Category: The Ministry

This post is inspired by a column I read today at,

http://thegospelcoalition.org/mobile/article/tgc/what-i-wish-id-known-reflections-on-nearly-40-years-of-pastoral-ministry

The chap there (Rev. Storms) has been in the Ministry for nearly 40 years. I’ve only been in this calling for 25. So, with 15 fewer years, take this for what it is worth.

1.) They didn’t tell me in Seminary how to help someone die. There has been nothing more difficult in the 25 years I’ve been in the ministry then to minister to the dying. No matter how often I step into this role as a midwife of the soul’s entry into the presence of God I always walk away from the committal service wondering if I had read enough scripture with the now deceased. Had I given enough comfort to them? Had I prayed long enough with them? Had I laughed enough with them or played enough of their favorite games with them on their good days? Had I pointed them towards Christ enough?

There is nothing more humbling about the ministry then the sense of inadequacy that washes over a minister after the time worn gruel of seeing death have its short term victory. Seldom has faith had to so tenaciously engage then upon the long jagged death of a well loved parishioner. I can only hope to die as well as those I’ve been honored to shepherd.

2.) They didn’t tell me in Seminary how much fighting would have to be done for orthodoxy. Maybe they didn’t know. Maybe it is not seemly for a Seminary Professor to talk about how the life of a minister who cares would be characterized by one conflict after another in the setting of local Church, the denomination, the refereeing of congregational family dust ups, or local meetings among the clergy in the community where one is ministering. Maybe Seminary Professors had themselves learned that it is better to go along to get along and so figured that they would, by their silence, teach us to go along to get along as well. They didn’t tell me in Seminary how the Church is the problem as much as it is the solution.

3.) They didn’t tell me in Seminary how to deal with the sense of betrayal that arises when people, who you’ve long been close to, leave the Church. They didn’t teach me how to put off the bitterness and hurt. They didn’t teach how to fake before everyone else in the Church and act like the departure of loved people doesn’t hurt. All this said, quite admitting that when people leave they leave for reasons they believe to be absolutely legitimate.

4.) They didn’t tell me in Seminary how ill equipped any man is to be a minister of the Gospel. It would have been good for us to have drilled in our heads how the position of Minister is way beyond the capacity of any one man. They should have told us that a sense of inadequacy is a something that a minister daily lives with and they should have told us that the constant sense of inadequacy would be better for us to live with then the sense of thinking ourselves perfectly adequate unto the position.

5.) They didn’t tell me in Seminary how strange I am and neither did they tell me in Seminary how strange other people were becoming. My Father-in-law entered the ministry in 1956. He used to tell me, when he was winding down from the ministry in the late 90’s, how odd people had become compared to when he first started. Twenty-five years later for me now, I can say that people are odder now then they were when I started. Worldviews have consequences and the stranger a culture becomes in its worldview, the odder the individuals in that culture become. In Seminary I graduated with an emphasis on Culture. We examined cultures and probed as to how they worked. Nothing though could have prepared me for how strange our own culture has become.

6.) They didn’t tell me in Seminary that Ministers should not take themselves too seriously. Ministers, like myself, have a terrible habit of self-importance. We would have been well served to have been told early on to get over ourselves.

7.) They didn’t tell me in Seminary that it was acceptable as a minister to just blow people off when they need to be blown off. If we are not supposed to take ourselves too seriously then it is perfectly acceptable not to take non serious people seriously. Ministers have a tendency to want to please and satisfy people, (it’s part of the reason why they went into ministry) and as such Ministers tend to compromise themselves by trying to satisfy people who should not be satisfied.

8.) They didn’t tell me in Seminary that it was alright to be a failure, or at least they didn’t tell me how to properly measure failure and success.

9.) They didn’t tell me in Seminary how it is normal for most church people, in our accelerated culture, to not have time to meditate, to read, and to think. Of course as people don’t have time for this it makes it next to impossible for a Minister to really help people on a deep permanent level. As such, much of the ministry is, at best, a triage and band-aid routine.

10.) They didn’t tell me in Seminary how generous and kind many people could be. Of course that is something that is easy to learn and appreciate after the fact. It is amazing how the Lord Christ, after some “people encounter gone sour,” will bring into the Minister’s life people who are kind beyond measure.

It is amazing how many of the people I have served over the years have had the virtue of kindness and generosity.

Prolegomena — The Beginnings Of A Reformed Weltanschauung

This course of study is intended to begin building the framework that will be the basis upon which the Lion’s share of the rest of the curriculum will based. It will spend a great deal of considering issues of Epistemology. Because it is foundational there will be additional reading then what you will find in your subsequent courses.

Main Texts

1.) A Christian View Of Men & Things — Gordon H. Clark
2.) Van Til’s Apologetic; Reading and Analysis — Greg Bahnsen

Required Reading

1.) Thales to Dewey — Gordon H. Clark
2.) Introduction to Philosophy — Gordon H. Clark
3.) Three Types of Religious Philosophy — Gordon H. Clark
4.) Reason, Religion, and Revelation — Gordon H. Clark
5.) God’s Hammer — Gordon H. Clark
6.) Historiography; Secular or Religious — Gordon H. Clark
7.) The Meaning of History — Ronald Nash
8.) The Word of God and the Mind of Man — Ronald Nash
9.) The Light of the Mind — St. Augustine’s Theory of Knowledge — Ronald Nash
10.) Language and Theology — Gordon H. Clark
11.) The Philosophy of Science and the Belief in God — Gordon H. Clark
12.) From Rationality to Irrationalism — C. Greg Singer
13) Essays on Ethics and Politics — Gordon H. Clark
14.) The Clark – Van Til Controversy — Herman Hoeksema
15.) Classical Apologetics by John H. Gerstner, Arthur W. Lindsley and R.C. Sproul

1.) Read the main Text books and write chapter summaries. Identify where you find differences between Clark and Van Til.

2.) Read the rest of the Required Reading and write a paper on the following Subject Matter

A.) A Christian View of Epistemology
B.) A Christian View of History
C.) A Christian View of Language
D.) A Christian View of Science
E.) A Christian View Of Ethics
F.) A Christian View of Politics
G.) A Christian View of Education

3.) Write a paper critiquing the methodology of S.L.u G. (book #15).

4.) Write a paper detailing the foundation and authority of and for a Biblical World and Life View

5.) Interact 1 hour weekly with the Instructor regarding points of interest in the book that you are currently reading.

6.) Be prepared for pop quizzes or short essay requirements.

Lance summarized Dr. Tim Keller’s preaching methodology by saying,

“In Tim Keller’s preaching seminar he mentions that saying bold things about abortion and homosexuality ‘C issues’ is not helpful when one hasn’t laid the ground work of the Gospel ‘A’ and a biblical worldview ‘b.’ Although he believes these are both… sin, he hits hard on A’ and B’ primarily so that people would actually believe and be saved, rather than always insisting on implications of those, namely C’. Plus, why mis-step with the conservatives and emphasis some sins over others. If we want people to be saved, we must share the A’ and B’ clearly and consistently; rather, than be known for our theological positions, something that won’t save anyone. He’s in the center of the postmodern worldview and we are just about there ourselves. lets take time to unpack things, when we ‘know’ they will be offended and quit listening when we post our theological positions. If you want that preaching seminar PDF ill send it to you. Its be best thing I’ve ever read on preaching. I’m assuming if you were to talk with a homosexual, you would similar things.”

Now, I don’t know Lance and I don’t know if this is a faithful representation of what Keller teaches in his Seminar, but for the sake of dissection let’s say it is. Here is how I would critique such an approach,

I’m pretty sure that one can’t lay out the ground work of either the Gospel or a biblical worldview if one doesn’t deal with prominent sins. Keep in mind that laying the groundwork out means talking about the backdrop of the Gospel which is man’s rebellion against God. Now, it will do no good to talk about a general rebellion of man against God without being somewhat accurate as to what that rebellion concretely looks like. I mean, is Keller looking to convert Abortion Doctors and Homosexuals only to later tell them after being “saved;”

“Now, about those abortions and that Homosexuality, I know you didn’t realize that salvation meant giving that up, but I have a surprise for you.”

This approach looks a great deal like thorough going compromise.

And the smell of compromise gets even heavier when we read Keller’s answer to a direct question on preaching against homosexuality.

Well, it’s much, much, much easier to to have private conversations about it. I think . . . uh . . . can make this short. I . . . I believe in general that if you preach on why homosexuality is a sin . . . uhhh . . . there are . . . at least in my . . . in my . . . in my . . . in my church I know there’s lots and lots of folks who have same sex attraction who know that that’s not . . . as a Christian, I can’t do that. I’m not gonna go there. There’s a good number of them. I’ve got a lot of non-Christians who are present who are friends of gay people but are not gay. Uhhh . . . and then uhh, there’d be a number of people with same sex attraction who . . . are there. And generally speaking, it’s almost impossible to preach a sermon and hit all 3 or 4 of those constituencies equally well. Ummmm . . . it’s just . . . it’s just think about . . . you know . . . you know . . . you’re a communicator. You know you need to . . . well, what’s my goal? Who are my audience and . . . wow! it’s like a conundrum you can’t solve. So, the best thing has always been for me..[CONSPICUOUS COUGH] . . . to not do the public teaching as much as segment my audience through . . . ummm [CONSPICUOUS COUGH] . . . Books, through classes, through one-on-ones, and so on. I think the time is probably coming in which we’re going to have be more public in how we talk about homosexuality. And I haven’t . . . I’m actually thinking quite a lot about it. Uhhh . . . as to how I will go about it or how we should go about it but I’m not prepared to give you 3 bullet points. (Note: ellipses represent pauses)

That explanation that Lance gave in the first blockquote (and I’m not impugning Lance, as it is not, as far as I know, Lance’s opinion) is so full of holes it is downright embarrassing that anyone would try to pass that off as erudite let alone the embarrassment present by seeing scads of people being suckered by such reasoning.

I’ve already exposed one hole

Here are some more

2.) He is suggesting that salvation of people is dependent upon the way he gives the message. If we really believe that the Gospel itself was the power of God unto Salvation we wouldn’t be conjuring up ways to manipulate people into the Kingdom. (i.e. –The thought process seems to be something like, “I can’t speak about homosexuality or abortion because if I do they won’t be swept up into the hurricane of redemption.”)

3.) Presumably “A” and “B” and “C” are all theological positions. You can’t carve “C” out and call it a theological position while suggesting “A” and “B” are somehow something else then a theological position. If he doesn’t want to be known for theological positions then he should keep quiet about not only “C” but also about “A” and “B” as well. Dividing them up the way he does in the explanation above only provides an excuse that when examined only briefly and with the greatest of nonchalance is exposed as utterly vacuous.

4.) If we are going to avoid naming some sins in “A” and “B” why name any sins at all in the presentation? In Keller’s model a God without wrath brings men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.

5.) And what does the fact that Keller is at the center of the postmodern world have to do with anything? Is the subtext with such a statement supposed to be that because he is at the center of the postmodern world therefore he has to speak differently about sin if people are to know Christ?