An Unwelcome Foundation
The church is God’s house “having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph. 2:20).
It has long been quipped that none of the apostles would be allowed to matriculate to any of today’s conservative theological seminaries, let alone graduate from one. This is because most modern conservative hermeneutics (the art and science of interpreting texts) will not allow for the kinds of fanciful interpretation modeled by the apostles. (A classic example is the way Hosea 11:1 is interpreted by the evangelist in Matthew 2:11.) While this observation rightly garners our smiles and laughter, it is also quite sad. Why should it be the case that conservative leaders and teachers would find it necessary to refuse the apostles’ example as interpreters of Scripture?
Similar to this observation, there is another that I must make, one which is just as true and just as sad, but which garners no smile from me. This sad observation is this: Almost no church today, conservative or otherwise, would allow any of the prophets or apostles to serve in a leadership role.
Unruly in their interpretive methods, those wily servants of God who penned and/or populate the pages of Scripture also conducted their interpersonal relationships, with individuals and with groups, in ways that would be quite embarrassing to our contemporary sensibilities here in the world of ‘nice’ Christianity.
They called people out for egregious wrongdoing. They wrote scathing criticisms and denouncements of people with whom they differed, including authority figures. They openly argued with one another when they found it necessary. They used sarcasm.
Here are just a few examples of their spiritually immature ways:
- One time, when the people of Jerusalem were just trying to live their lives and take care of their homes and families, the prophet Haggai came and rudely accused them of negligence toward God and His house: “Is it time for you yourselves to live in paneled houses while this house lies desolate?” (Hag. 1:4).
- To a priest who opposed him, the prophet Amos said, “Your wife is going to become a hooker in the city, and your kids will die by the sword” (Amos 7:17).
- When a newly converted and baptized ‘baby Christian’ man misunderstood the nature and purpose of the Holy Spirit’s healing power and offered cash for the ability to do the kinds of things the apostles were doing, Peter harshly cursed him: “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! You have no part or portion in this matter, for your heart is not right before God!” (Acts 8:20-21)
- To deal with a man who was arrogating to himself the right to be the boss of his church, John—the so-called ‘apostle of love’—called him out by name in a public letter, “…Diotrophes, who loves to be first… does not listen to what we say; so if I come, I will call him out for his unjust deeds…” (III John 9-10).
These are not the kinds of things said or done by ‘nice’ Christian people in polite Christian circles.
If any of the prophets or apostles were around in today’s American Christian culture, he might be appreciated for offering an entertaining podcast or Youtube channel so that Christians could tune in from a safe distance and enjoy listening to the penetrating zingers that expose the faulty thinking and actions of those with whom they differ.
But let him actually have a place of pastoral leadership right here in our local church? No, that’s a place for ‘nice’ Christian leaders. You know, the kind who know how to talk a good show about taking strong stands for God’s truth but who also know to stop short of actually making any of us feel too uncomfortable.
Not As I Do?
It is common for conservative teachers of biblical interpretation to lead students on explorations of the interpretive methods of the NT authors which basically conclude that it was okay for the apostles to use bad hermeneutics, because they were apostles. (I have actually heard professors say that the apostles’ authority as apostles gives them the right to take OT Scriptures out of context.) But since we aren’t apostles, it would not be okay for us to follow their example; we must, instead, employ the controls of modern hermeneutics.
Correspondingly, there is an assumption of the same kind made by Christians with regard to the (seemingly) unbecoming ways of the apostles and prophets: It was okay for them to have bad manners, because they were God’s holy spokesmen; but we should not follow their example in these things. Since most Christians rarely look directly at this ‘problem,’ this assumption is largely unconscious and unstated.
For conservative Christians who take the Bible to be their infallible source of divine authority for life and truth, these assumptions are necessarily attached to another: that the prophets and apostles would, themselves, instruct us and lead us not to follow their rogue examples, either hermeneutically or relationally. But to imagine this is to accuse them of being ‘do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do’ hypocrites. And, in fact, we have biblical instruction to imitate them (I Cor. 4:16; 11:1) in both their faith and their conduct:
“Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith” (Heb. 13:7).
Would anyone want to argue that this instruction should be followed only in regard to the leaders whom we know personally and not the apostles themselves?
Perhaps it could be argued that the author of Hebrews is telling us to look critically at the outcome of the conduct of those who have led us and, if we find that outcome to be bad, to imitate only their faith, but not necessarily their conduct. But that would be an interpretive stretch, to say the least.
No, his point is to say that, as we imitate their faith, we are to look carefully at their conduct and see it all the way through to its end result. This would, in fact, cause us to see the sometimes shocking or embarrassing things they do, not in light of the uncomfortable moment, but in light of the big picture. What was the point, the goal? And to this question, we would do well to add: What is the motive? The answer should be something like “the glory of God” (I Ptr. 4:11) and “love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith” (I Tim. 1:5).
We may be sure that, when Paul openly confronted Peter, it was a very uncomfortable moment for everyone (Gal. 2:11-14). But what was his motive for doing this? And what was the outcome? And looking closely at these things, might we dare to imitate Paul’s faith in such ways?
What About Love and All That?
But someone will say: Aren’t we told by the apostles to love one another, to bear with one another’s faults and to be gentle and patient, not to be quarrelsome, and so forth? Yes, those teachings are all over the NT! But what can this mean coming from men who so often model a willingness to confront others?
Either the apostles were hypocrites who could not follow their own teachings, or their instructions about love and patience and gentleness and so forth were never intended to rule out some of the more aggressive interactions that are needed at times in a world where God’s truth and man’s sin cohabit.
Nevertheless, we modern ‘nice’ Christians have ruled those things out.
Anyone who dares to confront serious wrongs in the church with verbal force or artful irony (read: indignation or sarcasm)—or, frankly, anyone who dares to point out elephants in rooms—will be regarded, not only as troublesome, but as unloving and spiritually immature.
In contrast, it is the people who remain calm and quiet and who do not get involved (read: give tacit approval) in the face of these wrongs who will be seen as spiritually mature.
Evangelism as Elephant-Spotting
Little boys who point out the emperor’s underwear make us uncomfortable. People who point out elephants in rooms make us uncomfortable. Perhaps they shame us by exposing our idolatry of social comfort. Perhaps they rattle some of us, because we come from family backgrounds that were nothing but constant confrontation that was lacking in love. Perhaps we are aware that we have had a hand in inviting the elephant into the room (at least in not saying anything ourselves when it was happening), and we don’t like where this exposure is headed.
It can be very tempting, if somewhat spiritually lazy, to settle into a mode of Christian life which assumes that pretty much any interpersonal confrontation—and certainly confrontation at the level of interactions with church leadership—is prima facie immature, unspiritual, ungodly.
But to the degree that we think so, we will have to view the prophets and apostles as very spiritually immature men.
In fact, we will have to consider the gospel itself to be a spiritually immature communication. For the gospel is nothing, if it is not the ultimate exposure of the elephant (man’s sin) in the room (the human heart and human society).
Biblical evangelism, then, is an embarrassing activity undertaken by those Christians too spiritually immature to have learned, like the rest of us, how to avoid making others uncomfortable.
More On This Later…
In an upcoming post, I will look at a friendship which has been on public display for years and which takes a much more God-honoring approach to all of this.