"In fact, they [sheep] may well be just about the dumbest animals in the world."
Here we go again… Another Calvinista discussing sheep and how utterly dumb they are!
In a recent post Tim Challies berated the poor sheep yet again (explanation to follow) by writing:
"Why sheep? Why not cheetahs or wolves or ligers [tigers, perhaps?] or another animal with a bit of flair, a bit of class? But the Bible tells us often that we are sheep. We are sheep and God is a shepherd. That sheep/shepherd word picture is at the heart of the best-loved Psalm—Psalm 23. I spent some time with that psalm lately and tried to gain a better appreciation of why God saw fit to tell us we are sheep.
I will admit I am not the world’s foremost expert on sheep. I grew up in the city and even now live in an area of town that explicitly forbids owning livestock. In place of first-hand knowledge, I spent some time reading about sheep. It was funny. And kind of humbling."
Hmmm… Challies admits that he knows nothing first-hand about sheep; yet he pontificates about how DUMB, DIRECTIONLESS, AND DEFENSELESS he believes they are.
ARE SHEEP DUMB?
Tim Challies certainly thinks so. Here's how he illustrates his point:
"This is a real news story that aptly tells us the first reason sheep need a shepherd: because sheep are dumb.
Hundreds of sheep followed their leader off a cliff in eastern Turkey, plunging to their deaths this week while shepherds looked on in dismay. Four hundred sheep fell 15 metres to their deaths in a ravine in Van province near Iran but broke the fall of another 1,100 animals who survived. Shepherds from a nearby village neglected the flock while eating breakfast, leaving the sheep to roam free. The loss to local farmers was estimated at $74,000.
One sheep wandered off a cliff and 1,499 others just followed along. Can you picture it? 1,500 sheep, each walking off a cliff, one after the other. Soon they were piled so deep that the ones at the bottom were crushed to death and the ones on top were lying on a big downy-soft pillow. It is completely absurd and tells us one important fact about sheep and the first reason sheep absolutely need a shepherd: they are not the smartest animals in the world. In fact, they may well be just about the dumbest animals in the world."
In case you aren't aware, Tim Challies has gotten a lot of mileage out of the news story cited above. He first mentioned it in a March 2006 post entitled It's Not a Compliment. Then he recycled it in December 2009. The title of that post was Dumb as Sheep.
Now let's take a look at a 'dumb' sheep…
ARE SHEEP DIRECTIONLESS?
Tim Challies continues putting down sheep with a contention that could easily be attributed to Mark Dever / 9 Marks. In fact, maybe that's where the idea originated. He explains:
"Sheep are prone to wander. Even if you put them in an absolutely perfect environment…sooner or later they will just wander off. If a shepherd doesn’t manage them, if he doesn’t micromanage them and keep them under constant surveillance, they’ll wander off and be lost."
Remember Bobby Jamieson's 9Marks post entitled Don't Let Your People Resign Into Thin Air?
Jamieson concluded with this admonition:
"KEEP AN EYE ON THE BACK DOOR
So pastors, just as you pay careful attention to the front door of your church, keep a close eye on the back door, too. Make sure that the sheep can’t simply open the gate themselves and disappear from sight. Refuse to allow people to resign into thin air, both for the sake of your church’s witness to the gospel and for the good of every single sheep—especially those who tend to wander off."
Maybe Bobby Jamieson knows what he's talking about after all… Take a look.
This sheep is quite the escape artist! I wonder if he's teaching this trick to the rest of the flock. đ
ARE SHEEP DEFENSELESS?
On this third point, Challies explains:
"Sheep can’t fight, they can’t run away, and they can’t scare away. So what does a sheep do when danger comes? It flocks. When a bear approaches, the sheep will gather with others in a pack and run in circles in complete panic, just hoping that the bear will choose someone else. Without a shepherd to protect them, they’ll be picked off and eaten one by one."
Robin, who commented under the Challies post, disagrees with his second-hand assessment by writing:
"I realize and appreciate your larger point. We ARE sheep in God's eyes and the analogy/metaphor is a very good one. But we have raised sheep for 17 years and there are a few things worth pointing out, that perhaps may prove to be a useful metaphor also, things that are not widely known. A ewe will protect her lamb. Our sheep are a very large breed and when a ewe with a lamb thought our golden was going after her baby (he wasn't), she relentlessly rammed him till we had to get him away before he was hurt. Sheep will also stomp if threatened; not a great defense, but they don't necessarily just run. A ram can kill someone. It happens from time to time; never turn your back and a horned one is really touchy. Sheep may not be smart but are equipped with strategies to survive. Some, usually becomes the leader, are pretty intelligent, seemingly, and can figure out how to open gates with their lips. Some also have very good memories and are affectionate; a bottle baby my daughter raised is now 3 and still runs to my daughter when she calls and is not all that comfortable being a sheep, although her instincts kicked in when she had her own lambs. Caveat: we have farm sheep, not nomadic like the Bible is talking about. Nevertheless, their flocking instinct is remarkable. So I will give the sheep off the cliff story that. However, it sounds like they didn't have a good dog, which is necessary with those kinds of numbers.
Sorry. This is a very good piece and I fully agree that we are sheep and need a Shepherd. But I thought I'd stick up for them a little in the practical sense…"
Here is a clip of a fearless sheep.
In all seriousness, the Calvinistas really need to STOP with the dumb sheep metaphor. Analogies can be carried far beyond that which was intended. When God utilized the sheep metaphor, He never used it to berate His children for being stupid. He stressed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit that He is the loving shepherd who cares and protects His flock.
Why are the Neo-Cals going in this direction? Is it because they believe we are so utterly depraved that we have to be constantly reminded how sinful and dumb we are? On the contrary, we are created in the image of God. His emphasis doesn’t seem to be our wretchedness, much to the disagreement of the Calvinistas. Christians have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them.
If the Calvinistas are intentionally using the dumb sheep metaphor, then it appears to us that the Shepherding Movement is being unleashed on unsuspecting victims once again. Tragically, those who may be hurt are probably too young to remember the devastation that occurred with the original Shepherding Movement (1970s-1980s). A few weeks after we began blogging, we wrote on this unbiblical practice (and the Fort Lauderdale Five who carried it out) in an attempt to warn our readers. Here are two posts that we highly recommend:
The Shepherding Movement – Reformed, Revamped, Reee-diculous!
In conclusion, we have just two words for the Calvinistas whenever they attempt to advance their dumb sheep metaphor…
STOP IT!
Lydia's Corner: Ezra 1:1-2:70 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:5 Psalm 27:7-14 Proverbs 20:22-23
Hmm .. this city girl knows nothing about sheep, but I sure know something about wolves in sheep’s clothing!
I’m almost tempted to read some of this stuff as:
1. see how dumb all we sheep are, how could we possible scheme against you?
and
2. see how dumb you are, you need us under-shepherds to keep you safe
Actually, in my poetry archives (yes, verse is my secret vice) I came across a poem about sheep and wolves as a picture of spiritual abuse. If it interests you, I’ll email it privately
Because they need to see their parishioners as less than and in need of their perfect, holy, awesome leadership that has been given to them by God to lead those poor, poor, stupid, weak, worthless, useless, no one else but I will reach out to them because they are so despicable to even be near sheep to validate and excuse their behavior and attitude.
These pastors see themselves as the right hand of God and the rest of humanity as something not even God will touch because they are so filthy and useless. Which, of course, is totally wrong but hey, their ego is more important than the verbal and psychological abuse they inflict on their congregants. Look at ME, see how I'M being so good and holy. It's narcissism, plain and simple. And arrogance. Let's see how that works for you on Judgment Day when you stand before Jesus. The sheep don't buy it. He won't either.
Yes, when you think about it, how dare they insult and demean Christ’s blood-bought, Spirit-indwelt children?
Seems to me they forget they are sheep as well, even if they claim to lead the herd
Maybe because in their experience, many of their church members and attenders are like dumb sheep.
Having seen Tom Richs’s collection on vimeo (http://vimeo.com/user4054328), I wonder how people can put up with this – the terrible theology, the permanent haranguing, the call for money (MORE! MORE! MORE!) by “pastors” who seem to have learned from PT Barnum (“there’s a sucker born every minute”) rather than from the good shepherd, the sermons completely void of truth, of any love, devoid of anything to help you grow as a person and as a christian, maybe there are too many bulls**t artists who know their “sheep” only to well and know exactly how to fleece them.
And until the sheep vote with their feet (and their wallets), they will continue.
The only thing I ask myself: don’t these “pastors” know any better – or are they just complete cynics?
Deb,
I blogged about this very thing (the overuse of some metaphors to the exclusion of others) in 2007:
http://fromthepew.blogspot.com/2007/05/god-and-his-people-limiting-use-of.html
How about countering Challies’ quote with what Jesus said about being wise as serpents and harmless as doves? Surely Jesus assumed such a thing was possible. Paul wanted to present every believer as mature in Christ. How can sheep be mature?
Yes, it is true that we all, like sheep, have gone astray. There are uses for this metaphor. But you are exactly right, Deb, to call for a limitation on just one metaphor. And here’s a question: are elders sheep too? Or do they, as former sheep, upon ordination, attain to a greater status?
@ Lynne T:
I'd love to read that poem. Please send it!
@ Pacbox:
Great comment! I hope the sheep are paying attention.
@ Steve Scott:
I liked your post so much that I'm quoting it here for the benefit of our readers. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
God and His People: Limiting the Use of Biblical Metaphors
"The bible uses quite a number of metaphors to describe the relationship between God (and/or Christ) and His people. This is because the relationship is complex. Many metaphors are used, as analogies, simply because this relationship can't be described in its fullness. Every analogy fails at some point, so each metaphor has its limitations.
So when we restrict the number of metaphors used in describing this relationship, we do violence to this relationship. Off the top of my head, here are some metaphors describing our relationship to God:
God is our God, we are His people. God is a Father, we are His children. Christ is the vine, we are the branches. God/Christ is the Lord/King, we are His subjects. Jesus is the Master, we are His disciples. Jesus is Master, we are servants. Christ is the head, the church is the body, with individuals being members of the body. Christ is the bridegroom, the church is the bride. Christ is the heir, we are co-heirs. We are brethren, Christ is our elder brother. Christ is the temple, we are the stones. We are the temple, the apostles are the foundation, and Christ is the cornerstone. Christ is the shepherd, we are the sheep (individuality) and Christ is the shepherd, we are the flock (community).
Some, like the high-church types, limit our relationship to maybe a few of these metaphors. Others, to quote a pastor friend of mine, "like Rome, almost drop the metaphor completely and assume a genuine ontological reality – the most obvious example is what they do with the 'body of Christ.' It's a metaphor, not an ontological statement about the extension of Jesus' incarnation!" Much of what goes on in Protestant theology, as well, limits our existence to the confines of the church, and its few metaphors, when the greater applications of metaphors suggest that the kingdom, and our relationship to God in it, is far greater than the church."
We should definitely reconsider this metaphor. Sheep are herd animals and will follow the leader. Before we dumbed them down by domesticating them this was a survival factor. Sheep (like elephants) will circle around the lambs under the direction of the leader sheep and stomp and butt the predator to protect the baby sheep. The leader sheep in Iceland will actually lead the herd back to the farm if a storm is coming. Sheep can recognize up to 50 faces, including humans and form friendships. There are lots of other smart things that sheep do. Be a smart sheep that belongs to Jesus. If you are following a leader sheep ask yourself is he leading you home from the storm or off a cliff.
Deb wrote:
I used to know this! Somewhere along the line the other metaphors fell to the wayside of my brain in deference, I guess, to the likeable wretchedness of sheep. All the metaphors I can think of for the church (a field of crops, a harvest, an olive tree) as well as those you mentioned either connect us directly to our Father, or enlist us directly in His work. Shepherd/sheep (or pastor/sheep) is the one that man manages to shoehorn himself into as indispensible. Nicely said, Steve Scott. I am veering back into sound (robust?) theology.
Also, a tangential suggestion for our fearless moderators: Might we someday have a scholarly discussion of what “forsaking the assembly” might mean? And does is it really oblige us to a brick and mortar church?
I forgot to mention i loved the videos!
These pastors and leaders are beyond arrogant! They must think they own the people in their churches. No they do not.
I think there are two critical things to consider when we look at a metaphor in scripture:
1) What is the point the speaker is trying to make? Because anything beyond the single point the metaphor was trying to make is reading beyond the intent.
2) How would the intended audience have understood the metaphor? These accounts are real conversations between real people. Taking the intended audience out of the equation and assuming that the speaker was talking to us with all of our modern resources at our disposal is going beyond scripture.
“Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore, be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” Matthew 16:10
The first sentence, using sheep and wolves as metaphors, is descriptive only. He is saying, basically, that is how you are. The second sentence, using serpents and doves, is entirely different. In the second sentence he is saying, basically, this is how you ought to be. There is a world of difference between a simple observation using descriptive terminology, on the one hand, and a divine “ought” on the other hand, metaphor or not.
I hear Jesus saying to the guys as they go out something like if all you are is sheep, then you will fall prey to the wolves. Note that he does not tell them to let themselves be victimized (martyred) nor does he tell them to see themselves as helpless in the face of the wolves. He does not say that the danger is such that the mission should be aborted. He tells them to smarten up, but don’t hurt anybody in the process.
And listen to how he says it. He just says, since that is how it is (“therefore”) do it, as in smarten up. There is no indication in this statement, that he thinks that “sheep” and “serpent” and “dove” cannot all be used to describe the same people. He is talking about sheep that are wise and sheep that are harmless, and he is saying to just do it.
He ought to know.
The *real* issue here (and I think you made this point) is the tendency to take any excuse to call ourselves dumb, depraved, utterly sinful, etc. And yes, I do think this, unfortunately, goes along with Calvinism (though I think non-Calvinists do it too). It annoys me when my current pastor does it, and I don’t think he sees the disconnect between other things he says (he’s a very compassionate and loving man).
Yes, I agree that all have fallen short of the Glory of God and deserve judgement. But should our response to that truth to constantly dwell on our sin? I think that is one serious issue with the way Reformed theology is applied (and it extends to a lot of non-Calvinist, Protestant theology)- there’s this idea that a constant focus on understanding our sin exalts God. I think this is wrong, because a CONSTANT FOCUS means we are not focusing on ideas like “no condemnation”. The focus needs to be balanced on neither looking at ourselves to highly (that we are self-sufficient and can/have save/saved ourselves) or too lowly (that we are unlovable worms).
I acknowledge my sin daily. I am honest with God about it and I ask him to help me turn from it. But I also focus on the fact that God loves me and has done a good work in me as well, and that I am an image bearer of God (which is true even of the unregenerate).
If we apply truth with improper emphasis, we end up denying other truths of the faith. As much as I do defend Reformed Theology on this board, I think the charge of unbalanced focus is one we Reformed folks need to take seriously and improve on.
This is not new – preaching at sheep that they are “dumb”.
It was commonplace language thirty years ago in U.S and Cdn. heavy-duty Calvinist churches, at conferences like the Mid-American Reformed Bapt Family conference, and Cdn. Carey Family Conference – any person or place heavily influenced by Trinity in Montville, N.J. and their connections in Grand Rapids. Next to the 5-points, it was de rigeur.
Irish,
(someone else, who knows wooly sheep, and knows they are not dumb.)
@ Jeff S:
Two very important points! Thank you.
I don’t mind the sheep metaphor but it becomes problematic when these Calvinista leaders consider themselves exempt from that category, because they are “shepherds.” Um…if we are going to call ourselves dumb sheep then let’s call EVERYONE a dumb sheep, and Jesus the shepherd.
@ Irish:
Thanks for that history lesson. I plan to look into this.
Do you know whether these groups practiced ‘shepherding’?
@ Kristin:
Spot on!
Kristin wrote:
I think most of them have no difficulty calling themselves dumb. I think, for example, Challis was including himself. It’s almost a badge of honor. There is a subtle superiority in that the first people who recognize they are “dumb” are in some ways smarter than the rest (this isn’t stated, just implied).
“Listen to me, because at least I’m smart enough to know I’m dumb”.
And then you get the “I’m the worst sinner I know” stuff.
Because stupid sheeple NEED Predestined Elect Shepherds ruling over them in every way imaginable. Predestined by God before the foundation of the world.
Remember when Calvin ruled Geneva?
Calvin Can Do No Wrong.
Jeff S wrote:
This is the crux of the matter. The sheep were always depicted as the dearly loved ones of the shepherd. He would run after one who went astray. LOVE is the key. Not DUMB.
Did you know that the sheep were eventually slaughtered? Therefore, our Shepherd wants to kill us?
@ Nancy: Good comment.
It seems to me that the shepherd/sheep metaphor says a lot more about Christ than it does about his “flock”. Challies reads way more into the passage than what is there. And it also seems a little ironic that he is turning the passage into something about me rather than something about God. Isn’t that a major sin in the YRR world?
Jeff S wrote:
The acknowledgment of sin is important. However, even more important, is the acknowledgement that we can never know all of our sin and the fact that we all know we have some sins and choose not to deal with them. Also, i is very difficult, and often impossible, to fully understand our motives. Ad my pastor says, “Even on my best days, my motives are mixed. ” This is not cause for beating ourselves up but cause for finding peace in Jesus.
That is why we need the grace of Jesus. We are free from the chronic focus on how bad we all are and can rejoice in our positional holiness which is given to us by Jesus.
We are free! And loved!
Kristin wrote:
Tim Challies does this. As do many others in the pulpit. But, it is applied in a weird way. They may be dumb but they are the best of the dumb. And they are in charge.
Jeff S wrote:
Yep!
@ Headless Unicorn Guy: I have been waiting for you to chime in with Animal Farm quotes.
Brian wrote:
I believe that they think by diminishing man, they are glorifying God.
I’m just going to assume that Challies was writing a memo to self with his sheep post đ
@ Jeff S:
“Yes, I agree that all have fallen short of the Glory of God and deserve judgement. But should our response to that truth to constantly dwell on our sin?” Jeff S.
Isn’t “fallen short of the glory of God and deserve judgement” a positional statement referring to before we are in Christ? I believe it is and I also believe that God doesn’t continue to view those who belong to him (believers) in this way. Jesus doesn’t demean us or put us down, before or after turning to him. There are many statements where God says he remembers our sin no more. Jesus/God treats mankind before and after new birth much better and more dignified than most preachers I observe. Yes, we still live in our humanity (I’m pretty sure God knows this) and fall short. As believers, we take take those issues to Jesus and find comfort, strength, hope, and peace to change. We don’t find condemnation and hopelessness.
You have stumbled onto something I caught in sermons recently presented at my old church. They gave a few sermons about sheep and the elder board being the shepherds. I also think they want to control information flow as well by putting fences up on who you can read for example. If it isn't from the neo reformed vatican it is off limits. They are setting up an authoritarian control structure and the sheep have tons of books to read that keep them in fold.
I jumped off the ride when I noticed this stuff creeping in slowly at my old church. I am pretty sure my youth pastor as a kid was heavy into the shepherding movement in the 70s and 80s. I noticed similarities from youth group days and saw red. I was not going to get burned again by this system. My heart goes out to those who are wired like me and flee the whole thing.
@ dee:
God doesn’t do this though. It’s like calling/twisting what is good into evil and calling evil–good.
I hear it alot. The question becomes how can believers be encouraged about who they are in Christ when these are the types of things they hear from pulpits all the time?
SeanR wrote:
SeanR wrote:
You are a wise man! So many believe that the can stay and change the system. Such change is a most rare occurrence. We, too, have left churches in which the pastor as daddy and shepherd and the attendee as sheep and child, start to be promoted. It is our opinion that the quicker you get out, the less stress you will have. Welcome to the club!
Bridget wrote:
You either sublimate your initial objections and play the game or you leave. I do not believe changing the system is an option. Once such men are in charge, they will not leave. Can I say a “certain family of churches?”
dee wrote:
“The rule of The Party is Forever.”
— Comrade O’Brian, Inner Party, Airstrip One, Oceania, Nineteen Eighty-Four
dee wrote:
This is The Zero-Sum Game, where the only way to win is to make the other guy lose, where the only way to glorify Me is to Cut You Down.
Like God is some sort of cosmic Lord Farquar from Shrek, decreeing that everyone else in his realm shall have their legs cut off so nobody can ever be taller than him.
dee wrote:
Actually, I’m more familiar with Nineteen Eighty-Four than I am with Animal Farm, but both apply here. For the Ring of POWER has a Will of its own.
There are smart sheep and dumb sheep, good shepherds and bad ones.
dee wrote:
That IS the end stage of the Shepherding Movement. When the Anointed Shepherds’ control over the Sheeple is Absolute, why not slaughter the Sheeple? You’re The Anointed Shepherd, You Have the POWER. (And if you’re Calvinist, God Wills It.)
First, they forget that they are sheep as well. Jesus is the Shepherd of us all.
Second, they seem overly interested in extending (too far) the sheep analogy. Not a peep about the shepherd analogy. Shepherds were very low on the social ladder in Jesus’ day. They probably smelled. Spent a lot of time outdoors in primitive conditions, often with little company. Uneducated, and not highly valued. I live in an agricultural area and much of this still holds today. The husband of one of our friends used to be a shepherd. Lived in a trailer out in the boonies for weeks and months at a time. Definitely not glamorous.
People obsessed with their own power and status frequently lose the capacity for introspection, to their own and others’ detriment.
Bridget wrote:
Isn’t the suffering and misery humankind brings upon itself enough? Why does there need to be further punishment? This is another one of the Western/Augustinian theological shticks I no longer sign on to.
I think it needs to be said that even if the metaphor functions as he intends it…even if, for the sake of argument, we are dumb and defenseless and can’t discern well…the shepherd in the metaphor is God, not church leaders. Church leaders are also sheep. We are ALL sheep together. So it’s still pointless to place church leaders on some pedestal where supposedly they know so much better than the average church-goer.
To be fair, I don’t know if this is what Challies was trying to argue for, because I haven’t read the original post. I’m just saying, lest anyone hop gleefully on the bandwagon of dumb sheep in hopes of getting church members to follow them, that analogy will not help them.
Did anyone else notice that the sheep followed their LEADER (a fellow sheep) off the cliff. Meaning, the most well respected among the sheep made a mistake and ended up killing himself and others. They all unquestioningly followed. So the moral of the story here is: Question your leaders! After all, they are only well respected sheep. How did he miss the fact that the sheep Leader was the one who caused the problem in the first place.
I also question the assertion that sheep are the dumbest animals in the world. The least he could have done was Google that (sheep don’t come up). Even without Googling anything I know that reptiles are known for having small brains and short memories – which it would seem would effect intelligence if not at least decision making skills.
The “dumb sheep” metaphor is healthy only if the person using profoundly knows himself to be a “dumb sheep.” (I use the male pronoun deliberately here, as I suspect it’s mainly men who are using the metaphor.)
@ ES:
Excellent comment! Could it be that this is playing out in right before our eyes?
@ Muff Potter:
Yes it is enough, Muff. Which is why I don’t believe that God causes pain or harm to whip us into shape. Judgment and punishment are two different things. We all make judgments every day about all kinds if things; sometimes without realizing we are judging. And it seems there are different ways that Jesus judges who are his and who aren’t. As Dee says, that’s above my pay grade.
Randy Thompson wrote:
Welcome to TWW. Question: when does a metaphor go beyond its intended boundaries? As you know, sheep will eventually be slaughtered and used for food. It is an inevitable outcome of the life of a sheep. Yet, I rarely hear that being used.
Tim Challies did admit to being a dumb sheep. However, in some circles, certain people are held up as less dumb than others.
From what I can tell, the sheep metaphor was never used as a means of beating down the sheep. The picture being conveyed appears to be a loving shepherd who will run after even one sheep that has gone astray.
With today’s emphasis on ill-defined church discipline, it concerns me that leaders have reverted to the sheep metaphor of the shepherding movement in the 1970s which was highly abusive and leader centric.
ES wrote:
Agreed.
sad observer wrote:
Good point.
I have not had time to read comments so if this has been mentioned, forgive me.
They miss the meaning of the sheep metaphor. In that time and place sheep were very valuable. They were not only a source of a staple food but clothing!~ Too main staples of life in those times. So it is not about a sheep’s IQ or disposition but their value in life.
dee wrote:
I choked on my lunch when I read that one! Good one!!!!
Oh, and sheared, too, several times. I wonder how that fits in their metaphor? Shearing the sheep? Hee Hee
Bridget wrote:
Yes, and I agree.
In fact, Paul says this in Romans 7:20 (ESV): “Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.”
Notice that he is NOT the sin- the sin is something he battles with. His identity is in Christ.
So I would say not only are we not viewed in our fallen state, we are new creations that are no longer in that fallen state. It’s not just a superficial change. We continue to battle with the flesh, but we are NOT the flesh. We have a new kind of life now.
When I talk about saying “all have fallen”, indeed I mean my past. Right now, I’m not a fallen person, but one who battles with my sin. There’s a big difference.
This is why I’m completely opposed to using the words “Total Depravity” in reference to believers. In fact, I did not know that people did this until very recently. There was a long debate about it under an article on TGC a few months back. I was very surprised, but I was glad there were folks supporting the position that it is wrong to call believers “Totally Depraved”.
Anon 1 wrote:
Yes. As in the parable of the shepherd looking for one lost sheep.
Anon 1 wrote:
What a great reminder. That's not something I have ever heard mentioned by the Neo-Cals.
Deb – thanks so very much for all the wonderful videos of intelligent sheep! They are nifty animals, and not at all “stupid.” I think we tend to confuse herd behavior (when frightened, for example) with lack of intelligence, when in reality, that’s only one aspect of their makeup and is – partly, at least – a social thing with all herd animals.
A couple of years ago a small flock of venturesome sheep somehow got past the fence near where I live, and were happily lolloping along my street, stopping to taste various lawns and shrubs. They seemed to have a leader and another sheep that was vying for the position; as well as what I can only call scouts and “watch sheep.” the latter stayed on the perimeter of the small flock; alert and watching out for any sign of trouble or pursuit. The scouts (which might just have been bolder animals) would drift off a bit from the flock and try other lawns, and other food, while always staying reasonable close to the flock.
I had to call the township police, who had (I think) never been around sheep before and had trouble getting them to willingly go home.
All of this was great fun to watch, and certainly a lesson for me re. how sheep work together (not to mention showing how intelligent they are!)
cheers,
numo
err, “stopping to taste the grass and shrubs in various yards,” or something along those lines.
@ Jeff S:
A friend of ours puts it this way: Did Jesus have a sinful nature? Clearly not, and the Biblescriptures say that we have been crucified with him and it is no longer we who live but he lives in us. And you could easily go on. What Jesus did say was (famously) “the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak”.
Certain species of preacher do, as several of you have noted, persist in the idea that the members of “their” churches need rigorous control because they must constantly be restrained from following their desire to run off into sin. Said preachers are merely advertising the fact that their recruiting methods are carnal and don’t produce real believers. (No membership classes or teaching can replace the Holy Spirit.)
For that matter, the tendency of sheep to “flock” goes a long way towards explaining the size of some megachurches. And the odd gigachurch.
I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. (John 15:5, ESV)
Tim Challies is trying to gain a better appreciation of why God saw fit to tell us we are sheep. I”m still working on the whole “branch” thing. (Some call me a stick in the mud.) I’m thinking of moving up and start contemplating the sheep metaphor. I’m thinking a dumb sheep is better than a branch.:)
Apologies for the lame humor. I hope ewe still let me comment in the future!
Well, Iâm not an â….istaâ anything so I cannot speak for them. I hold firmly to the 5 Solaâs and Reformed Theology, though.
Why do I like/need/benefit from thinking of myself as a sheep? Mostly because of this verse :
Matthew 9:36
Because I am distressed, dispirited, weary, worn out, harassed and helpless on my own…and HE came and got me. And He comes and pulls me back every time I wander off. And I know because of His compassion, He wonât let me go.
“New American Standard Bible
Seeing the people, He felt compassion for them, because they were distressed and dispirited like sheep without a shepherd.”
“Holman Christian Standard Bible
When He saw the crowds, He felt compassion for them, because they were weary and worn out, like sheep without a shepherd.”
“English Standard Version
When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.”
@ Sad:
I think the question is, do you think of yourself as a DUMB sheep? Obviously we all think of ourselves as sheep. Does being a sheep imply stupidity, though?
(I also am Reformed and hold to the 5 Solas)
BTW Dee, it might be worth putting the title of this post in quotes, as it IS a little ambiguous. That is, it could easily be read that you are saying the “Sheep Metaphor” is dumb instead of the “Dumb Sheep” Metaphor. In fact, I read it that way and it took a little time for me to figure out that “dumb” was not about the metaphor but about the sheep.
Jeff S wrote:
Depends on the definition of “DUMB”! đ Have I convinced myself a thousand times in the last 40 years that my plan was better than God’s plan? Have I reaped bad consequences from this yet continued to do it? Have I convinced myself that I was the one who could determine what makes me happy rather than realize that all the longings I have ever had or ever will have are for something (fellowship with God) that transcends temporal pleasures?
I have to answer YES to all of those questions. I don’t know what else to call that other than “not very smart” đ
@ Sad:
Ok, so follow up questions: do you think that the concept of “dumb” is implied when the metaphore of “sheep” is used in scripture?
If I don’t consider myself dumb, or even “not very smart”, for all those things that you listed, what does that say about me?
I struggle and sin, but I don’t think that makes me dumb. I think that’s part of the process of fighting against the flesh. I am an image barer of God, which means that God has endowed me with a lot of great qualities. I am a redeemed child of the Father, which means I am beloved and treasured. Would the God who invites me to call him “abba” call me “dumb”? I don’t think so- and if he would not, by what right would I call myself dumb?
My understanding of the sheep analogy in the Bible is that is how God views us, and it is not meant to be a way that preachers view believers, or not in a condescending way.
Shepherds are to care for the sheep, nor lord authority over them with the idea that sheep are too moronic to make their own decisions about anything.
Are preachers referred to as Shepherds in the Bible? I know that Christ is in the New Testament.
This is off topic. I’m a little confused by this. I only skimmed it, so maybe I’m missing something, but Driscoll seems to be arguing that a church’s numbers mean nothing (or maybe the converse, he’s saying it’s okay for churches to brag about how many members they have).
No wonder I’m confused: Driscoll says he pulled his church off some list, but then still goes on to argue that counting is still important (it’s a mixed message, IMO):
However, on a radio show with British host Brierly (how I spelled that right) a year or more ago, Driscoll tried to prove his views or manner of preaching was superior to that of the British because Driscoll was saying that his church draws more people, especially young males, than British churches do.
It’s All About The Numbers?, by Driscoll
Driscoll gets into this thing about how “God counts.” Yes, God does, but the Bible also contains a few passages where God specifically tells the Israelites not to count their population (1 Chronicles 21:1-8, 2 Samuel 24:1).
There is also a story where God tells some guy (Gideon?) to decrease the number of men in his army. Unless I missed it, Driscoll doesn’t mention that part either.
He also gets into the “King, Prophet and Priest” rhetoric in the same page.
I also saw something on the internet about a week ago that Driscoll’s church has its own rock album label and the first album under the label was just released.
Jeff S wrote:
I don’t think it’s “DUMB” as relates to raw intelligence, i.e. the ability to learn worldly concepts. It’s a whole different category. I believe that we are by nature, on our own, incapable of seeking that which is important. We prioritize and chase after everything but that which really matters. Blind to our blindness.
You don’t have to call yourself “dumb”. Go back to Matthew 9:36….Jesus called us lost without Him. It does not mean stupid; it means incapable of seeing the big picture. But, He has compassion…He knows our frame, He knows we are but dust.
@ Sad:
But I’m NOT without him. I agree with you about what we are able to do by nature on our own. But as a regenerate believer, this has changed. I’ve been given a new nature and I am no longer on my own. I am with Jesus now, and that changes everything.
What I don’t care for is the constant running down of the believer’s identity, when his or her identity is in Christ. We still sin, and now that we are believers we are truly capable of grieving over that sin. We are no longer blind to it as we were without Christ.
We are sheep, yes- very much. We are sheep who love our Shepard, who know our need for him, and grieve when we lose our way and need rescuing.
I think the issue for me here is that our identity as “sheep” is not about who we were as the lost, but who we are in faith. And that is decidedly not a negative idea as some teachers are making it. It is very positive and draws the picture not of our capabilities, but how we are cared for by our Heavenly Father.
More funny sheep:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcE5aDTszrY
Is this what life at a megachurch is like?
@ Bridget:
Agreed. It really is above human pay grade no matter how much of the Bible one tries to spin. I believe the prophet Daniel. I will go down to Sheol where the dead return to dust & know nothing. I will be awakened one day to be judged. What my fate is from there I know not.
Jeff S wrote:
Jeff,
I understand what you mean about running down the believer’s identity. This should never be done in the context of an under-shepherd (pastor, elder) pointing fingers in an accusatory manner. It should be self examination. I like Martin Luther’s #1 of his 95 theses :
“When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said “Repent”, He called for the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.”
I can’t make sense of the world and of myself without this. I’m being formed minute by minute into the likeness of Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the blood bought Pardon obtained for me by Jesus. I appropriate this by acknowledging as I journey on, where it is that I stumble. Each act of acknowledging frees me more and more from my natural self.
@ Bridget:
Jesus said people who believe in Him He considers to be His friends.
“I no longer call you slaves, because a master doesn’t confide in his slaves. Now you are my friends, since I have told you everything the Father told me.” (John 15:15)
I remember the day I read my former pastors’ words regarding a conversation he had with another pastor:
“âŚwe swapped sheepbite stories”
I still have the marks to prove it! LOL
Heather wrote:
“pastor’s”…. There were other pastor/elders involved in the events but only one said this. Though, apart from the sin of speaking up, my other sins were “tone” and spelling some individual words in emails in caps, which I did for emphasis. I was told I was “shouting” at them….. Make me bleating mad to think about it!
Jeff S wrote:
Blind to our sinful state or blind to our specific sin. I think all of us are blind to specific sins at times.
@ dee:
I definitely agree we are blind to some sins.
I think pre-conversation we are incapable of understanding sin for what it is. Even if we have a concept of “moral wrong”, we do not agree with God about the true nature of our sin. I think as believers we are finally capable of understanding our sin, seeing it as God sees it, and repenting. I think part of the sanctification process is learning to see our sins more clearly so we are blind to less and less.
Wisdomchaser wrote:
This is good!
Brian wrote:
No no. It’s perfectly fine to talk about yourself as long as you only say bad things.
I would like to throw something out there and see who bites and what people say. Is it possible that many in the YRR do not even know what a metaphor is? Is it possible that they take such a literal interpretation with the Bible that it leaves out methaphors completely? I mean consider….the Bible is crock full of metaphors to include the millstone, to plucking out your eye, to cutting off your hand, etc… (I could go on…but I’ll stop). Is it possible that many YRR take the Bible so seriously that they can feel threatened. For example…tell someone in the YRR to go put a millstone around their neck and jump in the sea, that means they SHOULD commit suicide, when in reality you are not taking a literal interpretation at all.
Do you guys get what I am getting at?
Sheep look pretty good in Mt 25:31-46. Jesus calls them “righteous,” mentions their good works toward the sick and hungry, etc., and invites them to inherit the Kingdom. With the goats, it’s a different story.
Eagle wrote:
most of the ones I’ve been around definitely know what a metaphor is (they aren’t dumb). They just mistakenly milk the aspects of those metaphors that support the traditions of man.
When I was a kid, my dad always like to have sheep around. We’d corral them into a pen in the barn to catch them one by one and stand them up on their butt to make them ready for the shearer. My friend and I as teens would take turns doing the ‘manly’ act of grabbing them. There happened to be a single fence post buried in the ground a mere six inches or so away from the concrete barn wall and SOME of the sheep (the young YRR ones) would try to leap through the opening, only to get a concussion when their heads wouldn’t fit all the way through. It was pretty comical.
That same friend when he was younger (maybe 12) got nailed by a ram after I told him to stand still and just watch the ram scratch the ground and back up. He learned quickly to run instead of standing there. We thought for sure he’d not be able to produce children from his bruised loins, but currently has 5!
Eagle, yes, I think you’re onto something. Not universally, of course, there are some intelligent people out there (I hope)
But I have seen it here in Sydney, a deep suspicion of the arts, because they’re not propositional, and a complete inability to understand any kind of metaphorical or symbolic language. So, when it’s in the Bible and therefore can’t be chucked out, it’s approached as a statement of fact. The idea that a metaphor may be true for the point of comparison, but can’t be applied beyond that seems to be foreign to some people’s thinking
Eagle wrote:
Eagle, They believe the metaphors when it is convenient. A perfect example is Romans 3 where Psalm 51 is being quoted. They take that literally but not ALL of Psalm 51. Are we are washed white as snow with hyssop? Why not? In Psalm 52, it talks about the “righteous will fear”. So are there no righteous or was he talking about his enemies?
Nor do they take ALL of Psalms literally but the ones that affirm their determinist god stance. Such as David saying he was born in sin and in sin did his mother conceive him. This is supposed to mean we are born guilty for Adam’s sin. Yet the Psalms have some really scary lines about beating babies of your enemy’s heads against rocks.
The Psalms are poetry of man talking to God in song. It is chocked full of metaphorical language.
I would think they would always greet each other with a Holy Kiss if they are so literal about it all. :o)
As you know the ESV is the most “literal” translation and the result was some very funny translations that had to be fixed. Mark Strauss did a funny paper on them.
Just my 2c for a great question.
@ Lynne T:
Lynne, I have seen that, too. And it really causes people to miss enjoying so much beauty out there that does not have a plastic fish stamped on it
@ TW:
Thanks for the laugh. Humor is good medicine for the maladies plaguing the church.
I agree that metaphors can be pushed to extreme and even dangerous examples. I think Tim Challies overegged the pudding on this one. Sometimes the continual return to one metaphor suggests to me that the writer has a bit of a bee in their bonnet.
It seems to me also (in agreement with some early posters) that in the sheep analogies, primarily God, or Jesus, is the (good) shepherd, and humans are the sheep. In the Old Testament there is also a lot of talk in the prophets (Ezekiel, Zechariah?) of bad shepherds (presumably bad religious or political leaders?) whom God will replace. In Ps. 79 the Bible talks of God raising David from being a shepherd (agricultural) to being the shepherd of his people – could this be a picture of Christ? (In Ez.34 God talks about how He will raise up “my servant David” as the one shepherd).
1 Pet. 5:1-5 talks about elders being shepherds, but qualifies it and also talks about the manifestation of the Chief Shepherd. Interestingly, Peter seems to be addressing a plurality of leaders here. However as I don’t have access to the original Greek I’m not sure whether this is a commendation of congregational leadership as opposed to one-man leadership.
Eagle and Lynne, I see what you mean. I think some people who are either very young in the faith and told the Bible is to be taken “literally”, or who are by personality very extreme, might be in danger of taking a metaphor to be not a metaphor but a literal statement. As C S Lewis once said, it would be like saying that when Christ told us to be like doves we should be laying eggs.
To be fair, I’ve also encountered the other extreme where someone has tried to understand everything in the “spiritual” sense, sometimes meaning that the text was made to fit whatever happy thoughts the thinker had at that point in time. The danger in that approach is that the end result can stand in apparently total opposition to what the original text said.
Hester wrote:
Loved it!
Eagle
I definitely think you are onto something. đ
Eagle wrote:
Now that would make for an interesting church, wouldn’t it? “Oh, no-Pastor Smith forgot he was lefty and sliced off the wrong hand.”
TW wrote:
Wait, wait-branches come from trees. Trees have bark and trees are good.
Psalm 1
That person is like a tree planted by streams of water,
which yields its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not witherâ
whatever they do prospers.
A dog(preferably pugs) also has a bark. Therefore, calling someone a dog is truly a compliment.
I can do this metaphor thing. It’s fun! The New Gospel Metaphor Bible by Deebs.
I think I need some sleep.
@ TW:One final thought before bedtime….
Since we are fleshing out the dumb sheep metaphor, let’s turn it on its head and flesh out the serial killer shepherd. Shepherds will eventually lead the sheep to the slaughter. Therefore, one must logically assume that shepherds will start picking off the flock. Therefore, shouldn’t all sheep should carry weapons of self defense like tasers, pepper spray, etc. ?
I have been watching too much of that new Stephen King series “Under the Dome.”
Dumb sheep, eh? Baaaa! Humbug!
Eagle and others concerning the metaphor thing:
As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one…
Has anybody else besides me considered this to be hyperbolic sarcasm on the part of its writer instead of literal fact? I mean after all, if we only inherit a ‘sin nature’ and nothing of the divine, how can Romans 2:12-16 also be true?
Muff Potter wrote:
Several people in Scripture are referred to as righteous,
Gen 6:9 This is the account of Noah and his family. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time,
Gen 7:1, The Lord then said to Noah, âGo into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation.
Ezekiel 14:14 “…declares the Sovereign Lord, even if Noah, Daniel and Job were in it, they could save neither son nor daughter. They would save only themselves by their righteousness.”
Oh boy!!
đ
Pity CJ won’t be there! But this is how Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, etc… can successfully launch the next T4G.
http://crowdsondemand.com/
Imagine! đ You’re own crowd around the book table buying your books! The spiritual equivalent of Anthony Weiner’s mayoral campaign!! đ
@ Eagle:
Oh my! That was really funny!
Who here can see CJ Mahaney in a political advertisement like this đ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87KDfa5sc80
Muff Potter wrote:
Romans 2:12-16 is an argument that all people are aware of the moral aspects of the law, even the gentiles. The gentiles show awareness of the law because sometimes they DO keep it. That does not make them righteous, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
I also don’t think it’s true to say that we inherit nothing of the divine. I think we all agree that even those who are not Christians still have the image of God imprinted on them; we are all image bearers of God, even though that image has been corrupted in those who are unbelievers. It has not been destroyed or removed- just corrupted.
@ Eagle:
I don’t think it was a metaphor when Jesus said Child abusers are better off dead (millstone and into the sea). I think he was doing his regular “shake up the Pharisees” comments, I have no doubt many will be going to God saying “I am a Christian” and he will be saying “I don’t know you” not in random Calvinista way, but in a “I did this and told you to follow, you went off and did terrible things to children yet claimed to follow or ‘know’ me” way. In other words, Jesus is promising a shake up when judgement comes. It isn’t enough to be a Biblical law abider like the Pharisees, you need to have compassion on weaker, less privileged, or societally rejected people, without it, you can’t claim to ‘know’ (or follow) Jesus. To a Pharisee, being rejected by God would have been worthy of suicide, if they had only realized who Jesus was, that likely would have been their response. They loved the God they had created (full of rules and liking them best as the chosen ones), but couldn’t see the real God in front of them, because he liked those they considered less blessed.
As for the poking out of the eyes parts, I can think of certain criminals that could benefit from removal of certain organs, but I digress.
Regarding Calvinistas, I don’t know. I wouldn’t create a blanket statement that about them, some aren’t that obtuse (Keller comes to mind), I often wonder about Piper, he is very sure that every weather event is a sign from God, so he might be a candidate, but Challis is, as someone mentioned before, a wannabe. He isn’t one of the “in” group of the Gospel Coalition, so he may be trying too hard, or really just missing things that are obvious to everyone else. Mahaney (and possibly Mohler) are essentially (allegedly) sociopaths who just use the Bible to further their own power position these days – so they use whatever works, and couldn’t care less what it says (IMO). In other words, wolves in sheep’s clothing, not literalists, but fakes. As for the Jareds, Kevins, Trevins and that guy with the name I can’t spell or remember, who made recent waves writing about gag reflexes, I don’t think they got to those levels of leadership and preaching without some knowledge of what a metaphor is.
I find the group writing for the ‘Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’ to be more like you suggested – Owen Stachan is clueless, I can actually give examples if his post isn’t down now. Piper is a member (a founding member) and some of the other guys have said things so silly they are in running competition against Mark Driscoll for easiest Christian guy to make fun of on the web (things like Sesame street is subverting the natural order of creation by letting Elmo play with a doll, men who stay at home are Man-fails, etc.) Actually, I think they were all trained by Driscoll’s “lovely” videos on YouTube TM, as they were up on the web first.
@ Muff Potter:
Muff, seems to me it is man talking to God about his enemies.
@ dee:
Sir Bedevere: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
Peasant 1: Are there? Oh well, tell us.
Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
Peasant 1: Burn them.
Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn, apart from witches?
Peasant 1: More witches.
Peasant 2: Wood.
Sir Bedevere: Good. Now, why do witches burn?
Peasant 3: …because they’re made of… wood?
Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether she is made of wood?
Peasant 1: Build a bridge out of her.
Sir Bedevere: But can you not also build bridges out of stone?
Peasant 1: Oh yeah.
Sir Bedevere: Does wood sink in water?
Peasant 1: No, no, it floats!… It floats! Throw her into the pond!
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?
Peasant 1: Bread.
Peasant 2: Apples.
Peasant 3: Very small rocks.
Peasant 1: Cider.
Peasant 2: Gravy.
Peasant 3: Cherries.
Peasant 1: Mud.
Peasant 2: Churches.
Peasant 3: Lead! Lead!
King Arthur: A Duck.
Sir Bedevere: …Exactly. So, logically…
Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck… she’s made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore…
Peasant 2: …A witch!
@ Val:
I honestly think Piper is the real deal in terms of earnestly trying to serve God. I could be optimistic and wrong, but my impression is that his lofty position in the Christian community has deceived him. That he is so distanced from the effects of his teaching that he comes to nice little theological conclusions that really damage people. I really wish we could get him to go work in a woman’s shelter for a month solid and see what would happen- if he would re-evaluate the effects of some of his views that simply are not loving when applied.
And when I say this, it’s no small thing. No single popular teacher has done more damage to me personally than Piper, because it was his work and teaching on divorce that my church used to crush me. But I see a consistency in his writing and teaching that seems earnest- it doesn’t appear to me that he is making it up as he goes along to try and justify himself. It’s more like he’s started from a very faulty premise and followed it through systematically. I can’t fault him for the latter, but I do fault him for not understanding how damaging and unloving his premise is.
My impression of Jared Wilson is quite good though. I like a lot of the things he has to say. Maybe I’ve missed something, but thus far he doesn’t seem like one of the bad guys.
I think the readers of this blog should start a “watch for wolves” movement. You know, the Bible talks about wolves killing the sheep, and we should be on the watch for them! It’s Biblical! We could have seminars expounding all of the virtues that pastors and leaders are supposed to have, and then write up an evaluation of some sort that can be handed out on Sunday morning to evaluate the sermon. We could send people into the homes of pastors, kind of like in a reality show, to document how their “private” lives stand up against the Biblical standard. We should have some kind of exposure of any of them that are not loving their wives, or properly training their children. I am sure someone could come up with a great name, like “wolf alert” or something of that nature. How would the pastors like THAT analogy????? hmmmmm?
Daisy/Muff
I think certain theologians might say that righteousness is imputed through Jesus Christ, even for those in the OT. I womder if righteousness is used in two ways. One, the righteousness of Jesus. The other is the seeking after the Lord and believiing in the midst of dark circumstances. Each of the men mentioned were sinners as well as great men of faith.
elastigirl
That was one of my favortie scenes from Monty Python. Coming from Salem, the home of Puritans and those who the Puritans calimed were witches, it is even funnier. That same logic is used to prove that people, who do not believe like certain Calvinistas, are not only “barely Christians” but even to be regarded with deep suspicion.
Jeff S wrote:
I do like some of what he says but you did miss something which was quite glaring. It played out on this blog.
I had never “replied” to a tweet before. Every new thing I try is approached with fear and trepidation. I waited for an opportunity to do so. It is important to realize that “reply” is built into the system of Twitter. One must expect to have one’s “tweets” vetted, and commented on, by followers. You can also “block” people from getting your tweets but it is easy to go around that block. I had not been blocked from Moore’s tweets. He had no reason to do so since, until this moment, I merely perused what he had to say.
Jared tweeted a sarcastic comment about the size of a singer (I think it was the Super Bowl or one of the games leading up to it.) By size, I mean he implied she was fat. So, I replied, for the first time, to a tweet. I suggested that this was not the way to demonstrate the gospel. He responded in a flip way to me and I once again urged him to reconsider.
Within 24 hours I got a warning from Twitter that they were going to shut me down because someone reported me for harassment. I was angry and asked Twitter to investigate the individual who, instead of responding thoughtfully to my concern (worded politely), acted like a wuss and cried to daddy that someone disagreed with him. They said they would be watchful for similar attempts from that person in the future. Jared acted just like Mark Driscoll-making fun of people and then retaliating when someone called him on it.
Nuff said…
justabeliever wrote:
I love the idea of a reality show. I wonder what viewers would have to say about the lifestyles of some of these guys.
@ dee:
My view is that in general when the scripture talks about “justice” and “righteousness”, it does so comparing individuals to one another, not God. That is, do we treat each other in a generally righteousness way and with justice? Using these terms regarding our position before God is a very different thing, as who of us would desire justice before God or claim righteousness?
In Romans Paul is making a very special distinction when he talks about our unrighteousness. It is a testimony to God’s perfection that any sin in us disqualifies us before him. We need to understand that so we see our need for repentance and dependence on Jesus; however, that does not negate a call to righteous living, even if we will never attain perfect righteousness this side of heaven.
@ dee:
Yes, I did miss that. A disappointing and hurtful encounter I would imagine.
dee wrote:
This would be the Reformed view (I’m not saying that only Reformed folks hold to it, just I know this is very much in the DNA of Reformed Theology). By contrast, the Dispensational view is that righteousness was attained differently in the OT vs the NT.
dee wrote:
There already is such a reality show about pastor’s lifestyles:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/preachers-of-la-trailer-teases-with-lavish-dramatic-lifestyles-of-six-mega-pastors-99070/
@ Jeff S: Not unexpected. That is how many of the YRR respond to any pushback.
@ justabeliever:
Hmm… OK, but I do also want to stand up for pastors in one important way. Many of them are very modestly-paid, unknown men (and occasionally women) who are neither driven nor ambitious, are hard-working and humble, and anything but controlling and abusive. Indeed, many of them have suffered what we would immediately recognise as abuse from influential but unaccountable members of their congregations. And like the dissenters thrown out of Park Fiscal’s bus because they had outlived their usefulness to Fiscal, they have nobody to confide in and no-one to speak for them.
But celebrity pastors, who produce material that by definition is intended for use outwith the local gatherings with whom they assemble, are a different story. How can you insist that people commit in writing to membership of no congregation but yours, whilst you yourself happily sit in positions of authority on boards and committees left, right and centre? How can you vilify “wandering sheep” whilst expecting believers the world over to supplement their spiritual diet by buying your books? How can you pontificate (I use the word advisedly) on matters of “secondary” doctrine, dismissing great swathes of the Church as either rebellious or naive, and be surprised and indignant when you are criticised?
As has been said before on this blog, much can be expected from those to whom much has been given.
Jeff S wrote:
I am not dipsy but have heard this before. Are you saying they do not believe it was by faith and obedience to God?
Jeff S wrote:
Like Citizen Robespierre and all the Comrades who fanboyed Karl Marx.
Like Calvin.
dee wrote:
Like any Talibani secure in their own Perfectly-Parsed Theology and their own Utter Righteousness. And it’s not even their fault — It Is All Predestined, In’shal’lah.
And start calling the YRR what they really are: Calvinjugend and Calvinsturmtruppen.
@ Victorious: There are far more than these guys who fly beneath the radar and still live awesome lives. One very important mega church pastor justifies his use of private jets by saying that his time is valuable and he must be about the kingdom work-visiting other pastors, attending conferences and living large in two very nice homes. Great cars and very expensive clothes as well. And they are NOT the health and wealth prosperity guys…well, supposedly….
@ Headless Unicorn Guy: đ
A loud Amen to that Nick.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Anon 1 wrote:
I might not have spoken exactly rightly, so please forgive if I stumble of words here. My experience as an adult Christian has been in Dispensational churches, yet I must admit I never learned it all that well.
I guess it’s more accurate to say that Dispensationalism teaches that God interacts with people different in different Dispensations. So in the OT, salvation was primarily about being a part of the nation of Israel more than personal faith. I’m not sure what Dispensationalists think about imputed righteousness. Whereas Reformed Theology teaches that people were saved in the OT exactly the same as the NT: by faith through Jesus Christ. In the OT they were looking forward with less knowledge and in the NT we look back having a better grasp of the content of the Gospel.
I *believe* that I’ve represented these two ideas correctly, but if any dispensationlist wants to jump in and correct me, I’d appreciate it.
The sheep/shephard metaphor when used by Jesus is appropriate, because when compared to a being like God it’s an apt comparison for humans.
When used by pastors it’s just the pot calling the kettle black.
Jeff S, Dee, and others,
We’ll just have to agree to disagree agreeably on sin and justification. I think it all has to do with the presuppositions one brings to the Biblical text. When starting points are different, it’s no wonder that ending points will also differ.
@ Jeff S:
I grew up in some dipsy churches (eschatology was never a big deal then before Tim Lahaye) but they always taught that people were saved in the OT the same way, by faith and obedience.
What I saw as the difference is the focus on the PROMISES of God to the Jews are always kept. God keeps His promises…. was the focus
Whereas the Reformed view seems to view the church as replacing Israel and now those promises are to the church.
In a way, God did have a different way of relating to us when He decided to come as a human and walk among us. But that might be splitting hairs a bit! :o)
dee wrote:
I remember that. That is pretty much all they know when it comes to dealing with disagreement: Censoring. And by doing this tried to drag you through the mud accusing you of harassment. That was his definition of harassment? He only made himself look petty and tyrannical.
It seems that sort of behavior gets a pass in that movement. I am not sure how they respect themselves or each other?
Anon 1 wrote:
Grew up in an era before LeHaye……aside from that I agree with your assestment of dispensational teachings.
Anon 1 wrote:
Or else that the promises to Israel were all fulfilled in Jesus himself (as per: All God’s promises are “yes” and “you betta believe it sister” in Christ). And now the Kingdom is offered to Jews and Gentiles alike.
NB: “amen” is a Chaldean word meaning “truly” or similar, which was in use in first-century Judea. For instance, when John quotes Jesus as saying “truly, truly I say to you”, the Greek actually says “Amen, amen, lego humin”. It’s high time we translated it like we translate the rest of the Greek NT.
And by the way, Tim LaHaye is not to be trusted. He has thick, dark, side-parted hair.
@ Anon 1:
I felt like I heard “people were saved by the law” in the OT a lot when I was in Dispensational churches, but that may have been misunderstanding not generally embraced.
My mentor in the faith was a huge Dispensationalist, but this is not something we actually talked about much (people being saved in the OT). We did talk a lot about the Jews rejecting Christ and how this changed Jesus ministry, and we also talked about end times a lot.
My last church the pastor talked about end times constantly, so this was one reason I went PCA. I knew that Reformed doesn’t have a prescribed end times view and it wouldn’t be the focus đ
As an aside, we were discussing this in my study group last night where various end times views were described. The leader of our group had asked our pastor what his view was and his answer was “be ready” :p
In the end, our pastor did follow up with a view, but he doesn’t feel very strongly about it and doesn’t even teach it to others.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
God made specific promise concerning land. I say that hoping you will understand I am NOT a Zionist. Was that promise erased because of Jesus Christ? Or was there a time limit on the promise? Was it retracted because of sin? I don’t know….I know certain groups have differing interpretations of that.
And there are even pagans in the lineage of Jesus (Rahab, Ruth) so we know that the Kingdom was also open to “Gentiles” in the OT.
Jeff S wrote:
I agree with your pastor. :o) And I have a hard time reading Revelation as anything but what was happening in that day and time. Reading the history of that day and time is a big clue.
There was huge money to be made off end times stuff. Conferences, books, etc. The bible was used as a huge code book with code breakers showing people how the Eastern wall would be opened, etc. It was ridiculous. Much like the whole comp focus with conferences, books, etc with their Talmudic rules.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Hee Hee. And then there is that creepy sex manual he wrote. As you know, Christians do not know how to have sex in marriage.
@ Anon 1:
There’s an important difference between “fulfilled” and “erased”. “Erased” suggests “I was going to do it, but now I’m not going to any more”. “Fulfilled” suggests “I said I’d do it, and now I have”. And if I have the promises of the Kingdom that last even after death, why would I still want a parcel of land in the middle east? Though oddly enough, there’s a fringe crackpot doctrine known as “British Israelism” that a few folk are infatuated with over there, basically speculating that the British (and, by extension, [white] Americans) are the descendants of the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel who went into Assyrian exile and are not really heard from again in the Biblescriptures. So there are actually people calling themselves “Christians” over here who are trying to cash in on some promises to Abraham that Paul, a Hebrew of Hebrews, considered to be worth excrement compared to what is freely on offer in Christ.
But I stray. I’m not sure the “Kingdom” was open to anyone, Jew or Gentile, in the OT because Jesus hadn’t appeared to announce it. A male gentile still had to be circumcised and a female one still had, more generally, to obey the Law to fit in as part of Israel.
@ Anon 1:
I didn’t know he’d written a manual. I just know about the hair, and it’s more than enough.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
P.S. Apologies for a confusing typo: that should have read “which are few people are infatuated with over HERE”. Though Herbert Armstrong and his Worldwide Church of God were heavily into it as well, I believe.
Jeff S wrote:
Mostly off-topic but mostly true story:
Dave to Mrs A A before wedding shower: “I want to to tell the bride something about love, like I Cor 13. Tell the other ladies your husband asked you to say it.”
Ladies at shower: “Piper says blah blah submit blah blah leadership…”
Mrs A A: “The bible says love never fails etc etc… My husband asked me to bring this.”
Pastor’s wife: “I’m sorry, Mrs A A, but I just have to share this great quote from Piper– blah blah respect blah blah headship…”
Daisy wrote:
And shortly before these, “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Gen 6:5
This is sometimes quoted to support Total Depravity without reference to righteous Noah. Also gets taken out of the Gen 6:1-4 context about Nephilim.
Reminds me of what a PCA pastor once told me when I queried him about whether he was a pre, post or amillennialist. He said he was a “pan” millennialist. What is that I asked? He said the belief that it will all pan out in the end!
Jeff S wrote:
JustSomeGuy wrote:
Could not agree with you more! đ
@ TW:
Haha- yes, I actually brought that one up last night. I’ve heard it attributed to Rick Warren.
dee wrote:
I think there already was such a show in the 80s or 90s, hosted by Robin Leach and called “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.” đ
But it looks like someone is coming close to that with-
‘Preachers of LA’ to Bring Church to Twitter; Producer Insists Reality Show Is Not ‘Salacious’
@ Victorious:
Sorry, I posted mine with the same story before seeing your post đ
Anon 1 wrote:
Oh, yeah, the sex manual that Mark Driscoll got a hold of, added his two cents (or $1.98) and made it even creepier in his Peasant Princess series.
@ Dave A A:
That is sad, Dave.
Western thought is so wired to use formulas rather than just resting in Christ and His definition of love. It is tragic.
@ TW:
@ Jeff S:
I first heard that from Ern Baxter, back in about 1990; he didn’t claim to have invented it, though.
There are updates in the case in Oklahoma where two church staffers assaulted some children, and while in the church. Other church staff, when they heard of the assaults, dragged their heels reporting them.
Ex-Victory Christian janitor pleads guilty to lewd proposal charge
Another headline:
“Victory Christian Center makes changes after 2012 rape scandal”
That page has a list of some of the changes they have put into place. One or two things on the list:
@ Daisy:
My link didn’t work right in that post. I’ll try again.
Ex-Victory Christian janitor pleads guilty to lewd proposal charge
@ Mara:
Mark Driscoll in a nutshell (at least in the first few panels):
http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=2473
T-Rex: Hello, friend! Do you have a moment to talk about God?
Dromiceiomimus: Nope
T: Perfect! Because I actually want to talk about cool sex stuff instead!
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Nick, I agree about the fulfilled part. Definitely. Promise kept.
As to kingdom being open, I was also thinking of converted Jews (cannot remember name for them now) like Cornelius, Lydia, etc who were worshiping the One True God when we are introduced to them in the NT
@ Dave A A:
Oh the irony . . .
@ Hester:
AHAHAHAHAHAH!
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I kind of figured it wasn’t REALLY something that Rick Warren came up with đ
Anon 1 wrote:
There were actually different categories. Gentiles who fully converted to Judaism were called Proselytes. Gentiles who didn’t want to “fully” convert, but who still worshipped the Lord, were called God-fearers. For a long time, secular scholars actually discounted the NT accounts of these God-fearers, arguing that there was no evidence for the category. Then archaeologists discovered inscriptions from a synagogue in Asia Minor (at Aphrodisias) that very clearly delineate between Jewish members, Proselyte members, and God-fearers.
@ Jeff S:
The figurative use of “pan out” which, of course, derives from gold panning, seems to date back to the 1860’s. At some point thereafter, somebody decided to apply it to the Millennium Wars. We may never know who!
Mr.H wrote:
That is the word I could not remember!
Mr.H wrote:
Wow. It is so amazing what has been discovered in the last 200 years or so to clarify things. I wonder if someone like Rahab would be considered a ‘God fearer’?
According to Charles Ryrie, the dispensationalist view of salvation is: The *basis* in every age is the death of Christ; the *requirement* in every age is faith; the *object* of faith in every age is God; the *content* of faith changes in various dispensations. So dispys believe that people in the OT were saved by faith in God, based on the death of Christ, but the content of their faith was not a conscious belief in Christ, though there were some foreshadowings of Jesus at the time, particularly in the sacrificial system of the Mosaic Law.
Covenant (including Reformed) people believe that the Church began in the OT, and that therefore, somehow, there was always conscious belief in Christ. Yes, Abraham and Moses may have had a glimpse of Him, but I doubt that the average Israelite did.
Deb wrote:
Deb,
The church I was in, and churches it closely associated with, frequently stressed being accountable to each other and to be obedient to the leaders. We were under their authority. And they told us that often. They never used the word shepherding, I suppose, because it too closely aligned with the charismatics. Charismatics were off the deep-end to the self-respecting Calvinists I knew. But the principles of the shepherding movement were strongly there.
My experience was such that anyone could haul you into the pastor’s study for an impromptu “fess up” and “straighten up” session if they thought you were not doing things right or for something you may have said. It happened to me completely unbeknownst to me what was happening. It happened to my husband after he pointed out a discrepancy but knowingly went into a meeting expecting a reasonable discussion. It eventually became apparent to me that the constant accountability push was but another tool of control for the clergy.
JeffB wrote:
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say, they believed in the content of the Gospel that was available to them? Certainly the foreshadowing signs pointing to a coming messiah were available to all Israelites.
I think I would agree with Jeff S on this one.
@ Jeff S:
I am under the impression that “they believed God and it was counted to them as righteousness.” Why would they need to have an understanding of Jesus at all when they interacted with God and believed in Him? Wouldn’t their faith in God be enough? Why would they have to understand the concept of a savior at all? This concept of a savior was prophesied and revealed over a long period of time and not to all generations of Israelites equally.
@ Jeff S: I have to (politely!) disagree; that is the reading put on it all by the writers of the Gospels and also by Paul – but it was anything but inevitable.
@ Bridget: Nor is it exactly clear – there’s a great deal of proof-texting going on in the NT, though it might not seem so at 1st blush. But a lot of the passages cited are pretty obscure at best, and at least one (early in Matthew) is a conflation of 2 different passages along with the addition of a passage that… appears not to exist. (yeah, I know – still true.)
@ numo:
Yes. And Jesus often didn’t quote the OT word for word, but more of a paraphrase — eek! Did he get it wrong? Was he correcting error? Did he want to bring a different meaning? Did translators get it wrong? Did translators purposely change it? Not so clear indeed . . .
@ Bridget: I think there is some confusion re. what they were quoting, partly because most people in Palestine were reading/quoting the Septuagint – check that out and a lot of the disparities start to make sense. (in other words, bibles in modern languages are showing quotes that are translations of originals, and *then* there’s the fact that the Greek used at that time – both in the Septuagint and later, in the NT – is not the same as modern Greek, and…)
Translation is a VERY hard thing to do well.
Mara wrote:
“Added his two cents” or “Indulged his Personal Kinks”?
Irish wrote:
Enlightened Self-Criticism before Commissars of The Party.
Exactly.
And of course, when failing the re -education, one was then labelled unteachable.
Sheep who think or ask questions are baaad.
@ numo:
Which is why it is so dangerous(IMHO)to read and apply scripture as if it is God speaking to me, face to face,in my language.
Lynne T wrote:
“When you point at something with your finger, the dog sniffs your finger. To a dog, a finger is a finger and that is that.”
— C.S.Lewis (from memory)