John H Armstrong

The Message of the Prophets

The Old Testament prophets were raised up by God to warn Israel of the promises of God regarding his judgment, when they turned away from him, and his forgiveness, when they returned to him. There message was continually fresh thus always contemporary. The prophets were placed at crisis points in Israel's history so they could address religious and social problems that plagued the people of the covenant. The theme(s) of the prophets seems to have included the following:

1. God rules in history.
2. God calls men and women to repentance.
3. All of society must be rooted in God's commandments.
4. Both judgment and hope are always the order of the day because God saves his people and judges his enemies.
5. The messianic kingdom describes a bright future state for all of those who trust God. It will come in God's time and way.

It was the seal of God's promises that he gave the prophets to Israel so that they could see what was far off and embrace it in true faith. The radiant glory that was to come would arrive in the person of the messiah. Finally, the apostles and prophets of the New Covenant clearly believed that the prophetic promises of the Old Testament were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. This is the whole point of scores of passages in the Gospels and epistles.

Jesus says that without the words of the prophets we cannot understand him (cf. Luke 24: 27, 32). In the light of this incredible claim I think we have the clearest reason of all for studying, and meditating in, the words of the prophets. We also have the clearest hermeneutic for how to apply these words to us and our time.

The Present Devaluation of Christian Doctrine

Christian doctrine has been devalued for the last one hundred plus years. Liberal teachers continue to devalue it by inverting the relationship between Scripture and secular thought. They allow secular insights to interpret the Scripture. Evangelicals devalue doctrine by treating it as something that has little or nothing to do with living faithfully. ("It is not practical and only divides us anyway!") I have heard evangelicals say, most of my life, "Doctrine divides us but love unites us!"

A good example of this devaluing process, at least on the liberal side, is what we presently see happening regarding sexual ethics. The seventh commandment is quite clear. If you read what Christians teachers have said about this commandment since the first century the response would have been very, very consistent. But now, less than one decade into the twenty-first century, there is a huge debate about same-sex marriage. There really shouldn’t even be a debate. This debate can only thrive in a context where the role of Scripture has been inverted.

The real problem in this modern debate is that we have lost our way with regard to the clarity of Holy Scripture and the Christian tradition. The authentic Christian belief—still sustained by Roman Catholic, Orthodox and confessional Protestants—is that Holy Scripture is in essence God testifying to himself via human witnesses and God-breathed writers. (There is wide room here for differing views of how to define inspiration.) This belief that Scripture is God-breathed is basic, fundamental. Without it we can make no sense of Christianity. If the words of Scripture are not written revelation then we can know nothing of God’s truth revealed to us in Jesus Christ. We are cast adrift to interpret the Bible as we see fit in each age. (This is not to deny that we can rethink how we understand certain things in Scripture. It does mean that we cannot remake the commandments of God to fit into our modern ethical practice.)

The sum and substance of the church’s doctrine is found in the gospel itself. Our creator has become our redeemer through the incarnate Christ. But evangelicals have reduced this gospel to a few propositions; e.g., all have sinned, Jesus died and rose for sinners, believe on Jesus and you will be saved. This makes a valid point but the gospel includes much, much more. I would say, with many Christians down through the ages, that the Apostles’ Creed is a basic summary of the gospel. “The gospel,” says J. I. Packer, “is the full declaration of this gracious saving plan that God is fulfilling in and for his spoiled world, plus the full demonstration of the proper response—faith in Christ and repentance, good works, and love both Godward and manward, with gratitude and joyful hope.”

Intimately bound up with the gospel of Christ is the doctrine of the Trinity. The gospel saves us because, as J. I. Packer rightly notes: “the one tripersonal God, our God, operates as a team, all three persons within the divine unity working together in full conjunction with each other to carry through a single, huge, mind-blowing plan: namely, to establish a multi-billion strong community of redeemed human beings, each one an enormously complex entity in creational terms, within a fully reconstructed cosmos, with Jesus Christ the mediator at its center for all eternity.” I love those words: "a single, huge, mind-blowing plan."

The Anglican Prayer Book leads the worshiper to ask that God deliver us “from all false doctrine, heresy and schism.” Note all three: False doctrine, heresy and schism. They are uniquely related and we separate them to our own peril. Some Christians are concerned about false doctrine and heresy and care not at all about schism. The doctrine that establishes us in unity is the gospel and this gospel is intimately related to the Trinity. Without this framework Jesus is reduced to a cool plan of personal salvation. We cannot afford such reductionism since it will lead us further and further away from the doctrine of grace. Both liberals and evangelicals need this gospel and it will cost them something to make sure they regain it.

What is Christian Doctrine and Why Does It Matter?

Doctrine is the revealed truth of God defined and taught by the church in conversation with the Bible and the whole Christian tradition. Doctrine is for the growth of believers as well as for the whole world. The Latin word doctrina literally means teaching. Indeed, our English Bible most commonly translates the Greek word for doctrine with our word teaching. If a person teaches then they are communicating doctrine. It may be bad doctrine or good doctrine but it is doctrine. This is why I am always puzzled by people who say, "Just teach the Bible. Do not teach us doctrine."

The church, at least on the pages of the New Testament, appears as a community of learners. Some of these learners became teachers of the early church. All Christians were to be engaged in the lifelong task of taking in, meditating upon, and living out Christian doctrine. The most important of all Christian doctrines is the gospel of Jesus Christ, the good news. This doctrine most feeds our minds and hearts so that we can know and love Jesus.

A disciple is a life-long learner of doctrine. The Greek word for disciple is actually learner. The church in the New Testament is seen as a fellowship of learners who gather to worship the living Christ and then learn from him through teachers and each another. Each Christian is called to learn more about Christ and then to obey what they learn.

There is a real danger that a congregation can become doctrinally dull. The writer to the Hebrews rebukes some early Christians when he says, “You have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food . . . solid food is for the mature” (Hebrews 5:11–14).

Doctrine is taught in many ways. Sermons, classes with instruction, devotional talks, catechisms, printed books and audio-visual resources can all help to teach doctrine to the church. Perhaps the best way to teach sound doctrine, beside careful preaching and teaching, is through worship itself. This is especially truth when the worship is structured around the great themes of the Christian faith. This will usually result in carefully planned liturgies. (All worship has elements of liturgy in it, some of it carefully designed and theologically congruent.) By all of these means Christians can hear the faith and assimilate it into their hearts.

Faithfulness to sound doctrine promotes spiritual health. Doctrine is not just a collection of my ideas and your ideas. Rightly understood and taught doctrine is a declaration of what the Lord has said for our collective benefit. If doctrine is God’s gift to the church then we need the Holy Spirit to make it live in our midst. No doctrinal instruction should be undertaken as simply an exercise in learning a few unrelated, or mysterious, truths. God gives gifts to men and women so they can teach the church. The church should give thanks for these gifts and listen to them prayerfully.

Do We Have a "Theological Deficit?"

In the early 1980s the president of the United Church of Christ (UCC), clearly one of the most liberal of all Protestant denominations in America, suggested candidly that the real problem in their ranks was their "theological deficit." In 1980 Time magazine did a study on what congregations wanted in their pastor. The article concluded that people wanted "a pallid but personable faith." The word pallid is a synonym for the word pale. To be pale or pallid is to be dim, faithless or colorless. It also means to lack in texture because one is exhausted. I cannot think of a better way to describe the current state of things in the church.

This statement sums up things today much as it did in 1980. Can anyone honestly believe that things have dramatically improved in the mainline since 1980? What about the evangelicals? I am convinced that on the whole there is an obvious "theological deficit" in almost every corner of the church in America. The problem is not our methods. The problems is not in our programs. The problem is theology. We have drifted, as the Barmen Declaration put it in Germany in the 1930s, toward "the spirit of the age." The answer these courageous Christians offered to Germany, through the Barmen Declaration, was a strong, clear witness to "one Word, Jesus Christ."

My good friend David Bryant calls this our "Crisis in Christology." He is right. Christ is not supreme in our lives or in our churches. Listen to our conversations, listen to our music, read your bulletins and look over your worship. Where is Christ? Do we talk about him, love him, advance his name and his cause? Until we correct this theological deficit we will continue to produce wan, pallid and pale faith in our churches.

The Theology of John M. Frame

At least thirty or more years ago I began to read Professor John M. Frame. At the time I did not know him personally, or that much about him. I knew he taught at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, and then at Westminster Seminary in California. I did not devour his work because I was too "denominationally chauvinistic" (a term John employs in his thinking about the downside of denominations) to get into a writer who was not in my own tribe. Over time I realized there were some great writers and teachers beyond my small circle of Christians and I began to read much more widely. (Two things will change your life for sure: (1) The people you meet; (2) The authors you read. Frame appealed to me because he was thoughtful and original, in a remarkably fresh way. He thought for himself and dared to raise great questions, albeit from within very conservative Reformed quarters.

Then I was invited to speak in chapel (on two different occasions) at Westminster in California. Before I spoke I noticed that there was this very happy, friendly guy who played the piano (or was it an organ) during the chapel service. I later asked, "Who was that man? He seemed to enjoy himself and was excited about leading us." The answer was, "O, that is Professor Frame." I was impressed. A professor who was delightful, happy, loved music and led worship. (Worship at many seminaries is notoriously routine and often dead and dull!)

In time I would get to know John and become his friend. We are not close, as in talking often and sharing our lives day-to-day, but we are friends. I respect John, indeed I pray for him and his family personally. When possible we have made time to get together and talk in person. We even shared the platform a few years ago, both speaking on the unity of the church at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, Louisiana. That was a particularly memorable time since I heard John speak in person, answer questions, respond to others in private, etc. I saw that this was a humble man, a lover of people and a faithful teacher who did his work for the benefit of the whole church, not just to write books and pay the bills. (Of course, he loves to write and needs to pay the bills!)

Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company is presently preparing a festschrift (an academic volume of essays to honor a person) for Professor Frame. This volume will be released this November. I am writing an essay for this book, to be completed by June 22 if all goes well. My assignment is to write on the ecclesiology of Professor Frame. I have been reading and re-reading his work in this area the entire week. I have discovered, once again, how much I agree with Professor Frame but also several areas where I do not agree. If I didn't do both my essay would not be worth a great deal in my view.

The really neat thing about this work is Professor Frame himself. He knew that I would not be a "yes" voice but I would think for myself and respond accordingly. He knew this subject was my deep interest and that I had written a great deal more on this subject than he has. I demurred from this assignment at first but John really wanted me to do it. I am glad I said yes. I hope John agrees when he reads my essay, which is not subject to his approval.

Here is the central point I want to make (at least for now). John M. Frame is a humble theologian. He stands under the authority of Christ and the Word of God and listens to friend and foe alike. He is not defensive, angry or angular. He is open, filled with love and joy, and truly seeks the kingdom above all else. He thus welcomes disagreement and encourages discussion. This is all too rare among the academic theologians I have known over the years. (Saying this is not a blanket indictment since I could name dozens of good friends like John Frame who are humble and joyful theologians!) The point is to say that we need more men like John, men who do not take themselves too seriously while they take their work very seriously. Men who are teachable and yet faithful enough to tell their peers things they may not want to hear. (John is a PCA minister and writes and says things that some in the PCA do not like at all. He does this because he loves the church more than human opinion!)

Regardless of what I write for this essay over the next few days my friendship with John will not be altered one iota. (I will mostly agree with him so do not misunderstand my point.) In fact, during this process I have emailed John several times, to clarify a point or two, and his responses have reminded me of the man that I know and love behind the massive writing he has undertaken for a lifetime. John, my friend, I truly wish their were more theologians like you in the conservative Reformed world. My guess is that most of the enemies of this ecclesial community that I have met would be pleasantly shocked if they met a person like you. You would force them to hear what you are saying by the sheer power of your arguments joined with the force of your Christ-like humanness. Happy is the theologian who loves Christ, the church and cultivates humility and joy!

"We All Live By Luck!"

The sovereign activity of God can be seen in many instances in Scripture. In fact, the truth is found throughout the entire biblical record. This is part of what led to my own embrace of this powerful truth almost forty years ago. Christians disagree about the particulars, at least in terms of how they define man's will and God's sovereignty, but they should not disagree about the basic fact of divine providence.

Providence is the doctrine of God's care for the creation, involving his preservation of it and his guiding it to his intended ends. The famous Heidelberg Catechism, personally my favorite catechism, says that providence is: "The almighty and everywhere present power of God, whereby, as it were by His hand, He still upholds heaven, earth, and all creatures, and so governs them that herbs and grass, rain and drought, fruitful and barren years, food and drink, health and sickness, riches and poverty, yea, all things, comes not by chance but by His Fatherly hand."

Note the primary emphasis seems to call on this point: All things come about by the Father's purpose not by chance!

The following question (No. 28) in Heidelberg, says that this truth profits us so that we "may be patient in adversity, thankful in prosperity, and with a view to the future may have good confidence in our faithful God and Father that no creature shall separate us from His love, since all creatures are in His hand that without His will they cannot so much as move."

My life bears witness to this truth. I have found again and again that I do not need to figure out what is happening to me, or get a direct answer to all the "why" questions. I can rest with deep patience in the midst of dark adversity and I can give thanks in prosperity. I do not know how else to live well.

I believe the only logical alternative to a deeply Christian confession, at least for real Christians, is to believe that God responds to events, as they transpire, with love and mercy. But in this view His mercy is not rooted in perfect knowledge or the divine control of what actually happens. This is the primary reason why I believe the "openness of God" view is the only real alternative to this classical view of providence. Most Christian views link divine foreknowledge with providence. But these alternative views, to that stated by Heidelberg, tend to fall flat under the sheer weight of biblical evidence. I believe this is the reason the "openness" view has found acceptance among some young evangelical Christians who reject the classical doctrine because they sincerely see "fatalism" in it. (Understand, there is mystery in every Christian view and the classical view, which I firmly believe, embraces this mystery with profound wonder!) Those who embrace the openness view cannot accept the traditional alternatives to a strong (Augustinian) view of divine providence, believing that these alternative views (Arminian) do not fit the biblical evidence and/or their philosophical presuppositions. For this reason the "openness" view has gained some acceptance among thoughtful Christians, some of whom I count as my personal friends.

The openness debate has sparked some pretty acrimonious hostility among evangelicals. At its core the openness view teaches that God can and does change his mind. It is argued that freedom is an illusion if someone, even God, cannot change his mind. And if God knows, with absolute certainty, what will happen then it will happen whether you embrace this fact as an Arminian (foreknowledge) or a Calvinist (foreordination). This is why those who embrace openness see no freedom in either the Arminian or the Calvinist approach. They reason that in order to be free one must be able to decide and act otherwise. This means that God cannot know what will come to pass, except perhaps in the ultimate sense of the intended goal, or He would not be truly free. Clark Pinnock, a first-rate theologian and a fine Christian man I know and love, pictures God's relationship with free human beings as a dance. God leads, but human beings play their parts too. God's will and ways are flexible, thus He truly responds to human beings without possessing complete knowledge of the future. Pinnock believes that God is both omniresourceful and omnipotent. And Pinnock further believes that He can be surprised, but not thwarted! As much as I reject openness theology (and I do seriously reject it) I think Pinnock's point should be respected for what he is actually saying, not what his critics infer that he is saying. As with all theological controversy among serious confessing Christians, and Pinnock is one such Christian, we should be careful about how we reject what they teach, not just the content of what they teach. I visited this debate online while I was writing this post and was again appalled at the hostility and hype I saw in the writing of many who agree with my view. They have concluded that theologians like Clark Pinnock are, ipso facto, not real Christians! They attack not only his ideas but his person and his character. The acrimonious nature of this debate profoundly troubles me, which will make more than a few on my side of the debate despise me and question my motives. Is this type of theological polemic truly fruitful? Does it make us any more like Christ? Does it solve all the problems that honest Christians have when they seek to understand the Scriptures and the historic theological differences that exist among earnest Christians?

I thought about this whole debate, and thus the doctrine of providence, while reading the daily paper last Monday, Memorial Day. Thirty years ago (May 25) American Airlines flight 191, bound for Los Angeles, crashed at O'Hare Airport on takeoff. All 271 people on board died and two more people perished on the ground. It was the worst disaster in the history of O'Hare. I still remember seeing the terrible fire and smoke more than 15 miles away. I knew immediately that something tragic had happened. I quickly turned on the radio in my car and heard the first reports. It is one of those days you simply never forget.

Our paper featured a number of stories about various people who lost loved ones that awful day. (A move is underway to erect a memorial on the site.) Some people who were not on that flight, and had been scheduled to travel on flight 191, also noted how the last thirty years had unfolded for them. One such person is the novelist John Powers, who had just hit it big with his best-selling book, Do Black Patent Leather Shoes Really Reflect Up? Powers was scheduled to fly to LA on flight 191 but because of a cold he chose to rest and fly the next day. The paper included a piece about his life since 1979. In looking back, now at the age of 63, Powers said, "I think we all get those kind of situations that aren't nearly as dramatic. You catch a yellow light or whatever. We all live by luck."

It is that last phrase that struck me so profoundly. I think this is the clear difference between Christians and non-Christians on these matters. Even the most ardent proponent of openness theology does not believe that we live by luck! However you understand divine providence you cannot take God completely out of the equation and still have real hope, the kind of hope that springs from complete confidence in God's loving purpose. Classical theists, and openness evangelicals, differ strongly about how they understand the nature and character of God at this point, but I am quite sure that they all disagree with John Powers' statement: "We all live by luck." I know Clark Pinnock and he does not believe that at all. To suggest that he does is scandalous misrepresentation.

Basic Christianity: The Right Approach

Yesterday, I referred to the fiftieth anniversary edition of John R. Stott's classic book, Basic Christianity. Today I return to this incredibly useful book to comment on Stott's opening chapter where he lays our what he calls: "The Right Approach."

Stott says that the first four words of the Bible are more than an introduction to the creation story or the book of Genesis. "They supply the key which opens our understanding to the Bible as a whole" (11). What these four words tell us, all interpretive issues regarding Genesis aside, is that the religion of the Bible is the religion in which God takes the initiative. Again, Stott has the ability to cut away so much that is less than central to the faith to get at what really, truly matters. Here is how he puts it:

You can never take God by surprise. You can never anticipate him. He always makes the first move. He is always there 'in the beginning.' Before man existed, God acted. Before man stirs himself to seek God, God has sought man. In the Bible we do not see man groping after God; we see God reaching after man (11).

Read that again. In a few words Stott has summarized more important biblical theology in this paragraph than most writers do in a hundred pages. He says that most people visualize a God who sits comfortably on a distant throne, aloof and indifferent. But this image is totally false. While man is lost in darkness and sin God rises from his throne and lays aside his glory and stoops to seek and to find lost men and women. "This sovereign, anticipating activity of God is seen in many ways" (11).

God is the person who takes the initiative. He created. He spoke. He acted. He redeemed. And he has spoken and acted in Jesus Christ alone. He has actually done something thus Christianity is not about a collection of religious teachings or a system of practices. It includes these but it is primarily about "the good news of God" revealed in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Stott concludes, "It is not primarily an invitation to man to do anything; it is supremely a declaration of what God has done in Christ for human beings like ourselves" (12).

I so wish I could get most Christians to understand this simple point. Christianity is not about our work, our faith, our practices, etc. It is about God taking the initiative in his grace to rescue us in his Son, Jesus Christ. Christianity is Christ!

Basic Christianity: A True Classic

No modern author has given the church a greater written treasure, at least regarding what is essential to Christianity and real faith, than John R. Stott. I have written about John R. Stott in several previous blogs over the last four years or so. I love to encourage a new generation of readers to discover the importance of his work for evangelism, apologetics and solid biblical theology. Stott's small book, Basic Christianity (first published in 1958) was recently released in a fiftieth anniversary edition, thus making it a true classic now available in a new format and special edition. I use this particular book to teach young believers. I also use it to guide those who have never had a "basic" introduction to the central truths of Christian faith, even if they've been in the church for decades. This is a book that both Catholic and evangelical readers can profit from precisely because Stott addresses the "fundamental claims of Christianity" not the polemical issues that still divide Christians.

Stott rightly claims that the fundamental question is this: "Was Jesus God?" We cannot dodge this question given the centrality of Christ's person to the faith that we believers hold dear. Is there evidence for the deity of Jesus? Is the evidence minimal or seriously flawed, or is it historically strong enough to commend it to an honest intellect? Sott says that Jesus' claims about himself are "extravagant . . . so bold and so unassuming" (Basic Christianity, 8). It is claimed that he rose from the dead thus Stott rightly concludes that "the circumstantial evidence for this resurrection is most compelling" (8). But, supposing Jesus was the Son of God is the acceptance of this fact what basic Christianity is really all about? Sott's answer, typical of the clarity of his honest insight, is "No."

Once we examine the nature of his work we must ask: "What did he come to do?" The biblical answer is that he came into the world "to save sinners." He is the Savior that all sinners need. Salvation is what he came to bring and he accomplishes this by his death and resurrection.

"Then is basic Christianity the belief that Jesus is the Son of God who came to be the Savior of the world?" Stott answers, maybe to some readers surprise: "No" (9). "To assent to his divine person, to acknowledge man's need of salvation, and to believe in Christ's saving work are not enough" (9). Stott says that our intellectual beliefs are important, indeed very important, but "we have to translate our beliefs into deeds" (9).

What then must we do? "We must commit ourselves, heart and mind, soul and will, home and life, personally and unreservedly, to Jesus Christ" (9). We must humbly trust in him as our Savior and submit to his as our Lord. Then, "we go to take our place as loyal members of the church and responsible citizens in the community" (9). "Such is basic Christianity" (9), Stott concludes.

I can't think of a better introduction, in only a few compact words and sentences, than this. And this is only in the preface of a superb book that I commend to all readers everywhere.

The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (David G. Petersen)

I do not normally review critical, academic commentaries on this site. The new Pillar New Testament Commentary on the Book of Acts is a worthy exception to that rule. David G. Petersen, a senior research fellow in New Testament at the well-known Moore Theological College in Sydney, Australia, has completed a fifteen year project and the result is surely on of the finest modern commentaries on Acts in decades. The author, with I. Howard Marshall, of Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, Petersen does a masterful job of dealing with the important questions of the text in light of current scholarship. He also draws from the fields of narrative criticism, theological analysis and incorporates insights into historical-social background. He is at his very best when he reverently and carefully studies why Luke presents his material in the way that he does, showing again that a very high view of divine inspiration should not preclude serious work in context and writing styles used by the biblical authors.

This series of commentaries is immensely valuable. We already have volumes in print from Leon Morris (Matthew and Romans), James R. Edwards (Mark), D. A. Carson (John), Peter T. O'Brien (Ephesians), Douglas J. Moo (Colossians and Philemon), Gene L. Green (1 & 2 Thessalonians), Peter H. Davids (2 Peter and Jude) and Colin G. Kruse (Letters of John). More volumes are obviously forthcoming. The series, as a whole, is even, balanced and may be the best buy on the market for pastors and serious students of the New Testament.

Acts is a much more complex book than most readers recognize, including many pastors. There are formidable historical, literary and theological challenges in the book. Consider how widely Christians differ in their approach to the book and then how they use it to prove this or that practice. Recent decades have provided some much needed help to serious students of the book. This informative, rich and challenging commentary will be an invaluable guide for years to come. Petersen's judgments, adds D. A. Carson, are "sane, evenhanded, and judicious."

What makes this volume so special to me is that Petersen unpacks the text while always keeping his eyes fixed on the larger picture of the book, thus rendering this volume a commentary that pastors, teachers and serious non-technical readers should use. The introduction to Acts is nearly fifty pages of material. Perhaps the most important part of this commentary, however, is "The Theology of Acts, " which also reaches to nearly fifty pages in length. This alone is worth the book. Technical apparatus is employed in the footnotes but there is no reason any reader who wants a work out in Acts could not benefit immensely from this fine book. This is the kind of commentary the church desperately needs.

The only downside of this great book is the price. It retails for $65.00 (U.S.). But it is 846 pages bound nicely in a cloth edition. Discounted prices are available online.

Pearls, Swine and the Problem of Forcing Character Formation

Yesterday I wrote about Matthew 7:1 and Jesus' teaching on judgment and fault finding within the Christian community.

Paul writes: "For what have I to do with judging those who are on the outside? Is it not those  on the inside you are to judge? God will judge those outside. 'Drive out the wicked person from you'" (1 Corinthians 5:12-13, NRSV). The irony of our time is that the church judges those who are outside the church and accordingly fails to deal with sin on the inside of the church. The world notices and our witness is severely harmed accordingly. In this practice we are more like the Corinthians than mature Christians.

But in Matthew 7 the governing thought seems to me to be that God treats us in the way that we treat others. This is, in reality, a rather sobering thought. If we are judgmental and critical then we will receive the same. In Matthew 7:5 the word "hypocrite," used repeatedly for the scribes and Pharisees, is actually given to disciples of Jesus who ignore their own faults and pick on their fellow disciples. I cannot think of a condemnation of Christians that is stronger than this one.

But what does Matthew 7:6 mean? Jesus says, "Do not give what is holy to dogs; and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them underfoot and turn and maul you." Dogs and swine were Jewish terms of contempt used for Gentiles. This saying could have been used in a Jewish Christian community first, especially since Matthew records it in this very Jewish context.

One of the first times this text became graphically plain to me was when I saw a pack of wild dogs in a context much more like that of the ancient world. These dogs were not friendly house-pets like my little Neo. They were animals who "mauled" their prey. They roamed around in packs and found ways to circle and attack their victim.

But who are the "dogs" in the text? They cannot be unbelievers, at least in any general sense, because of Matthew 28:18-20. The Message says: "Don't be flip with the sacred. Banter and silliness give no honor to God. Don't reduce holy mysteries to slogans. In trying to be relevant, you're only being cute and inviting sacrilege." The sentiment behind this paraphrase is one that is supported by many commentators regarding this text. Jesus is warning us not to be flip with his truth before those who do not love it. This is a truism but I am quite persuaded that this is not what is actually in view here.

I think the larger context supports a reading like this---in a Christian community we must sometimes deal with an obstinately unrepentant fellow disciple. We should be very careful in how we do this. A way to grasp this, which gets what I think is going on in the text, is to see this verse as warning us against trying to force character change on people who are resistant to it. No matter how much a community seeks the well-being of its own members some will not desire to engage in the kind of  lifestyle that brings about real character development by the Holy Spirit. This is somewhat like the old phrase: "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink!"

Not every member of your church wants to become more and more like Christ. We cannot force character change on all people. And a church that sets up a lot of rules to make this happen only falls into the error of verse one, namely judgmentalism. This leads to a critical spirit that destroys community. Churches with rigorous standards for spiritual formation very often leave out weak and struggling people who desperately need the community to love and accept them.

So what should those who are growing in grace do with those who are not? Be patient, help, love and seek to encourage. We are to "bear with the weak" and "cover a multitude of sins" wherever possible. When we engage in overly rigorous techniques, methods that have the appeal of legalism, we end up throwing precious pearls before disciples who are not ready to receive them. It should not surprise you that they will attack you in the process.

Given the context of Matthew 7 this does not mean the community never judges sin in the church. But this judging must not be the priority for every character problem a church faces. When we make "holiness" of character the goal, and then seek to force or compel character formation as an outcome, we damage the very nature of the community itself.

There are many who read these words who have actually been in churches where they have experienced this very problem. Such congregations are deeply committed to developing a holy people. This commitment is right and good. But the way they go about this is wrong in so many ways. They often talk a lot about discipline and character formation in terms that are quite specific and rigid. When people do not measure up then they either have to leave or turn against the community and its leadership.

Living in a time and culture in which Christians (in general) are not deeply concerned about godly character the dangers I speak about here are very real. This is all the more true since most churches do almost nothing to address the issue of character formation at all. Let those who teach the Word and care for people be exceptionally careful. Great wisdom is required and it is not easy to get. Young ministers are especially vulnerable here. They would all be wise to seek the counsel of those who have been down this road for decades.