No one but the rebuked should know when you rebuke. Everyone should know when you praise.

 My wife is a John Maxwell fan. She listens, just about everyday to his "Minute with Maxwell" spot. When one particularly strikes her, she shares it with me. It's just one of the many reasons that I love, admire, and appreciate Kathy.

She sent me one today in which guest speaker, Joe Mamby, emphasizes what I regard as absolutely essential part of good leadership--Praise in Public, Admonish in Private. Joe links the concept to another trait that is also key to leaders--a proper understanding of patience. I hadn't thought of that connection, at least not in the way Joe presents it.

The "Praise in Public, Admonish in Private" concept is really a "duh" rule of leadership. It is so obvious for several reasons.

• We all vicerally react against a leader who dumps on a subordinate in a public setting. It's like the eighth-grade bully picking on a skinny sixth-grader just for the sick fun of it. What is the skinny kid supposed to do, or what can the unfortunate subordinate do except act like a duck in the rain--just duck, let it rain, and hope that at least some of it will roll off.
• The above reason is just one of the reasons why the violation of this fundamental leadership principle is toxic to the long-term success of an organization. We don't like that kind of leader. We dread the day when we will trip the tirade trip-wire. We tend to keep our heads down in that environment. We are unwilling to take a chance, or be creative even if we are convinced that to do so would be to the benefit of the organization. Sometimes even that doesn't work. On occasion subordinates get a public dressing down for not being more bold. When a worker can't win he/she is likely to quit.
• The public tirade almost never leads to constructive instruction. The end of the dressing down is usually something like, "Go forth and figure out how to do better." Sometimes--in my opinion, rarely--the humiliated worker will go on a self-education program and actually improve. More often he/she will just learn to duck and hide more effectively, that, and, start working on their resume.

It is obvious, yet frequently forgotten or ignored.

The Minute with Maxwell spot had barely gotten started before I remembered the most glaring violation of this principle of leadership that I have ever seen. I was involved with an organization that depended for its life on the good will of a regulatory agency. We were enduring an inspection by a team from that agency. In normal circumstances, I think the team members are really nice people. In this circumstance there was such a huge power differential that they came across as anything but nice. In my view, they had an entitlement mentality. They had the power, others were expected to cater to them. One of my associates in this organization was found wanting by the inspectors. There is a pretty serious protocol that this team followed. At the closing meeting of the inspection tour my coworker, a person who bears the image of God, a dedicated servant, one who had worked very hard for the success of this organization, had to sit, without any recourse and listen to the clinical description of their failure to measure up. At the end, when I asked for some time before visiting team left, to give my colleague some time to recover, and make graceful, or at least less ignomious exit, the leader of the team objected. They were in a hurry. We took the time anyhow. It was not only wrong. It was immoral.

Joe Mamby links the concept to patience. I think it is a valid linkage. As a leader, I am ashamed to say that there have been times when I was in the place of that inspection team, and I, too, have failed. I should have been patient enough to forgo the perverted feel-good moment of "lording-it-over" (1 Peter 5:3) another. I should be patient enough to go the long route of shephering the person (see the context in 1 Peter). On those occasions when I failed I foolishly and wrongly traded a moment of feel-good superiority, or adherence to an unfeeling protocol, for an opportunity to help someone grow. What is needed is the self-control element of patience. 

At the bottom of this Praise/Admonish principle is a basic fundamental fact--people are special. They bear the image of God. They are the ones for whom Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice. They are more important than me looking powerful, in control, or ruthless. They are more important than protocol. As a leader I need to remember that. I am responsible to lead an organization to succeed. If a worker is not contributing to that success I need to correct, instruct, encourage, and, yes, on occasion, reassign, or even fire them. But, always with the thought in mind that this is a person who is highly valued by God. Joe's principle of leadership is inline with that.

I'm no longer involved in the organization that was being inspected. After the event I described above, I wrote to the person in charge. I was assured that they would look into it. I hope they have. I need to continually look into my practice in this regard. 

Don't Water Down The Homiletical Soup

 Reading in Jeremiah, this morning, I was reminded of a proverb I have tried to keep in mind all of my ministry life. I'll tell you the proverb in a moment, but first I'll share a portion of the passage that provoked my thought.

Is not my word like fire, declares the LORD, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces? 30 Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, declares the LORD, who steal my words from one another. 31 Behold, I am against the prophets, declares the LORD, who use their tongues and declare, ‘declares the LORD.’ 32 Behold, I am against those who prophesy lying dreams, declares the LORD, and who tell them and lead my people astray by their lies and their recklessness, when I did not send them or charge them. So they do not profit this people at all, declares the LORD.  (The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Je 23:29–32). (2016). Crossway Bibles.)

One of the guiding principles of my ministry has been, I hope still is, "When I confuse thus sayeth Howard, with thus sayeth the Lord, I dilute the word of God." I think it's a good proverb, though I admit it isn't a Biblical proverb, for all preachers/teachers of the Bible to remember.

It's a harder concept to live by than it may at first seem.

 First, let me address the critic in the room. "I know that I don't have the power to alter the word of God. I know and fully believe that not a jot or tittle of God's word will perish. It will accomplish the purpose for which God sent it forth." 

But, like so many things that involve the intersection of God's sovereignty and my/your responsibility, it's complicated. In the Old Testament era, the prophets who spoke for the Lord were responsible to speak what the Lord gave them to speak. A few chapters earlier (Jer. 20), we read of Jeremiah's struggle in delivering the word from the Lord when it was an unpopular word. He was tired. He didn't want to do it anymore, but to paraphrase, he concluded that he couldn't not speak God's word. (To a lesser extent I've been there. On the other side of the coin were those who weren't prophets, or perhaps even prophets who didn't have a message from the Lord at that time. They were responsible to be quiet, or if they did speak to make sure that they did not misrepresent what they said. "This isn't a word from God. This is what I think. I offer it only as personal advice." It takes thought, dedication, and care to keep it straight.

In my case, toward the end of a life ministry, I find it perhaps more complicated than it has ever been to live by my proverb. 

I have, by God's grace, been spared from any great scandal in my life as a pastor and missionary. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues in ministry have set the bar for achieving a position of respect pretty low. I find that now in my sixth decade of ministry, people respect what I say. In particular to my fellow seasoned servants, I say, "We need to be careful with this." It is awfully easy to let it go to my head. The term "pontificate" comes to mind. Especially since I don't believe there is really a "Pontiff," I need to watch for that trap. Yes, I have been around the block a few times, and yes, I have by God's grace learned some things from God's word. Yet, in my most honest days--Lord grant me more--I realize that a lot of what I have learned has to do with how much I don't know. In my own little circle, I have gained a reputation as an honest expositor of the Bible. To change the metaphor from the one in my proverb, that gives me an edge. There are people who trust me. It is important that I not dull that edge by spouting off what I think in a context in which people expect me to be telling them what God has said in His Word.

I find myself using the digital-age shorthand "IMHO" (In my humble opinion) more often lately. There are several tendencies that I observe in my life and in the ministries of others who share God's word that compel me to use this humble acronym:

• Categories are tough to keep straight. Is this actually something that the Word of God says, or is it something that I heard someone say that the Word of God says, or, even more troubling at this point in my life, is it something that I think I remember thinking at some time in the past that the word of God says? Or most troubling of all. Is this what I think needs to be said. I'm not advocating for wishy-washy-ness. I am reminding myself and others to follow the Apostle Paul's counsel to Timothy, "Work hard to show yourself as one who accurately handles the word of truth. Then you won't have anything to be ashamed of." (My application-paraphrase of 2 Timothy 2:15.
• Good preaching is giving people a way to apply the Bible to their lives. The application of the Bible, a book written in a different era in a different culture and place can be tricky. It is very easy to make a way to apply a text of scripture sound like the only way to apply it. In the history of preaching that error has resulted in a lot of homiletical water being added to the soup.
• My Theological grid can get in the way. I suppose I still identify as a dispensationalist. Though my dispensationalism has eroded over the years. I try, however, to give preeminence to, "What does this text mean?" over, "Where does it fit on the chart." Sometimes I fail. I observe the same problem with a different label in the ministries of others who have different Theological orientations. Yes, my Theology informs my exegesis, but if my Theology is sound it comes from proper exegesis of the Bible. "Lord, don't let me stand that on its head.
• On some days it seems everybody but me is so sure of themselves. "Howard, why don't you speak more forcefully? Fake it. Nobody will know. You deserve a place at the table of absolute certainty." It's tempting. My gray hair lends credibility. But, alas, it isn't true.

I'll give Jeremiah the last word. Actually, he was speaking God's word. Concerning those false prophets the Lord said:

“I did not send the prophets, yet they ran;

I did not speak to them, yet they prophesied.

 But if they had stood in my council, then they would have proclaimed my words to my people,

and they would have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their deeds.  

(Jeremiah 23:21-22) 

Lord, deliver me. 

 

To Be Kinda Convinced Is Not Enough, but Be Careful

 No one who is paying attention at all can doubt that we citizens of the United States live in a very polarized time.

It's not the greatest TV ever produced, but an old Outer Limits episode, "Hearts and Minds,"  makes a 
point that we would do well to think about. Our current political situation got me thinking about the old TV show.  (You can find the episode on Youtube or find a summary here.)

The Outer Limits episode is a negative utopia piece. The world is locked in a war over fuel for energy, and the soldiers who make up the characters in the video are hard-core, totally committed to their "us or them" battle. It is a war for the survival of humanity. Not only is the video black and white, the cause for which they are fighting is absolute. The women and men who make up the small squad of soldiers are very human. The enemy is a horrid insectoid race of aliens, carrying a deadly-to-humans infection. The soldiers are equipped with an injection system, not unlike the insulin pumps that make life for many diabetics much easier. Only in the futurist dark fantasy, the medication that is injected into the soldiers' bloodstream is an agent that supposedly protects them from this alien infection.

The tragic twist that is revealed toward the end of the episode is that in reality the "juice" is part of a system that makes the soldiers see their enemies--in reality as human as they--as "bugs."

As I say, it is not the best TV programming ever produced, but underneath the heavy-handed, manipulative drama is a very real human tendency that is often exploited by demagogues of various stripes. One of the soldiers expresses it as he confronts a fellow fighter. "You have to hate them." One does not go to war over a trivial disagreement over a minor offense. Over the years I have resisted, and sometimes been captured by this tendency to make ones opponent an enemy, and to go on and make ones enemy something other than human. I succumbed to the "juice."

Someone once said something like (how's that for precision?), "Madison Avenue (the advertisement industry) is in the business of creating desires for things that didn't even exist a short time ago." It doesn't take too deep a dive into our consumerist culture to see dangers with that, but much more problematic is turning that syndrome on its head, and creating hatreds for causes, movements, and groups of people.

Hitler wouldn't have been Hitler if his rhetoric had been, "It seems to me, as I examine the economic trends of post-war Germany that the Jewish community may have reaped a disproportionate amount of profit when compared to other sectors." No, the Feurer was a master of what has come to be known as "othering." In our real-world scenario the "juice" is not injected by an implanted pump, but by rhetoric, alignment with movements, and well-crafted media. On the other hand, I have to admit that Churchill's rhetoric, often strident, led to what I regard as a good outcome. Balance and caution are needed.

I'm struck by the contrast that I see in the Bible, particularly the New Testament. (I'll leave the discussion of the imprecatory Psalms for another time.) Never was there a greater contrast than what took place in the passion of Christ--the absolutely righteous human surrounded by a mob that cried out for His crucifixion. Having accomplished their bloody mission, the totally innocent victim of this supreme othering calls out, while suffering the agonies of death on the cross, "Father, forgive them."

I am not discounting the great importance of the causes that are before us, things like:

• The sacrifice of innocent children to the total autonomy of the individuals who make the tragic choice to kill these little people.
• The denial of the biological reality of maleness and femaleness, and the demand for total acceptance of, even support for, the futile notion that one can choose ones gender with absolute freedom.
• The deep-seated disagreement over the nature of reality itself--"Is this a world of stuff and stuff alone, or is there a spiritual reality all around it, that is, indeed, more permanent than the stuff w walk of, breathe, eat, and with which we clothe ourselves?"

Yes, there are clearly issues that are worth contending for, fighting for, even dying for, but if the fight is to be "the good fight," it must be undertaken on the basis of truth. The truth is that even those who hold to polar opposite views than mine, are, like me, human beings. They are, even though many deny it, the special creation of God. Just like me, they owe their existence to dirt, water, and air--the providential work of God Who causes "all things to hold together." As much as I may want to hate them and as often and loudly as some of my co-belligerents encourage me to hate them, I can't. It is not that I'm not able, I am very capable of that hatred. It is that must not. I am a follower of the one who asked for the forgiveness of His tormentors. 

Let me finish with a few suggestions that flow from this thought:

• We have to be careful about hyperbole. Is this really the "most important election in our history," or, "the defining cause of our generation, or "a battle for the life of our nation/way of life/freedom/etc."? Perhaps, but be careful.
• Is there anything right about the position of the person who holds another view? Is the abortion advocate right about the plight of some women? Does gender confusion cause real heartache for many, particularly young, people? Have some elements of our society been wrongly treated for a long time? I'm not saying that the answers to those questions erase the real issues, but rather that asking and seeking honest answers to those questions remind me that on the other side of the debate stage stands another human, not an "other."
• The changing of hearts and minds is a much more long-lasting solution than the wielding of power.

Be careful of the "juice."

 

The Rise and (Fall) of Dispensationalism

 Putting "Fall" in quotation marks is an addition to the title of the book, by Daniel G. Hummel, which is the topic of this post. The subtitle of The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism is "How the Evangelical Battle Over the End Times Shaped a Nation." 

I'm not writing a review. For that, I point you to Pastor Gary Gilley's review of the book. It was his review that brought the book to my attention. Having read the book and then reread Gilley's review, I think he does a good job. Instead, what I am doing, here, is sharing some, somewhat random, thoughts about the book and what the book, intersecting with my background and current place in life, raises.

I grew up spiritually in an environment in which the notes in the Scofield Reference Bible, were second only to the Bible itself, in authority. I was surrounded by pastors who were graduates of Moody Bible Institute. Both D. L. Moody, and the Bible Institute he founded take up a lot of Space in The Rise and Fall . . . (R&F). I graduated from a Bible Institute that was, in many ways, a smaller clone of Moody. It's Founder and first president was a graduate of Moody. My Theology prof received his doctoral degree at Dallas. He had actually heard Lewis Sperry Chafer lecture. Dwight Pentecost's book, Things to Come, was assigned reading. I also spent two years at a Bible College that was thoroughly Dispensational. The President of that school, at the time I was there, is quoted in R&F.  My post-graduate studies were in a school that wasn't particularly known for being dispensational, but it clearly welcomed Dispensationalists on the faculty. Buildings are named after Tim Lahaye.

I still claim Dispensational Premillennialism as my Theological House, but as John MacArthur is widely quoted as saying, my Dispensationalism might be a bit "leaky." It's not that I have come up with a system of Ecclesiology and Eschatology (in my humble opinion, those are the two areas of Theology where Dispensationalism makes the most difference), rather in my book of Things to Emphasize Dispensationalism doesn't take up as many pages as it once did.

Some years ago another Pastor and I attended a conference on Dispensationalism. It was one of those conferences in which experts/serious scholars presented papers to their colleagues, who would then ask questions and give comments. We got to listen in. One of my teachers and a schoolmate were among the presenters. The experience could have served as an illustration for the latter portion of Hummel's book. This was a small gathering. While the presenters were brilliant men, with the possible exception of the President of Dallas Theological Seminary, none of them were at risk of being interviewed on national TV. The Theologians at the conference occupied a narrow strip of Biblical real estate between the up-and-coming more reformed scholars and institutions, on one side, and the "Left Behind"ers on the other. I detected the smell of holding-on-for-dear-life.

Reading the book reminded me of, and strengthened an observation that has informed my ministry for the last thirty or thirty-five years. I heard the point made by a college roommate of mine, who was, ironically enough, working for Moody Bible Institute at the time he made the comment, that no system of trying to systematize the whole flow of Scripture is sufficient to take it all in. Not long after I heard, essentially,  the same statement made by a nationally known pastor. At about the same time, I spent a considerable amount of time working through and preaching from the Sermon on the Mount. That series changed me. For reasons I won't go into here, I came to decisively reject the old, extreme, Dispensational "truth" that I had been taught, that the Sermon on the Mount was "Kingdom truth;" it didn't directly apply to the Church. With D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and others I concluded that Jesus most famous sermon was every bit about the here and now.

I sort of channeled a concept that I had heard powerfully expressed by an old-time preacher from West Virginia. B. R. Lakin began his career riding a mule to speaking engagements. He became a successful pastor and popular revivalist. The experience he spoke of was during what Hummel would call the "Rise" phase of Dispensationalism. I'm paraphrasing, but the old preacher, speaking from the platform of that thoroughly Dispensational Bible Institute said something like.

I attended a Bible Conference and saw a man with a bed sheet and fishing pole [Lakin was obviously referring to one of the Dispensational Charts that Dispensational prophecy preachers were famous for. The charts developed by Clarence Larkin are probably the best known]. He told me that this part of scripture applied this time and this other part of the Bible applied to another time [what old dispensationalists often referred to as "rightly dividing the Word"]. I went home and tried to do that for myself but finally gave up in frustration. I simply took of all of the Bible as God's word to me and sought to apply it to my life in my time and place. 

To any who may have been present at that Chapel service or who know Lakin better than I do, I emphasize again that I am working from memories of an incident more than fifty years ago. I also know that good preaching is often hyperbolic. I'm confident that Lakin's hermeneutics were more sophisticated than this anecdote implies, but the mule-riding preacher's words have haunted my mind and heart for most of my life.

I'll leave tracing the impact of Dispensationalism on a national/international scale to better minds, like Hummel's. I'll just say that too many pastors and Bible teachers approach Scripture and ask, "From a Dispensational point of view, what does this passage mean?" I know that there is no such thing as a "view from nowhere," but I do believe that trying to adopt a less prejudicial perspective is important. Approach the text with the necessary agnosticism. After you see what the text means, you may find that it aligns with your overall view of things, be that Dispensational, Covenental, or whatever. Fine. Just be sure you let the text speak. Don't put words in its mouth.

Apparently, I'm an outlier. The fact that I see nothing in the New Testament that indicates that I should bring a lamb to church tomorrow, indicates to me that there are at least two ways of doing things presented in Scripture. A straight-forward (literal, with a right understanding of the word) indicates that Israel is not the same as the church and the church is not the same as Israel. In fact, the tenses of the New Testament in reference to the formation of the church indicate that it didn't even exist in Old Testament times. I do live in a time in which the residents of the planet, except for those saved by grace, are children of wrath (Ephesians 2:1-3), the world itself is in the power of the wicked one (1 John 5:19), and that this wicked one apparently has a lot of freedom to do his anti-God work (1 Peter 5:8). I could go on, but all that I am saying is that when I take God's word for what it appears to me to say, I see what has come to be called Dispensationalism. On the other hand, some of my go-to commentators would be insulted to have their name associated with Dispensationalism. I go to their books because they deal honestly with the text. I will enjoy telling them if I live until the Rapture, "See I was right." In the meantime, they are a help to me. If we both live to some one-size-fits-all general judgment day I'll say, "Well, what do you know?" 

I'd like to finish this before the Rapture, so I'll stop.