Pastors, Pulpits, & Tweets
Introduction
A trend that I have noticed among (supposedly) otherwise faithful and reformed pastors, is the their tendency to speak one way on social media - particularly twitter - and a different way when addressing their congregations from the pulpit. On twitter they will speak boldly about politics, list clearly what they think is right and wrong about this or that figure, make pointed, critical, and (sometimes) accurate comments about the prevailing culture, be sharp in their discourse about gender, sexuality, marriage roles, the need for a strong family, for Christ to rule, etc. However, when these same men get in the pulpit the only thing the congregation hears, or the only application ever given revolves around remembering their union with Christ, how politics and politicians aren’t the answer, or that we shouldn’t trust in horses or princes. This is a persistent and pernicious error among pastors and it must be remedied, either by the pastors’ course correction, or that of the congregation.
Stunted In Growth
The church isn’t meant to fix all the problems of the world. The institution of the church isn’t meant to run the public water plant, or service the hydro-electric dam, or issue permits for that dog show in the park. The church is only one sphere of authority, and it has the primary responsibility of word and sacrament. This responsibility, however, does function (at least in part) by instructing the governments of family and the state in how they should govern themselves according to the word of God; it has this job in spades. In other words, although the church is not the state or the family, it is nonetheless obligated to instruct those spheres as to how the Lord would have them govern and function. As men, women, and children are called to worship God and are reminded of his grandeur, they confess their sins, are consecrated by his word, and then commune with him at his table, and are then commissioned to go out to the world and subdue it, they are shown - by the church - how to fulfill their God given duties.
This means that when parishioners sit in the pews they actually need to hear how God wants them to live their lives. They need to hear how the Gospel is applicable to their lives - how it touches the ground. They actually need to hear what God thinks and says about taxation, marriage, cultural norms, who to vote for, how to run their businesses, what to do with their money and how to make a lot of it, how to deal with altercation, what to think about certain laws, how to have courage, what clothes to wear, where to live, how to prepare for death, how to be shrewd and strategic, action plans for making christendom, ways to discipline their children, how to disagree and still show honor, etc. The degree to which this is not proclaimed from the pulpit is the degree to which the church is stunted in her growth.
Eat The Meat
For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.
-Hebrews 5:12-6:2
This passage is particularly pungent to any sober reader. Without equivocation or qualification Paul says that the doctrine of Christ is “elementary.” This is the kind of passage that the purest among us don’t enjoy lingering long over. It’s also the kind of passage that will oft be misconstrued so as to not be so offensive to the pallet. In other words, this is the kind of Paulism that will be certain to get a lot of skivvies in a bunch.
But what does he mean? Matthew Henry is helpful here.
Here observe, In order to their growth, Christians must leave the principles of the doctrine of Christ. How must they leave them? They must not lose them, they must not despise them, they must not forget them. They must lay them up in their hearts, and lay them as the foundation of all their profession and expectation; but they must not rest and stay in them, they must not be always laying the foundation, they must go on, and build upon it. There must be a superstructure; for the foundation is laid on purpose to support the building.
In other words, if from the pulpit you only hear, week after week, about your union with Christ, and every passage of scripture that is preached culminates with “and Christ succeeded where you failed” or “and Christ did what you and I could never do” or “therefore we thank God for our union with Christ,” then you have a pastor feeding you milk from a big-boy sized rubber nipple.
Although all these things are true and must be said, when these are said as a matter of fact, and are said alone, and no application is made except to pray more, or come to morning and evening service, then we know that we are hearing a gnostic gospel. The church must mature and build.
What We Need
The problem isn’t that people aren’t aware of their union with Christ. It is in fact a good thing that the people know it and love it, as Matthew Henry said we must not lose, despise, or forget this. Unless one has a firm foundation then it will not be possible to do what else the Lord calls him or her to. And this is partly the problem. We’re living in a time when there is a dearth of practical, down-to-earth, concrete teaching on how to live out the reality of our union with Christ. On this point one needn’t look any farther than Matt Chandler’s “you’re not David” speech, linked here. Chandler claims to be concerned that too many people are writing themselves in the scripture as the hero instead of looking to God as the hero. Now, on this point there is some truth. But the broader evangelical world has not balanced this properly.
No, we are certainly not the hero of the story. We’re not the knight riding in bravery atop a stallion to rescue the distressing damsel from the wretched dragon. That would be Christ. But, the church is in the story - she is the damsel. She is the one for whom Christ fights the dragon. Because of who the church is, in fact, she matters a great deal. The church is, frankly, in the center of the story with Christ. How could it be any other way? We are his body, we are his bride. In Ephesians 5:28-29 Paul indicates the outright significance of these two images, saying,
“In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church”
And this is all predicated upon the notion that a husband ought to love his wife in the exact same way that Christ loves the church. There is no confusion here. The picture of being Christ’s body and bride means that we are not only at the center of his love, but also at the center of the action of the story. For what man’s body and bride do not take center stage with him in his life?
But this shows the deeper error of Chandler’s (et al) contention. It’s true. typologically we’re not David. David was a Christological shadow, giving God’s people a glimpse of the one who was to come. But this does not mean that we are to glean nothing from David. For, I doubt, anyone would say that we shouldn’t learn from his sins against the Lord. When the concept of adultery or confession of sin are addressed, where in scripture do people turn? Well, to David. We turn immediately to 2 Samuel 11, or Psalm 51 or 32 to learn how to confess sin, or the nature of sexual immorality. So, if we are to learn from his transgressions, and his sincerity in confession, are we not also to learn from his courage, loyalty, shrewdness, and his tactics? Should we also not be killing sin as he killed Goliath? To quote one well known reformer, John Owen, who famously wrote, “Be killing sin, or sin will be killing you.” Should we not also take a play from David’s book, rely upon God for strength, and then go to war with our flesh, subdue it, and teach others the same?
However, when men like Chandler et al say irrational and irresponsible things such as what he has, without proper clarity, it makes the church impotent and effeminate, and, given enough time, it will lose its ability to effectuate godly change in the world.
How We’re Called To Live
One major hurdle to overcome is the seemingly endless insistence on starting human history in Genesis 3. It seems that the church has gotten used to identifying herself with the fall of humanity, the expulsion from the garden, and the shame and destruction that sin, through Adam, brought to the world. However, it is not prudent to begin there, nor is it helpful, and in fact it has deleterious downstream effects. We need to start at the actual start.
God gave us a blue print for how to live when he created Adam and Eve, and that is the picture we ought to be looking at to determine what normal and glorious is. Rather than continually letting our countenance hang like Cain, we ought to raise it in joyful triumph like Christ. And this simple shift in mindset and outlook can make all the difference.
If we look at ourselves as victorious, serpent crushing, world overcoming, conquerors in Christ, rather than a weak, defeated, and humiliated people then we will see the church move beyond elementary principles, to that which is mature, and marvelous! Better yet, if we look at Christ as a conquering King and Lord who reigns currently over all realms then we can live in a way that reflects that reality. Rather than thinking evil will grow commensurate with the church over time, or that the spiritual is all that matters, we can actually be the conquerers that the Lord would have his church to be, in the world, and materialize the Kingdom of God on the earth, even in our day.
