Sacraments, Presumption and Assurance

1 Corinthians 10:1-11: For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. 7 Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.” 8 We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. 9 We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, 10 nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. 11 Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.

I love this passage in 1 Corinthians, because it teaches us some important things for our understanding of Christian perseverance, as well as our doctrine of the sacraments (surprise, surprise, there is a link between the two). It tells us two things in parallel.

A common mistake  

(1) It is a warning to the Corinthians against presumption—against false assurance on the basis of participating in Christian worship (including the sacraments, see vv. 14-22). That is, there was a danger for the corinthian christians to think that they we "done", that they were "home" spiritually speaking, out of danger. The basis for their presumption was the fact that they were baptized, and that they participated in the Lord's Supper (or so they thought! See 1 Cor. 11:20-22).

The truth of course, was that they were "putting Christ to the test", presumably by the way in which they were behaving (1 Cor. 11:17-32) when they gathered together as a Church.

To illustrate this, Paul uses Israel ("according to the flesh", see v. 18) in the Old Testament, during their wanderings in the desert, to illustrate his point. They were all baptized (10:2) and all ate and drank the spiritual food and drink (vv.2-3), that is, the Manna and the water from the rock. Nevertheless, with most of them, the Lord was not pleased.

http://lacedwithgrace.com/

The point for Paul then, is that being baptized, being in the community, and participating with the community in activities and worship (most clearly expressed in the Lord's Supper) is not itself the best indicator of spiritual health. Most of the Israelites in the desert had done the same and died in the wilderness. External participation is not a good way of getting spiritual assurance of one's condition. Paul explicitly says that their case exists for the Corinthians (our) example.

Great. So Paul affirms that we can have a false security the comes from "going through the motions", from participating in the "means of grace" in an external fashion. 

A Better Alternative

(2) However, at the same time, Paul tells us something powerful. In this passage he expresses a systematic truth called "the invisible and visible church". The Visible church is the all in the passage. All were baptized, ate and drank. 

However, there were many "hypocrites", many members of the Old Testament "church" that were not genuine believers. Those are the many. With many God was not pleased, and were overthrown in the desert.

However, none of the takes away from something powerful: something was really going on with the "baptism" and with the eating and drinking.

Paul says that those who ate and drank, ate and drank spiritual food and water (vv.2-3). He says that they drank from the Rock, and that Rock was Christ. That is, there are those (not the many) who by eating and drinking drank from Christ himself, spiritually participated in Christ (cfr. 10:15-21, note how Paul uses "spiritual" in other parts of 1 Corinthians: 2:13-15; 15:43-47).

That is, there was real objective spiritual benefit for those who trust in God and His word by eating and drinking. God had said as much in Deuteronomy 8:3 (emphasis mine): "And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord. 

To know that man does not live by bread alone, but by every word from the mouth of the Lord is to trust in His word for life and learn to live in obedience to Him (Deut. 8:6), trusting that He is guiding you to eternal life with Him (Deut. 8:7-8). That is the grace that is imparted when we feed on what He gives us, when we spiritually feed on His word as we physically eat and drink.

Forget going it alone

So Paul warns us about the false, hypocritical and dangerous spiritual presumption the comes from participating in the Christian community and it's worship in a way that builds our assurance on the rituals, activities, and relationships themselves. 

At the same time, Paul tells us how the sacraments as means of grace can give us real assurance: we drink Christ, when we trust in Him who gives us the manna, the one who calls on us to trust Him and His words despite the circumstances (the desert), to obey Him joyfully and trust that He is leading us to the Promised land.

This tells us something important. We need to remember that there is a normal, ordinary way that Christians persevere until the end. Christians persevere, ordinarily, by being preserved by God. And God does this principally by the ordinary means of grace: Word (preached, read, studied, discussed), prayer and sacraments, in the context of the communion of saints. This is not an attempt to limit God nor to obligate Him to act the way we think He ought. It is just a recognition of the fact that this is the way that God has said He will act in the context of church.

The implication is that we must be wary of the idea that Christians can (or are even meant to) "survive" spiritually on their own. It explains why generally those professing christians who we observe begin to neglect to meet with others seem over time to eventually abandon the faith altogether. It has nothing to do with a "roman catholic" view of salvation, where we equate "belonging to a church" with "being saved". The passage above is clear: God ordinarily uses the means of grace within the context of the church community to preserve His saints. I think a common mistake is to assume that He has promised to do so outside of this context, and besides these means, as if the "perseverance of the saints" was something that happened "automatically" and in which our participation was the spiritual equivalent to lying on deck chairs sunbathing alone in the yard.

It seems to be the mistake that A.W. Pink made, and sadly, one that I see too many christians making. Let us be wise in dealing with this pastorally!

Sexy Ministry

I'm very thankful for the development and growth of what has come to be know as the "Young, Restless and Reformed" movement. I know I myself and many others, even outside the United States, have been deeply encouraged, resourced and just generally blessed by many figures and members of this movement. It's exciting and in many ways many churches in other countries (like Chile) dream of seeing a inter-denominational, reformed, dynamic church planting movement in our own cities and countries. Praise God for what is happening!

Having said all that, the short time I have spent thus far in full time ministry has begun to help notice some serious problems that can result from looking to these sorts of movements. There seems to be a tendency that seeks to be hip (maybe even hipster), cool, culturally astute, etc. Now, these things are not necessarily bad in of themselves —well, maybe being a hipster is bad, probably bordering on sinful. Except that I'm being ironic... Any way, where was I?

Ah yes! These things are not necessarily wrong in themselves. I'm more than happy for Christians to avoid creating a reactionary subculture in their local churches, and acting in peculiar ways that have more to do with human tradition, legalism, or simply a detachment from everyday real life that make them unable (nevermind unwilling) to even have a conversation with a normal non-christian person. And related to this, I'm certainly happy for Christian Ministers (evangelists, pastor-teachers, and the like) to be thoughtful about knowing how to "engage" non-christians and to be clever—in the good sense of the word—in their interactions. Jesus himself tells the Twelve to be "wise as serpents and innocent as doves" (Mat. 10:16). So there you have it!

That's one thing. However, as tends to happen with our sinful hearts, there is a tendency to move towards a desire to be—dare I say!—sexy. Because we covet approval, we covet acceptance, we covet comfort: the comfort of not being the weird, awkward one who actually has that opinion about marriage, sex, drugs, and so on.

Hmm... is it me, or do skinny jeans and converse sneakers seem to be key in all of this?

Not only are we tempted to play it cool from a "world" perspective, to be more "missional", but we find ourselves pressured to be more trendy "from within" so to speak. There are other, though similar pressures. Pressures to entertain and draw a crowd. Pressures to be like "that ministry". Pressures to more charismatic and lead people into deeper experiences in the worship service. Pressures to be more "practical" and offer people the "10 steps to something", and knock-off all the theology and have a little less Bible reading. 

And this is a challenge, particularly from a Reformed perspective of ministry. If you're a reformed guy in christian ministry, you probably take your ministry cues (I hope) from the Apostle Paul. He laid down the ground rules himself, when he left the Presbyters at Ephesus. He says in Acts 20:18-21; 26-27:

“You yourselves know how I lived among you the whole time from the first day that I set foot in Asia, 19 serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials that happened to me through the plots of the Jews; 20 how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, 21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. [...] 26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all, 27 for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.

I want to point out just a few things from this passage:

1) Paul reminds the elders about what he taught them: "the whole counsel of God" (anything that was profitable, v.20, 27), "testifying [...] of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ". That is, He taught the Scriptures centered on the Gospel and the call the Gospel makes to repent and trust in Jesus the King.

2) Paul reminds them of how he taught them: "with all humility and with tears and with trials that happened to me [...]  I did not shrink". That is, at great personal cost, with much suffering and sacrifice, as well as courage.

3) Paul reminds them of the way he taught them: "declaring [...] teaching you in public and from house to house". Paul's "ministry philosophy" was (a) public declaring and teaching, and (b) personal, home-centered teaching. On top of this he reminds them about how he lived among them (v.18). He invites them to remember and observe his lifestyle, and it seems obvious that his desire is that they imitate him! (Cfr. 2 Tim. 3:10-12; Heb. 13:7).

So Paul's ministry was one in which he taught and declared the Scriptures day in and day out, calling people to repentance and faith in the Gospel. He taught with humility, with tears and with a lot of sacrifice and suffering. He taught publicly and he taught at a more personal, maybe familial level. He lived his life out in the open and sought to be followed and imitated (presumably, including his own constant need to repent for his own sins!).

He loved people and His Lord deeply, dedicated himself continually and tirelessly to teaching and preaching, with a consecrated life, willing to courageously suffer for Jesus and the Church He had bought with his own blood (v. 28).

But suffering, teaching, loving, life. That's not as cool or sexy as having a great band, with a good lighting system and tattoos. 

But hey, maybe that's so old school that some hipsters will take it up, even if it's just to be ironic, right?

Thinking about Pink

A.W. Pink, hmmmm…

He is a hero to many, and for lots of reasons probably should be. His impact on the Evangelical Church is enormous.

But man, what a strange character.

If I am totally honest with myself he is one of those ‘greats’ who I have been told I should like, but deep down after reading some of what he says I am just not sure what to think.

'The Sovereignty of God' is brilliant (strangely I once went to a conference totally dedicated to its teaching) and some other stuff I have read has been massively helpful.

But when I look to some other books and articles of his, and indeed to the man himself, I can’t help but feel just a little off.

Dan Phillips over at Pyromaniacs put it so well a while back:

‘For my part, I've never been a huge fan. I've tried reading him, and generally been defeated by his verbosity or his fanciful exegesis. I've other books that do a better job of what he tries to do, so they take up my time instead of Pink’.

Pink was born in Nottingham in April 1886 and was converted at age 22. Sometime after he emigrated to the US to study at Moody Bible Institute, but stuck it out for only two months instead desiring to do his own thing.

He then made an attempt to pastor, but ended up moving from place to place after short periods of time. He soon realised that he preferred to teach people through writing rather than face to face, and ended up in complete isolation on the Isle of Lewis in Scotland doing just that until the end of his life.  

Gary Benfold points out that ‘though he travelled the world, living on three continents, he could not find a single church that was worth joining – and this at a time when, for example, Lloyd-Jones was ministering in Westminster’.

Tom Chantry helpfully hightlights the good in this very imbalanced ministry:

‘He insisted that the Bible was the Word of God and therefore true in all its particulars. He taught the gospel of personal salvation from sin by the blood of Jesus, not societal salvation by the example of Jesus. and he insisted on the sovereignty of God in salvation and in all of life. The people to whom Pink ministered had never heard such things before. There were no biblical churches in their areas, and there was no Christian publishing industry to speak of. This was before P&R - before Banner of Truth even.

The thing about Pink was that for all of his imperfections and in spite of the sins which became so obvious in his life, he was a voice. It wasn’t that he was the best voice or the strongest voice or the most uncompromised voice - it’s just that he was it. He was the only voice - at least among the people to whom he ministered’.

But he also cannot ignore the bad:

‘Pink on the Isle of Lewis was living in rebellion against God's word. There is no getting around it, and the people who were his friends in America sort of thought he was and eventually became convinced that he was.

It's why Pink had no influence there, and relatively little in the South, where he lived for some years. His lasting influence was in rural Pennsylvania and New York - places which hadn't seen anyone with Pink's (good) convictions in a century’.

Dan Phillips notes the very real extremity of his self-imposed separation from the Church of Christ:

‘a private correspondence from someone who (unlike me) is an authority on church history…noted that the Isle of Lewis, where Pink ended up, was very doctrinally orthodox and Presbyterian in the best sense. Pink wouldn't have anything to do with them’.

I think one of the main reasons I find him discouraging in some ways is that he was clearly so dedicated to Christ, almost fanatical. You can see this so strongly in his writings. But what is so disappointing is that this dedication led him towards such a strange life. The isolation he chose is certainly unbiblical and therefore not Gods will for him. But there he was for 18 years, writing and praying and feeling he was faithfully serving the Lord.

I suppose a life like this can perhaps inadvertently put you off being so dedicated yourself. You can end up telling yourself: ‘I don’t want to end up like him, maybe I should cool off my spiritual fervour a bit’.

I have certainly come across many Christians who are ridiculously dedicated and sincere. But this same dedication for some reason has also led them into some ways and practices which I find very unattractive. Extreme separation, obsessiveness, stereotypical language etc etc

But we need to be careful not to let these kinds of people to put us off.

Gary Benfold closes his analysis of Pink with a very strong warning:

‘But let it be faced about professed Bible teachers who dismiss all of evangelicalism that does not agree with them on every jot and tittle. Such men are not to be followed. They are not to be supported.  They are not to be admired. Their souls are in danger’.

This is a very good important point to make. Especially in light of todays many extreme so called ‘discernment’ ministries. But I’m not so sure that it should definitely be applied to A.W. Pink.

Iain Murray reminds us in his biography of Pink that ‘the widespread circulation of his writings after his death made him one of the most influential evangelical authors in the second half of the twentieth century’. And for that I for one am extremely thankful.

So here is a closing point for encouragement. If we only learn one thing from this man’s life, it is that God can certainly still use us, even with our many imperfections.

And that is a real reason for hope.