met with Christological dissolution as the latter predominates.

If the entire compass of scripture is Christ-centered then it stands to reason that all we say and do within Christendom should hinge upon Christ and Christ alone!!! As Paul reminded the Corinthians, "I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified" (I Cor. 2:2).

Michael Horton's remarks and statistical conclusions below underscore the disastrous implications of abandoning Christological pedagogy and the associated thrust of Solus Christus in particular:

"Today, once more, this affirmation is in trouble. According to University of Virginia sociologist James Hunter, 35% of evangelical seminarians deny that faith in Christ is absolutely necessary. According to George Barna, that is the same figure for conservative, evangelical Protestants in America: "God will save all good people when they die, regardless of whether they've trusted in Christ," they agreed.

Eighty-five percent of American adults believe that they will stand before God to be judged. They believe in hell, but only 11% think they might go there. R.C. Sproul observed that to the degree that people think they are good enough to pass divine inspection, and are oblivious to the holiness of God, to that extent they will not see Christ as necessary. That is why over one-fourth of the "born again" evangelicals surveyed agreed with a statement that one would think might raise red flags even for those who might agree with the same thing more subtly put: "If a person is good, or does enough good things for others during life, they will earn a place in Heaven." Furthermore, when asked whether they agreed with the following statement: "Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and others all pray to the same God, even though they use different names for that God," two-thirds of the evangelicals didn't find that objectionable. Barna observes "how little difference there is between the responses of those who regularly attend church services and those who are unchurched." One respondent, an Independent Fundamentalist, said, "What is important in their case is that they have conformed to the law of God as they know it in their hearts."

The aforementioned effects are resultant wherever and whenever Christological pedagogy is lost. A people's attention and faith inordinately shift from Christ to peripheral matters at the time a healthy and thriving Christology is on the wane. A ministers duty, nay, every Christian's duty and privilege is to be Christ centered in all things. I close with the words of Charles Spurgeon, "Preach Christ, always and everywhere. He is the whole gospel. His person, offices, and work must be our one great , all-comprehending theme"

Another translation?!?

0 comments Posted by Russell Tusing at 10:46 PM

   Another bible translation??? Zondervan is again involved in promoting a new bible translation as many are well aware. Efforts have been taken to create the TNIV translation or Today's New International Version. {This endeavor was stymied in 2002 after effort was exerted to put forth this translation. The TNIV project at that time was abandoned.} This version boasts a gender inclusive translation. The aim is to appeal to "the global English speaking audience" according to Douglas Moo who is the chair of the Committee on Bible Translation . Douglas Moo is a renown New Testament scholar in his own right and I am sure he and Zondervan's interests are genuine.

   The concern though surrounds how much of the gender inclusive language will be interpolated and how the spirit/meaning of the text will be jeopardized..Moo himself conceded this uncertainty and ambivalence at one point (in 2009 I believe) when admitting that the committee has not yet decided on how much of the gender-inclusive language would be included in the TNIV.
   This development of course has been met with much consternation and disputation. At the heart of this discourse is translation philosophy which is a highly sensitive subject matter. As well it should be when handling a corpus of divinely inspired literature.....the BIBLE; God's inerrant and authoritative word that is god breathed.
   Should the emphasis on bible translation be word for word (formal equivalence, literal) or thought for thought (dynamic equivalence)??? It seems though that word for word should be primary for words are what give rise to subsequent thoughts in the minds of those receiving a message, or letter and words are what those aiming to convey thoughts employ to have their thoughts understood.
In stands to reason that if every word of Scripture is inspired then translators should aim for a word for word translation or formal translation. Of course there are cryptic implications or meanings in the original language not as accessible to certain words say in English which must, necessarily be paraphrased. Even then though the natural meaning of that word or cluster of words is derived from the natural construct of the context based upon the actual meaning of words that are accessible and have a formal equivalence that lends a reliable paraphrase.
   In any account word for word translation much have precedence; especially when maintaining verbal plenary inspiration. This of course means that every word of scripture is inspired of God throughout the entire canon of holy writ. As Al Mohler postulates, "If we believe in a verbal doctrine of inspiration, then how can we believe in anything less than a verbal concept of translation?...If we really believe in verbal plenary inspiration, then the words are important"
    Many will suggest that this is just quibbling over words. Well the words that God, who is omniscient, chose to reveal in the providential way and manner in which He did is of unequivocal importance. The words we have within the bounds of scripture God chose to reveal through the spectacles of that particular culture with all of its natural connotations and denotations. It just so happens that God revealed himself through the Hebrew and Greek dialects especially, both technically and actually. It wasn't accidental or happenstance. As such the verbal, social, societal, mental, and conceptual constructs et al are inextricably bound to the text in a manner of a sovereign Gods choosing and should be preserved formally in translation.

Credo ut Intelligam

Obedience, Motive and Moral Love

0 comments Posted by Russell Tusing at 12:09 AM

"Proper Christian obedience is thus as far away as possible from the treadmill negativism of the conscientious conformist, whose main concern is never to put a foot wrong and who conceives the whole Christian life in terms of shunning doubtful things" (JI Packer). Packer couldn't be more on target. This defines the religious rigorist whose pious negativism is paramount. The Pharisee personifies this mentality, for their sole end and emphasis is to ritualistically be staunch adherents to the external law ALONE, fait accompli. Motives and internal quality are noticeably absent from this sort in contradistinction to Christ who made motives and internal disposition primary.

Indeed, obedience to the law proper comes from the heart upon which God has now placed the law which was formally on external tablets of stone. Christ himself identifies adherence to the law with the inward posture of the heart when elucidating on the two greatest commandments...."You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" & "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" ...And upon, "these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets" (Matt.27:36-40). In so doing Christ is couching all of the ethical and moral teachings of the Decalogue in the heart. Therefore the consequent movement of all actions for the Christian is to originate from the heart. In effect, as Packer postulates, Jesus was,"focusing positively the two proper overall purposes of actions, which the Decalogue illustrates negatively "

Ministers and laymen who teach biblical ethics and morality simply as a discipline (empty and vacuous to be sure) put themselves on equal footing with the Pharisee. They turn "obedience" into idolatry and self righteousness. Though they may be technically exercising obedience of some sort they are actually disobeying the law of God thus rendering themselves blind guides and the worst kind of sinners tantamount to the religious Pharisee. The false piety of the Pharisee is founded upon a paranoid and technical excision of the LAW.

Obedience to God is grounded in "love" of God and His glory. Paul goes so far as to advance that love is the ground upon which all the law is fulfilled.(Rom.13:8-10) Genuine biblical love cannot but keep the law for this is the very movement of love. Again elder churchman Packer rightly observes,"The Christian knows that only when their motives are right will his choices, however good in themselves, be the choices of a morally good man, who truly pleases God." Morality in and of itself is a striving after wind and a symptom of self delusion and religious psychosis.

Packer goes on to posit,"just as one cannot maintain health on a diet of disinfectants only, so one cannot fully or healthily obey God just by trying to avoid defilement's, evading risks, and omitting to ask what is the most one can do to glorify God."

Anyone who fits this mold characteristically espouses submission and obedience without the biblically accurate reason/s and motives. Paul repudiates this ilk while writing Timothy, "The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions" (I Timothy 1:5-7).

Credo ut intelligam