Thanks very much for this post, clarity is very important here.

A couple of ccomments:

1) It would not seem methodologically correct to apply the second commandment to the New Testament in any sense.

2) It would not seem appropriate in particular to apply it to Jesus AS God (so the Annie Vallaton illustrations which do not depict Jesus’ face probably do not do so to be faithful to the second commandment, but for some other reason--probably just a reluctance to suggest that anything is known about how he looked).

3) It would seem inappropriate to apply it to any imagery other than an image of God himself. The two parts of the 2nd commandment would seem to be a hendyadis, so that the first part actually refers to anything that is actually WORSHIPED as God, rather than any THING.

So really, the 2nd commandment would seem not to have anything to say to any Christian in modern times, except to someone who might go against 2000 years of Christain tradition and attempt to depict God (Jehovah?) by means of an image.

Thanks Sandy. For me it was not totally off the track because it does relate to some stuff that has been written about ‘the Shack’!

Anyway, I read your link, very interesting. Personally, I think Jesus says, “if he repents” to demonstrate that there is no question that the brother has sinned (an issue you address in your Minister’s Letter).I still think the tone of the NT is that forgiveness is not contingent on anything, but freely given. As you said in your letter, “What Christ said and did on the cross - for those who’d rejected him - sets our standard for forgiveness… Colossians 3:14 says, “Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.”” There is no mention of repentance in these verses.

I fail to see forgiveness as a transaction, but as a gift.

You said that reconciliation and forgiveness are closely related, but your definition in your letter suggests that forgiveness is reconciliation (I think you said ‘restoration of relationship’ rather than the word reconciliation. I am afraid that this only confuses me more!

Lionel, as I may have said to you in person, I always liked the Annie Vallotton line drawings in the Good News Bible.

In illustrating the Gospels, she always pictured Jesus from behind, or from the side, or from a distance, so that she never drew his face, and we were never drawn into speculating about what he really looked like.

There was no focus put on his appearance, and so the pictures were perhaps helpful for the sort of situations you mentioned Lionel, e.g. with those struggling with literacy, but attention was not drawn away from the text, in the way that some more elaborate visual images can do (whether in stained glass or video)!

We’re getting off the original topic here, but on forgiveness and repentance I would point out Jesus’ words in Luke 17:3-4:

“If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.” [NIV, my emphasis]

I think this is pretty good evidence that one can draw a distinction between a forgiving spirit that is kind and gracious to an offender, and forgiveness as a completed transaction. You might prefer to call it reconciliation and they are closely related, but Jesus seems to say here that forgiving a person is contingent on them repenting.

I have written in this topic are in a Minister’s Letter at my church, following a sermon on the same matter from Colossians 3.

Hi Andrew,

This post reminded me of something I heard John Piper say once in a sermon on Psalm 23. He drew attention to the shift in the Psalm from speaking of God in the 3rd person (‘the LORD is my shepherd’, ’He restores my soul’ etc ...) to 2nd person (’I will fear no evil, for you are with me’ etc...) then back to 3rd person in the last verse.

He just made the simple observation that our theology (words about God) should always lead naturally into prayer (words to God)

Thanks for your last post Paul. I understand where you were coming from and that is cool.
Thanks Sandy for your thoughts. You said, “I would like to see how you integrate the need for repentance from false teaching into this conversation.” My guess is in the same way you would (more or less). Probably the real issue is whether or not I would see Young as a false teacher. I am not convinced (considering the communication trouble Paul and I have had!) that this is the best forum to talk about this. My main reason for posting a comment was because of Paul’s statement in his post, and he has explained what he meant clearly.
Finally, your statement, “But forgiveness - as a completed transaction - requires repentance” does have some issues regarding assurance. True repentance results in changed behaviour and direction, so has my behaviour and direction changed enough to complete the forgiveness transaction? I believe it would be helpful for you to differentiate between forgiveness and reconciliation. Forgiveness does not come with ‘buts’ attached (just ask Paul!). The consequence of someone who is forgiven, but continues in sin is that although forgiven, they will still face the consequences (yes - hell). I believe that this is what the rest of Matthew 18 is saying. No where (to my knowledge) does the Bible speak about forgiveness being revoked or contingent on behaviour. Rather, the behaviour change is the fruit of the forgiveness - freely given. Jesus told people their sins were forgiven without ‘buts’.
I’m signing off now! Thanks again Paul.

Dave, having followed your conversation with Paul, I would agree with Paul’s last post.

Forgiveness is always available through Christ and he is more willing to offer than we are to ask; indeed our apologies and repentance are also typically inadequate.

But forgiveness - as a completed transaction - requires repentance. Read on in Matthew 18.

I would like to see how you integrate the need for repentance from false teaching into this conversation.

The other thing is the NT is very clear that congregational elders/overseers, in particular those who teach, have an obligation to point out false teaching, and I think Paul has already demonstrated that but Acts 20:28-31, 1 Timothy 1:3ff; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:24-26; 3:16 & 4:2-4; along with Titus 1:9-16 spring to mind.

That’s what Paul has attempted to do. I think he did it with gentleness. He’s agreed that at one or two points he could have phrased things better.

Paul - I wasn’t sure at first where you were going, but I think I get the gist of it - no buts about it! (ahem!)

Hi All,

Thanks for your comments and thoughts. I guess part of my concern has grown out of the pastoral reality of engaging with people who really struggle to grasp some of the great truths of the Christian faith. I think in particular of those who have suffered significant abuse or who have come from a different world view (e.g. Roman Catholicism). For them, the BUT that we introduce so speaks to everything they know that it completely drowns out everything that came before the BUT. They need to hear the other side argued for without the BUT. (As always, knowing your people leads to the appropriate word at the appropriate time in the appropriate way).

Hi Dave,

I think that I finally understand (sorry for how long it has taken me to get there). The problem is the word ‘forgive’. I think that it is a confusing choice and ‘ignore’ would have been much better. Let me explain what I was trying to say.

I wanted to explain that the way to deal with arguments isn’t to add up the rights and wrongs and give a score out of 100. There are times where the nature of the argument means that the wrongs completely undo what is helpful and good. I was trying to point out that we can’t just say, because the book has good as well as bad, let’s ignore all the bad and praise the good.

I was not making any comment whatsoever about ‘forgiveness’ in the sense that the Bible uses the word for our relationship with God. I think that in the gospel forgiveness is always available. And I think that it is most definitely available for Young. I was not saying that forgiveness shouldn’t be offered or isn’t available. I was trying to say you can’t just ignore the error.

(BTW, I actually think that my usage is a possible English use of the word, it’s just that it unfortunately confused the issue. I wouldn’t use it again).

The last thing to say is that forgiveness and repentance go together. That is, I would dearly love Young to find the true forgiveness of God in Christ, but I think that repentance from his false teaching is required. The forgiveness of Christ is available for those who submit to his Lordship.

I hope that this clarifies a bit.

Paul, I understand your frustration and I agree that proclamation of truth with endless qualifications does often dull the truth into uncompelling neutrality ...(here we go) BUT ... I think getting rid of the BUT may be equally dangerous.

I remember hearing (reading?) Don Carson say that, in his opinion, one of the biggest sins in Evangelical preaching today is the sin of reductionism. That is, always giving half the truth as if it were the whole truth. Biblical truth seems to be far more balanced than that. Surely Christian maturity involves coming to terms with the balance of Scripture; holding both the truth and the BUT that qualifies it without losing the awe of either?

Hi Dianne

Good questions!

1. ‘The best gospel work’ could be anything—something you can do, a need that comes before you, an opportunity that you hear about. It could be something right where you live, or something on the other side of the world. (And by calling it ‘best’ I don’t mean to imply that if you choose the wrong one you’ve ended up with the ‘second best’!)

2. As for choosing which particular place to go to, see a little book I helped write called ‘Guidance and the Voice of God’. (I know you’ve read it!)

3. And as for washing up, I think I’d like to suggest that while washing up is an important and valuable job in any group, and the true servants are often found out there doing it, I’d like to see every Christian equipped to speak God’s word to other people (each in their own way according to their gift). That’s the gospel-growth work that we’re all fellow workers in, whether in speaking to each other, or to non-Christians.

TP

Hi Paul! Don’t stress, just wanted to say that it was a great post!

Also...I must confess I struggle with the term ‘cheap grace’. Mainly because grace is free (for us, not Jesus). I call what Phillip is referring to as ‘abused grace’ (which Paul warns against in Romans 6:15). I am not sure how we know who intends to abuse it - I guess only God knows that. We should simply follow Paul’s example and encourage everyone to respond appropriately to the grace that is freely given. Thanks for your thoughts! Dave

I wholeheartedly agree Paul that we do try to cover all our bases but it’s understandable at times because SO many people truths, make them cliches, and run them to their ultimate extreme and I guess extremity means we have to qualify at times.  I think it shows that we understand the extremities that our audience can take some truths to and counter them as we go along. 
One thing that I hear people say all the time is that God ‘hates the sin but loves the sinner’; although it’s true to one extent (Romans 5:6-8) it’s also true that God hates His enemies, even human ones and God’s people seem to be asked to follow suit to some extent (if I’ve read Psalm 139:21 properly).

Tony’s statement,” there is only one thing really worth doing in this world:being part of God’s plan to sum up all things in Christ Jesus”,reminds us that for each christian God has a plan for our life and always we should be seeking to do God’s will in all things.

For many christians the challenge to give their lives to full time ministry needs to be addressed and if one is convinced this is God’s will for them to pursue then Tony’s test could be given careful consideration.

For me, to be doing God’s will, whatever that may be ,for me, removes any kind of classification,superior or inferior.

Tony
Thanks for this challenging post.
Just have a couple of questions
1. How does one work out ‘the best gospel work’ to do in the first place?
2. If you are an evangelist how do you work out where to go?
3. If you are gifted at washing up after church how do you work out where to go?
thanks Di

Hi Phillip,

Thanks for your point. I agree whole heartedly. I think that there are all sorts of important but’s in the Bible, I just think that we need to be careful not to blunt a particular passage by always introducing the but. We miss out on some of the richness and wonder of God if we do.

I’d love to make a comment, BUT I’m too busy trying to find other ways in which we clarify the gospel to those we are trying to convince!

Hi again Paul. I appreciate your patience with my lack of clarity! I would prefer just to deal with your first query...one thing at a time might be helpful for us!

With regards to how Matthew 18 fits in, it explains the only way we can forgive, and the only reason that compels us to forgive. That being that God has forgiven us.

I find your statement unclear (“The fact that someone has many things right does not mean we must forgive them for their wrongs”) which is why I did not say ‘impossible’, and perhaps you can clarify for me how you can make that statement and hold a Biblical understanding of truth and grace. For me (with my current understanding) it raises the following issues.

*In the context of the statement who needs forgiveness? I assume Young? (You say ‘the Shack’ fits the bill).

*Who has he wronged? I assume us, or at least Christians with a weaker faith? Perhaps God?

*On what basis should he be forgiven? I assume (especially from the context) depending on him getting it all right, or not getting much right (after all, it appears to be because he has got a lot right that he should not be forgiven!).

My response to these issues is that the statement fails to understand truth and grace. It denies the truth that everyone needs to be forgiven, no matter how much they get right or wrong. It denies the truth that we have all hurt God and each other. It denies the truth that we are all weak in our faith, except for the faith that God gives us. It denies the truth that God is the judge.

Because the statement denies the truth, it also denies grace. It denies the grace that God is willing to forgive everyone. It denies the grace that Young is not forgiven because of his performance, but because of God’s ability to forgive. It denies the grace that we, as brothers should extend towards him, just as we have been shown grace (Matthew 18).

Perhaps you have a response to all of this which will explain to me what you meant, but in case you are going to tell me that you have carefully weighed Young and his words, and perhaps his lack of words (such as Josh mentioned regarding Young not saying it was just a story) and decided he is guilty and worthy of condemnation, then I would remind you of Romans 14, and other passages similar! As I said, it denies the truth that God is the judge! Your statement ultimately does not judge Young’s words, but Young himself.

Finally, you might say that all this does not mean that you have to read his book or recommend it. I agree. This of course leads us to your next queries, relating more to what Young has said that needed to be said etc. Perhaps we can get to this in a minute (or several days!), but for the moment, your readers have been given the message that if you make a theological statement in error (as judged by you), then forgiveness is not a certainty.

I hope this is clearer. Thanks again for your patience. Dave

Actually, the ‘but’ does come, it comes in chapter 6 from verse 1. 

That said, I agree with what you are saying, although I would add that sometimes, depending on the people to whom we are preaching, the ‘but’ is all important. 

I say this because I sense at the moment a real problem with cheap grace.  Peter Jensen gave an address recently in which he warned us not to offer cheap mercy to people when they have no intention of repenting. He has picked up on the same problem I am raising.

Your point, though, if I’ve understood it correctly, is very important.  In preaching it is important that we don’t blunt the point of a passage and the wonderful promises of grace- amen to that.  We can all be guilty of making a very challenging or deeply encouraging passage bland and benign because of all the qualifications we impose on the passage.  Thanks for raising this.

Hi John, & thanks for the thoughts.

And I certainly wasn’t disagreeing with you by commenting before. You just got me thinking, that’s all. (And that’s probably why I went off-topic from Tony’s original post.)

In my mind (and hopefully in action) I’ve been emphasising the family nature of church. I’m hoping that it undercuts some of the potential pitfalls of full-time/part-time language. I think it’s necessary at times to speak of f/t or p/t, but by remembering that God is our Father we remember that we are Christians all the time.

So Sundays, for example, aren’t about what job I do. They’re a family reunion.

One of the things we pastors can do to help is to ensure that in our MTS and other apprenticeship programs, we keep saying that for someone to do the apprenticeship and then (in fellowship) decide that the best thing to do is to return to the workforce in their old profession is a great success - not a failure!

Unless we have failed them by offering poor training, care and supervision, they will return to the workforce all the better for it, equipped for ministry in the world and in the church.

And people will have made thoughtful assessments about where this person can best serve.

I am very pleased that one person who did MTS apprenticeship with me has returned to his old IT field; another finished his delayed university degree, then began ministry without theological education, which he is getting part time now; while others have gone on to Moore College.

Under God, I don’t think any of them are failures.

Tony
ahhh - I see!
“every Christian” makes sense.

Haydn
MM doesn’t need to be defended - they need to be set loose!
Plus - SAngy’s definitely aren’t the only ones using MM - & more importantly, not being a SAngy doesn’t mean I’m Charismatic
(couldn’t resist that heh heh)

Hi Liz,

I think that this is a really good question. And one that we need to think about carefully.

I think that there have been good reasons for churches moving away from consumer oriented evangelism because it has lead in many places to the gospel becoming completely absent. If the consumer is always right and they don’t want to hear about judgement, then we wouldn’t talk about judgement. That would obviously be a problem!

On the other hand, as Paul encourages in 1Cor 8-10, there is a way in which we become like those around us in order to share the gospel.

There is certainly a danger in consumer oriented evangelism. We need to keep holding onto the gospel. What I think the article was suggesting was that the gospel has many wonderful things to say to the people around about us in every day life and we should be working hard at seeing how the gospel speaks to our friends and family so that we can find new ways of communicating the same old truth.

Hi Dave,

I think that I need you to explain more clearly why it would be impossible to say “The fact that someone has many things right does not mean we must forgive them for their wrongs” if you had a biblical understanding of grace and truth? I am not sure that Matt 18 makes clear for me what the problem is.

I would also love it if you could explain what The Shack has said that needs saying. You have indicated The Shack loses sight of the truth at points, what points do you think those are and what should we learn from it?

Thanks.

Chris,
Indeed it is possible for every one to feel second class, and I have certainly come across all of the examples you mention.
But remember it was Tony who asked if it was possible the non-fulltimers might feel second class. I thought it was an issue worth talking about - even if it comes second to other things. Are we disagreeing here? I hope not.
As to inference. “You know: where we might hear ministry is good then infer my workplace is not good.” I think the more common inference is that the workplace is LESS good. And that is surely what Tony said. And I do not disagree with him!
Part of the problem of differing perceptions is that (for good reasons) we seperate those who are headed for full time ministry into a separate stream very early: MTS, then Moore. This creates strong bonds between those who share those experiences, and separates them from those who do not. Like the feelings we spoke about this needs to be handled.
I take it that Tony is saying that we need to emphasise the great things Christians have in common, in particular the priority of the gospel. And that we are co-workers. It is a delicate balance for a full time leader to do that without saying too loudly “I am doing more important things than you”.
Some manage the balance well it very well, knowing that the “success” of their ministry depends often on the work of the ordinary christians in bringing people within the sound of the gospel.

Great ! My only ... niggle ... is that you don’t mention publishing or resources at all.

From this statement I wouldn’t really have any idea at all of what you actually do.

That may be deliberate, of course !

Firstly, re preamble, why the fascination with what is distinctive / particular about our contribution? We ought not primarily stand out from fellow workers, but rather to conform to / be in line with / be faithful to the Lord. Now it may just happen that in being faithful we are distinctive, or it may not be. That is not the point. Surely what matters is that we are faithful, not that we are distinctive. We ought to be preoccupied with the Lord Jesus being in clear view and standing out, not ourselves.

Secondly, pursuading and training every Christian is far too narrow. Shouldn’t it rather be every PERSON.

May God grant MM continued faithfulness in ministering God’s grace in Christ to every person.

Thanks Chris. I think that is a really helpful observation.

Maybe it is partly to do with not having learned contentment. “If only I was that person, then everyone would respect/like me.”

Thanks everyone.

Interesting that a number of you picked up on the ‘every Christian’ phrase. We weren’t thinking so much of geographical reach, nor even of conquering ze entire world, but that our vision for ministry involves EVERY Christian, not just an elite band of ministers.

This has long been one of the MM distinctives, and we’d like to re-emphasize it—namely, that the gospel will grow as people prayerfully speak it (whether to other Christians or non-Christians) and that therefore we want to maximize the number of ‘prayerful speakers’ through training and equipping. We’d like to see ‘all Christians great and small’ fired up with this extraordinary vision: to be fellow workers in the gospel, speaking the truth in love to any and all.

Should it be train or equip? We talked about that for a while, Lionel. I originally had ‘equip’, but others thought that ‘train’ was a punchier word. All the same, you’re right—MM’s role is to supply the resources rather than to do the ‘on the ground’ training, which is done person to person (or should be). I suppose it’s a matter of whether this is a ‘vision statement’ (or what we’d eventually like to see happen through our efforts and others), or a ‘mission statement’ (what we actually intend to do). Since I labelled it the latter, then maybe we need to rethink along the lines you’re suggesting.

On ‘gospel growth’, it’s actually an NT idea Mike. In fact, one of the interesting things in the NT is that the ‘word’/’gospel’ is said to grow (as it spreads and bears fruit; see Col 1:3-6), but that ‘churches’ are hardly ever described as ‘growing’.

As for wanting to see Christians live out the gospel in godliness and holiness, Haydn, I’m with you! It might be too subtle, but we tried to capture it by describing the fellow workers as ‘godly’ and ‘committed’—that is, people who have been gripped by the gospel word and changed by it, and taught by it to lead self-contolled, upright and godly lives (Tit 2:12).  So not just activists, but ‘godly’ people.

Thanks for the comments everyone. Keep em coming.

Dear Tony & MM Team,
I love you guys and the resources you provide.  I look forward to reading your responses to the first to comments. The other question I have is why have you chosen ‘Christ’s Gospel’ as the thing you would like to see grow?  I would have thought it is ‘Christ’s Church’ that biblically speaking we would want to see grow.  The Gospel cannot grow as such in that the gospel has been fully and finally inscripturated in the Bible. IS it not Christ’s Church that we would want to see grow as a result of the Gospel being proclaimed?

Well Albert, to defend MM I think the words “every Christian” are critical because MM does have a global reach.  It’s got publishing arms in Britain and South Africa.  Also in Sydney I went to a charismatic (non-Anglican) church where they used MM stuff, so it’s not just Australia or Anglicans who can benefit.  I went to a Christian bookstore in Seoul, South Korea today and there’s no MM stock which is a shame because MM stuff is so good. 

I think the mission statement might be stronger if it included a clause on the MM materials enabling Christians to not just speak the truth but to also live it out!  The MM resources, I presume, are not just for evangelism and proclaimation but also for encouraging Christians to be godly.  Any thoughts on this? 

Is persuasion a worthy goal?  I would think conviction is more the aim although MM can’t do the convicting, but be a tool for the conviction of the Holy Spirit.  Words are fraught with hidden meanings and writing a mission statement is always difficult. 

To add onto Albert, I think there is always the temptation to broaden horizons… MM has relationships and a presence in both the UK and US so putting “Australian” in there limits the world-wide work that is already going on, although there is much to be said for the unique perspective Australians have. 

Thought-provoking?  Edification?  Equipping? Empowering?  Enabling?…

I thought I MM all figured out when you had ‘Six Steps to talking about Jesus’ and ‘Six Steps to encouragement’.

You’re a twelve step program!

Then you had to go and write ‘Six Steps to reading your Bible’ ...

Just picking up on something you’ve mentioned, John ...

I think it’s possible for everyone to feel second-class.

‘I’m second-rate because I’m panel-beating & not teaching scripture full-time.’
‘I’m second-class because working for a church keeps me hidden from the pressures of the real world.’
‘I’m second-class because I can’t hold a full-time position in either ministry or secular employment.’ Etc.

I think this is why such discussions can be difficult - because they are always personal, and because we will tend to make inferences. (You know: where we might hear ministry is good then infer my workplace is not good.)

But how boring and useless would Christian conversation be without getting personal! I’m not suggesting we’re telling Tony to make this error. But I suggest that we must deal with the feelings second. In first place comes the matter of God’s word on ministry, work, and so on. Then in second place we’ll need to address feelings of being second-rate (or of being smugly superior, or whatever).

I like the word ‘persuading’.

“every Christian” ???

Tony,
To risk cliche, by stating the obvious, the one benefit you present to me (& my church, ministry etc) is that you’re (i.e. MM) is “Australian”.

Whilst a certain business based in West Ryde has lots of material (& there is some good stuff there - I’d be the poorer if it wasn’t for them sometimes) the fact is, what we need down under is material developed and written that understands the unique-ness (sp?) of Australia! MM has been doing exactly that exceptionally well.

So, all I’d say is, “What do you mean by “every Christian”?
I’m not trying to limit your effect and impact - more power to MM I say! But I seriously hope that MM retains it’s distinctive Aussie flavour well into the future.

One question. Do you guys at Matthias Media actually envisage training every Christian (that sounds like you’re going to be mighty busy!). Or would it be better to substitute the word “equipping” or “providing resources for training” for the word “training”, to better express what you as an organisation actually envisage doing.

Thanks Paul (and Josh) for your thoughts. Please let me clarify, I do not want to accept anything that is not the truth, as truth. I hope I have not said I would. I do not believe that what is ‘true for me’, is the truth. I also recognise that there is danger in not speaking out against the truth. That is why I commented.

Paul, thanks for pointing out more specific examples of Young’s view of God’s lack of judgement. There are certainly some disturbing views there, though as you say, some are implied and not stated.

In one sense, I do not believe we totally differ in our understanding of truth and grace. My whole point was that truth and grace should and do work together, and when they exist in isolation, then we have a problem. I believe my view of grace is Biblical, but the reason ‘the Shack’ is not balanced is because it wants to hold on to grace, while losing sight, at points, of truth. Does this grace without truth equal Biblical grace? No, and this is my whole point. I suggest that your view of truth is not Biblical, because you have removed it from grace. One example is your statement that the gracious response is to “speak the truth clearly and strongly”. Yet, the NT appears to suggest Biblical truth is spoken with grace and love(1 Cor 13:6, Ephesians 4:15). Your statement suggests that as long as truth is spoken, then it will be gracious – but truth alone is not always gracious! Truth can be spoken in hate, anger and with a desire to hurt.

Finally Paul, to be honest, I originally commented because I felt your post lacked grace. It had loads of truth. That was its subject, but without grace. I believe that you have separated the two in the same way that Young has – just the other way round. I think this is why you said in your post, “The fact that someone has many things right does not mean we must forgive them for their wrongs”. I am not sure you could say this if you had a Biblical understanding of grace and truth. C.f. Matthew 18:21-35.

I too suspect you will not agree, but I pray that you might consider what I have said! Dave