The Consequence of Claiming Sufficiency of Scripture For Inconsolable Things

Mike Leake

photo-1495051964098-df2856bfee39“We don’t need CRT to help us deal with racism. The Bible is entirely sufficient.”

I hear similar statements with increasing frequency. You can replace CRT and racism with other issues as well. There is a growing movement which believes you don’t need X because the Bible is sufficient. I would argue that this is not a faithful development of the doctrine of scriptural sufficiency. Today, I will show you a consequence of this misstep.

It is not my intention to defend CRT. So, if you’ve come here to tell me that it’s a godless ideology that has no place within Christianity, take your argument elsewhere. I’m not arguing FOR that particular solution to racial issues. My intention today is to argue against a view of sufficiency which would de facto reject a secular ideology as a help in addressing something such as racism. 

What is meant by sufficiency?

Historically the sufficiency of Scripture means that the Scriptures give us everything we need to know to please God. And they are sufficient to interpret themselves (you don’t need an outside magisterium to give you the interpretation). We have in the Scriptures what we need to have a relationship with Christ. I’ve appreciated Piper’s summary:

In other words, the Scriptures are sufficient in the sense that they are the only (“once for all”) inspired and (therefore) inerrant words of God that we need, in order to know the way of salvation (“make you wise unto salvation”) and the way of obedience (“equipped for every good work”). The sufficiency of Scripture does not mean that the Scripture is all we need to live obediently. (here)

But I think in recent years that doctrine of sufficiency has widened a bit further than the Scriptures themselves would speak. It seems to me that in our day it has come to mean that the Bible is the best at everything and therefore it is the only thing you need. You don’t need other sources. And it’s often taken a step further—that to use other sources is an insult to the sufficiency of Scripture*.

So when it comes to issues of racism someone holding this more recent view of sufficiency would say that we do not need a secular ideology, the Bible is all we need to solve the issues surrounding racism.

But what is meant by that?

Do we mean that the Bible gives us everything we need to know how to please God on issues of race? I’d wholeheartedly agree. Do we mean that the Bible is all that is needed for the Spirit to define and convict the world in regards to righteousness in areas of racism? Sure. But it seems to me that many mean something more by this—the Bible is all that is needed to solve the issues regarding racism.

God has given us the Scriptures. He has equipped us with what is needed to end racism. That sounds really good. But I want to give that a bit of a test run using Luke 9.

The Consequence of Luke 9

In Luke 9:1-2 Jesus empowered the disciples to cast out demons and to heal sickness. Demonic induced epilepsy certainly falls under this category of stuff they should have been able to fix. But when they encountered a boy who was “shattered” by this very ailment the disciples were powerless.

They should have been able to fix it, but they did not because of their faithlessness. They had brokenness at their feet and they were impotent. That’s why I put Raphael’s Transfiguration as the photo on this article. It’s a perfect picture of what’s taking place in this passage. Powerful Christ. Empowered, but impotent Church.

I think it is the church who actually gets the rebuke of Jesus when he said, “O faithless and twisted generation, how long am I to be with you and bear with you?” Luke has their failure on full display in this chapter. They are busy with self-promotion, self-preservation, and a self-focus that keeps them ultimately faithless and powerless when they ought to be healing brokenness.

I’m sharing this because if you want to claim Luke 9:1-2 empowerment (God has given us everything we need to solve issues of racism) then we have to deal with the consequence of our impotence. If we do have everything we need to solve this issue, then why is there still racism?

Do you blame ungodly systems for the continuance of racism? Is it that sinful hearts are still harboring racist thoughts? Is it that the church has been too busy with self-promotion to actually be about working towards racial reconciliation?

I suppose one option, and one which I think we’ll see people lean towards more in the coming days, is to deny that racism is still a thing. If you can’t solve it perhaps you can deny it and then pretend as if your solution actually worked.

All I’m attempting to say here is this, if you truly believe that the Bible is all you need to “deal with racism”, then you’d better get to work because there is quite a bit of brokenness at your feet.

There is another option…

The Inconsolable Things

I would argue that when it comes to some of these issues we actually are not pinned into the corner by Luke 9. I do not believe the sufficiency of Scripture means that we have everything we need to end racism. We have everything we need to individually please God in how we handle issues of race. But I would leave redemption in this areas to the ultimate restoration we are going to see from Christ. The Scriptures are sufficient to tell us that these things will ultimately be fully and finally healed in Christ.

I think the words of Zack Eswine are helpful here:

But the presence of things we cannot control or immediately fix reminds us that though the Bible is God’s revelation, it in itself is not his magic remedy. It lights our path by his Spirit, but it cannot always shield us from what he shows us there. Only the Christ that the Bible verses reveal can do this. (Eswine, 93)

Eswine goes on to talk about “fix-it-alls” who believe with Bible in hand that they are going to be able to fix all the problems. The result is often frustration and anger. Typically a “fix-it-all” will lean into things like fear and intimidation when their simple solutions aren’t working.

“Fix-it-alls begin to think something like this: This situation or person couldn’t possibly be what it appears to be. We have quoted the Bible and made our arguments. Things should be fixed by now. There must be some hidden mischief here. We need to speak some more, but this time, louder and more accusatory. (Eswine, 93-94)

Eswine points out that there are some things which are “inconsolable”. We can’t ultimately fix these things. Only Christ can….and will.

Conclusion

One could think that my conclusion is that we simply must deal with the ever-present reality of things like racism. I suppose there is some sense in which it, like every other sin, will be present in human hearts and human society until Christ does make everything right. But that is no excuse for inaction. And it’s also why in the here and now we use whatever means God gives us to provide some relief. Yes, ultimate healing will always come through Christ. But he graciously gives temporary relief—and even at times by those who “aren’t one of us”.

—

*I’ve interacted in the past with Heath Lambert’s chapter on the sufficiency of Scripture in counseling. If you combine his definitions of this doctrine then you’d have a practical definition similar to this: “the Bible tells us “everything we need to know from God about any topic” to provide “answers, solutions, and help.” Lambert is talking about counseling—but I don’t believe it’d be a stretch to extend this definition to an issue such as racism.

Photo source: here

A Tip For Reading Church History

Mike Leake

clarisse-meyer-jKU2NneZAbI-unsplashThe year is 2121. That’s not a typo…it’s 100 years from now. During the zombie apocalypse almost all of our Christian books were destroyed. Not because of any malicious intent by our zombie overlords but mostly because they weren’t very good at preserving paperback and they accidentally blew up the internet. The zombie kids of 2121 have only a handful of the millions of Christian resources we have available today.

They have a Joel Osteen book, a few pages from Calvin’s Institutes, some book on anxiety by an obscure author, Book 3 of the Left Behind series, a couple Amish romance novels, a commentary on the Gospel of John, and thankfully a completely intact copy of the Scriptures.

How much confidence would you have if a zombie historian compiled this material to write his What Christians Believed? You would expect our author to miss whole swaths of teaching. It would be skewed towards the information available to him. Because he has such scant material he would by necessity give undue weight to every jot and tittle. A passing thought from Mr. Osteen could become for our zombie writer a key belief.

I’m sharing this ridiculous illustration because I believe we can have a tendency to give undue weight to passing phrases in the writings of the early church. I will give you a rather extreme example to make my point.

In The Apology of Aristides the Philosopher, our pal Aristides calls the Egyptians, “more base and stupid than every people that is on the earth”. We have very little other material from the early 100s. Would it be right for us to conclude that a widely held Christian belief was that Egyptians were stupid? Of course it wouldn’t. We would need more evidence. And it would be equally silly for us to say, “because early Christians believed Egyptians were stupid we should make this part of our Christian practice.”

Likewise, there are passing phrases in many of the early church fathers about how they did church together. I’ll admit, there are things which at times leave me scratching my head. If those who lived closest to Jesus (like Aristides) believed that baptized infants were sinless, does this mean I should embrace that view?

No, our standard is still the Bible. If our zombie historian were tasked with planting a church that is faithful to Christ, he could certainly learn from the material given to him. But at the end of the day he would be bound to the Scriptures. Scripture would be authoritative. He could perhaps cobble together a bit about what Christians believed in 2021—and that should inform his own interpretations. But at the end of the day both he, and us in 2021, must bow a knee to what the Scripture actually says and teaches. 

I’m not attempting to say that we cannot trust history or that what the church has historically believed has no value. Nor am I attempting to argue that there was some sort of unpopular and underground church that held the real Christianity in its hand. Rather, I’m attempting to communicate that we should be cautious when reading history. It ought to inform us but not rule over us. 

—

Photo source: here

7 Directions for Dealing With Sin

Mike Leake

51W3W0BxdMLI’ve had Jerry Bridges’ Respectable Sins sitting unfinished on my book shelf for a couple years now.It’s a helpful book that could be used to help those who have been believers for awhile expose and root out those sins which are often lingering under the surface.

In one chapter Bridges gives seven directions for dealing with sin when it is brought to our attention. I found these helpful. Some of them are word for word, others I’ve tweaked a bit for better memorization.

  1. We should always address our sin in the context of the gospel. We must always start with the truth that in Christ our sin is forgiven and we stand in His righteousness and not our own.
  2. We must learn to rely on the enabling power of the Holy Spirit.
  3. As we depend on the Spirit we must also recognize our responsibility and diligently pursue practice steps to deal with our sin.
  4. We must identify specific areas of acceptable sins. Sin is specific and it’s helpful for us to deal in specificity and not generality.
  5. We should bring to bear specific applicable Scriptures to each of our subtle sins.
  6. Cultivate the practice of prayer over the sins we tolerate.
  7. Involve one or a few other believers with you.

If you’re looking for a helpful book to discuss with a discipleship group this is one which I would highly recommend.

The Pornography of Wonderless Preaching

Mike Leake

photo-1618859437290-dc3cda39ea58Can a man carry fire next to his chest and his clothes not be burned? –Proverbs 6:27

I, like many others, have been listening to The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill. It’s an incredibly sobering look, by Mike Cosper, at the ministry of Mark Driscoll at Mars Hill in Seattle. I thought of Proverbs 6:27 as I was listening to one of the more recent podcasts.

At a conference Driscoll was talking about the importance of a plurality of elders. It’d protect from one preacher not being the center, people not following a single man. He talked about the dangers of celebrity. It was as if he was saying that it was holding fire to the chest. It was incredibly insightful. I only wish he had listened to his own advice.

That’s the thing with Solomon. He didn’t listen to his own advice. He held fire to his chest and it cost him his entire empire. How could this happen? Why would Solomon have done this if he knew better? Solomon knew better. So did Driscoll. So, why? I think Bruce Waltke gives a helpful answer:

“If one should ask, ‘If Solomon is the wise author, how could he have died such a fool?’ let it be noted that he constructed his own gibbet on which he impaled himself—that is, he ceased listening to his own instruction. Spiritual success today does not guarantee spiritual success tomorrow”.

The other day I picked up my copy of Dangerous Calling by Paul Tripp. Look at the back cover:

dangerouscalling

Harris no longer identifies as a Christian and Tchvidjian had his own fall. A dangerous calling indeed. How does this happen? Ironically enough, I think one answer is found in Tripp’s book; namely, we lose our awe.

This means that every sermon should be prepared by a person whose study is marked by awe of God. The sermon must be delivered in awe and have as its purpose to motivate awe in those who hear…Now it’s very hard to preach and shape the ministry of the church this way if familiarity has produced a blindness that effectively robbed you of your awe of God. It is very difficult in ministry to give away what you do not possess yourself. (Tripp, 118-119)

We lose our awe but the machine keeps churning so we have to fake it. We pastors have put together Bible studies and sermons enough times that we can put together words which appear to be passionate and God-wrought but are still empty. And because God’s Word is powerful and because God can speak through a donkey, the posing preacher may even lead a “successful” ministry. He may even be known as a great preacher—but it’s built on oration instead of awe. And this will eventually brutalize his soul. You cannot hold this fire to your chest and not get burned.

You can fake sermons and teaching—but you cannot fake awe. The pastor who is not motivated by awe of God is engaging in a type of pornography every time he prepares a disinterested sermon or Bible study. Consider this definition from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

I appreciate Carl Trueman’s commentary on this. The biggest problem, says Trueman, is that “it repudiates any notion that sex has significance beyond the act itself, and therefore it rejects any notion that it is emblematic of the sacred order.” (Trueman, 99) That’s why I say that the preacher is engaging in a type of pornography when he delivers a sermon or Bible-study without awe. He’s pretending like the act itself—getting through that 30 minute talk—is sufficient. But the sermon, the Bible study, the counseling session, etc. has a significance outside of itself.

If your pastor was consuming pornography on a daily basis, how long do you think he could go without a very public collapse? How long before his soul withers and what is done in the dark is brought to the light? I would argue that the same is true for a pastor without awe. Every time he preaches a sermon or leads a Bible study without awe—and gets away with it—he is feeding a monster which will destroy him. How much more will this happen if he not only “gets away with it” but he is platformed, even though his soul has been untethered from awe for quite some time?

What do we do if we find ourselves losing awe? Well, we don’t need a list of things to do. Law never awes. We need the gospel—fresh, anew, and inspiring. Not a gospel to preach, but a gospel to feast upon for ourselves. We have to be willing to not settle for anything less. We cannot let ourselves get away with it.

Awe-less sermonizing is a fire that you cannot hold up to your chest without getting burned. Thankfully, the gospel burns brighter. Hold the precious truths of Jesus up to your chest instead.

—

Photo source: here