A Call To Discernment
Chapter Two
What Caused This Lack?
Many varying but related elements have converged to bring about the church's current widespread lack of spiritual discernment. I shall discuss several of the proximate causes, and then I want to look at one fundamental factor from which they all flow.
Disappearing Church Discipline
Perhaps the most obvious difficulty, once you become aware of it, is the collapse of church discipline. When the church is actively at work caring for its members, as it should by applying the healing balm of church discipline discernment grows. It grows both among those who are disciplined and those who administer the discipline.
Discipline, by its very nature, requires discernment. Discipline calls for discrimination--distinguishing between those who are right and those who are wrong (and in what ways) in particular cases. Ultimately, in church discipline, you determine who must be retained and who must be put out of the church. Such activities, when properly pursued, cannot be carried out in a sloppy, unthinking way. Equally, in all that it does, the disciplining body must show concern for the honor of God's name, the welfare of the congregation, and the reclamation of the offender. It must be neither soft nor harsh. Such balance calls for spiritual discernment of the highest sort. So-called "petty" issues are seen in their true light as rebellion against Christ's authority vested in His church when they come under the focus of church discipline. Gossip, slander, and false accusations must be rejected and dealt with. Evidence must be weighed. Decisions of momentous import must be made. So, as you can see, the very process of church discipline is largely a process of discernment.
But mostly what I want to observe is that lack of discernment and lack of church discipline walk side by side. Not only does the same mentality lead to both lacks, but by rejecting discipline one naturally downplays the very concerns that make him discerning. When churches overreacted to the abuse of discipline that was all too common in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by virtually eliminating church discipline, the broken dike cleared the way for the liberal takeover of the church and allowed the ways of the world to flood in.
Church discipline erects a barrier between the church and the world; when it is removed, it becomes impossible to distinguish the two. With the removal of this barrier, the church was inundated by persons whose profession of faith was at best suspect. These marginal persons brought new concerns, perspectives, and attitudes into the church and directed her into different pathways. The church, to a great extent, began to think and act like the world. As the church became secularized, interest in spiritual discernment waned. Why should distinctions and differences be of significance? The great thing was to make Christianity as much like the world as possible. The church began to seek the world's approval and adopted her ways rather than standing against them. In this way the perceived need for discernment was lessened.
Continuum Versus Antithesis
With church discipline in ruins, the line between the church and the world smudged, and the church's shift of concern toward friendship with the world well established, the biblical concept of antithesis all but vanished. People who study the Bible in depth develop antithetical mindsets: They think in terms of contrasts or opposites. From Genesis to Revelation God's thoughts and ways are set over against all others. The Bible does not teach that there are numerous ways to please God, each of which is as good as the next. Nor does it teach that various opinions are more or less God's ways. What it teaches-everywhere-is that any thought or way that is not wholly God's is altogether wrong and must be rejected. According to the Bible, a miss is as good as a mile. There is only one God, and there is only one way of life-His!
People today don't like to hear such things-even people within the church. Why? Because they have a different mindset. Many of them have not known the Bible from childhood or ever made an intensive study of it later on, so their mindset is unbiblical. Modern mentality, even in the church (too often taught by the church and Christian schools), is a continuum mentality: Truth and values are not absolute but relative. Such thinking predominates in our culture. Stop and reflect for a moment: What kind of mindset do you have? Do you think in terms of absolutes? Or is life a series of value judgments that vary according to the situation?
According to continuum thinking, the mode of thinking taught outside the church (and largely within), every idea is a shade of gray. There is no right and wrong or true and false, but only shades of right and wrong or true and false spread along a continuum. The poles of this continuum are extended so far out toward the wings that for all practical purposes they are unattainable and therefore worthless. Nothing, then, is wholly right or wrong. All is relative; most of it is subjective.
That is one reason why biblical preaching, with its sharp antithesis, rubs many people the wrong way: It is hard for modern minds to accept. For a long time now educational institutions,2 newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, etc. have inculcated continuum thinking. Antithetical thinking is dismissed as fanatical or worse. Consequently, when Christians (all of whom have been affected by this environment) hear antithetical views expressed, they sound discordant. And indeed they are! Because anything goes, discernment is not placed at a premium. The word selected to describe racism was discrimination. Prior to that it was a compliment to call a person discriminating. If the true cannot be distinguished from the false, the right from the wrong, the good from the bad, then discernment is not only unattainable but it is unnecessary, and its pursuit is foolishness. Discernment thrives in an atmosphere of absolutes, among people whose minds have been molded to think antithetically.
In the Bible, where antithesis is so important, discernment-the ability to distinguish God's thoughts and God's ways from all others-is essential. Indeed, God said that- "the wise in heart will be called discerning" Proverbs 16:21:
From the Garden of Eden with its two trees (one allowed, one forbidden) to the eternal destiny of the human being in heaven or in hell, the Bible sets forth two, and only two, ways: God's way, and all others. Accordingly, people are said to be saved or lost. They belong to God's people or the world. There was Gerizim, the mount of blessing, and Ebal, the mount of cursing. There is the narrow way and the wide way, leading either to eternal life or to destruction. There are those who are against and those who are with us, those within and those without. There is life and death, truth and falsehood, good and bad, light and darkness, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan, love and hatred, spiritual wisdom and the wisdom of the world. Christ is said to be the way, the truth, and the life, and no one may come to the Father but by Him. His is the only name under the sky by which one may be saved.
Not only will you find such antithetical teaching, and much more, on nearly every page of the Bible, but even the construction of the Hebrew language itself seems designed to teach antithesis. Much scriptural poetry, many proverbs, and even some narrative is antithetical in structure.
Perhaps you have wondered about the principle underlying the clean/unclean distinctions of the Old Testament. Various rationales have been given for some of these distinctions, yet many seem to be purely arbitrary. May I suggest that all problems of arbitrariness are resolved when you see the clean/unclean system as a means of alerting the Jew to the fact that all day long, every day, in whatever he does, he must consciously choose God's way. Choices about food, clothing, farming techniques, justice, health care, holidays, and methods of worship were made either God's way or some other way. In other words, the clean/unclean system was designed to develop in God's people an antithetical mentality. Forbidding the mixing of materials in clothing, for example, doesn't seem so arbitrary after all when considered in the light of the biblical concern to create an antithetical posture toward life.
But with pastors and people alike growing up in an environment that stresses continuum thinking, anti- thesis is dulled as more and more people attempt to integrate sociology, psychology, and business management principles with Scripture. Teachers in Christian colleges now consider it "one of the key tasks of Christian higher education" to "seek to integrate his [the professor's] faith with his learning."3 The key task, you see, no longer is to distinguish God's ways from others but to find places of agreement "to the extent to which it is possible."4 There is a great difference between the two mentalities. According to the one, the task is to find out how one's faith integrates with what he has learned from the world. According to the other, the key task is to determine in what ways a Christian may keep him- self unspotted from the world (James 1:27) in both thought and life. He is to remember in all he does that friendship with the world is enmity with God (James 4:4)
In those disciplines for which God did not give us special revelation (while always being careful to discern good from evil at all levels, including the presuppositional) the Christian may learn from the world. But his task is not to integrate. Rather, his task is to discover God's truth in what he is doing. His task is to discover how to properly draw the antithesis in reference to his work. He must refine and remold all "learning" according to his fundamental Christian presuppositions and biblical beliefs. He may not merely integrate "learning" as it stands. This is true even of methods, because methods are means committed to the ends of a system. Methods, therefore, must always be considered in the context of the systems they serve. But, in all of this, the important thing to see is that the Christian's task-in whatever he does-is to be sure he is going God's way, a way that is always in antithesis to the world's way ("My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways"-Isaiah 55: 8); he must recognize God's stake in all of life.
That is why the psalmist in Psalm 1:1,2 was concerned at the very beginning of the Psalter, to set forth the two ways: God's and all others, distinguishing them as sharply as he knew how. (He did not try to integrate them!)
The book of Proverbs, at the outset and throughout, does the same thing. The modern educational emphasis on integration is at odds with the educational thrust found in these two biblical textbooks. The biblical axiom is that "the fear of the [belief in and submission to HIM] is the beginning of: knowledge" (Proverbs 1:7).But this way of thinking is contrary to modern thought, even in the church. In the Bible, Christ and the apostles warn against wolves who attack the flock and urge alertness on the pad pastors who are to protect God's float (Matthew 7:15). Paul warned the Ephesian elders, "I know after my departure savage wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock, and from among yourselves men will arise speaking distorted things to drag away disciples to follow them" (Acts 20:29,30) The note of antithesis and the need for discrimination is struck in that warning. Christ and the apostles were not constantly involved in controversy and beaten and stoned and killed because they sought agreement with the world and attempted integration wherever possible. They suffered because of the firm, antithetical stand they took for truth over against the world's deceptions. In contrast, today the shift against antithetical thinking and toward humanistic thinking has contributed much to the softness of the church and her frightful lack of discernment.
Deemphasis of Systematic Theology
There was a time when systematic thinking about one's faith was strongly encouraged. Students in seminaries and Bible colleges were taught to think systematically about their faith. Even the laity were taught systematically in churches. This kind of teaching required discernment on everyone's part.
Systematic theology not only looks at what the whole Bible says about any given subject, but it also insists on carefully distinguishing things that differ. Much criticism (not all) about theologians "splitting hairs" is uncalled for and stems from laziness of thought on the part of those who make such disparaging remarks.
This tendency, so prevalent, discourages careful thinking, which in turn allows the "integration" of ideas that are not really systematically self-consistent with one's faith. Moreover, a cavalier attitude toward Scripture has grown up in many corners, a spirit that has led to the use of Scripture to support ideas, beliefs, and practices that are entirely contrary to the Bible as a whole. Nowhere is this tendency more apparent than in Christian counseling.
It is not only a deemphasis on systematic thinking about the faith that has led to the appalling lack of discernment in the church. There is also an overemphasis on the discipline called biblical theology. In some theological institutions this threatens to supplant systematic theology by reducing concern for the finer distinctions of theology in favor of larger, sweeping, less discriminating themes.
Reformation doctrine, the teaching of Protestant reformers such as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and others, is ignored as if it never existed or else is renounced as scholastic and sterile. In some places, great doctrines so carefully hammered out over the centuries by exegetical theologians in refutation of heresies are up for grabs. Tradition (good or bad) is discarded as passé and trampled underfoot. Many teachers think they have to invent the theological wheel anew. There is no discernment; the good is tossed aside with the bad.
Self-styled "experts" in psychology, sociology, and education who hold Ph.D.'s in their fields and Sunday school degrees in Bible pontificate on Christian teaching and life on radio and elsewhere, setting themselves up as spokesmen for God. Yet they have never received ordination from the church of Christ to do so.6 Their teaching and use of the Bible (when it is used) often bear little resemblance to what the Scriptures, properly interpreted, really say.
What is the upshot of all this? One obvious result is the modern tendency to use theological language loosely. Take, for example, the use of the word "miracle." Today everything unusual or extraordinary seems to be called a miracle. When God heals someone through the use of medicine in a marvelous way, we are told that this is a miracle. A careful, theologically defined use of the term would distinguish the marvelous from the miraculous. Should a person whose arm had been amputated sprout a new one in its place, that would be a true miracle. If Joni Eareckson Tada suddenly starts walking after 20 years as a quadriplegic, that would be a miracle. But anything short of this kind of thing should not be considered miraculous.
Not only are biblical terms used imprecisely, thereby spreading confusion throughout the church, but erroneous teachings of every kind are readily tolerated. This is because so few people have the discernment necessary to identify and refute such errors. And if they do sense that something is wrong, their powers of discernment are too weak to put their fingers precisely on the point where the error lies. Or, if they do point out the error, other people denounce them as heresy hunters.
Don't forget how Jesus warmly commended the church at Ephesus for testing those "who call them- selves apostles, and aren't" and for finding them "liars" (Revelation 2:2b). There is a place for heresy hunting when done in a biblical manner.
Certainly, neither you nor I want to develop a judgmental spirit. But we must cultivate a discerning spirit. When people quote Matthew 7:1 ("Don't judge or you will be judged,") against proper attempts to distinguish and discern truth from error they misuse that important passage, which doesn't forbid all judging but only improper judging of the kind you would not care to have applied to you (Matthew 7:2). Indeed, Jesus elsewhere commanded us to "make a right judgment" John 7:24). Reading further in Matthew 7, you should not fail to notice that the Lord commanded, "Don't give what is holy to dogs, and don't throw your pearls before pigs" (verse 6). To determine who is a pig or do and who is not requires you to make a judgment. In short, in order to obey that command you must discriminate between pigs who shouldn't hear and people who should. That requires discernment.
In an article in Training magazine entitled "On Giving Offense" (Sep. 1986), the editor, Jack Gordon, wrote:
… at some point in the past several years we crossed an invisible line between self-assertion and self-righteousness, and turned into a society of perpetually indignant prigs … . I submit that people are entirely too horrified by the possibility of offending some one … I'm talking about the remarkable degree to which we've bought into the premise that the offender is always right. (p. 10).
Yet, as Gordon observes, "our favorite people- the ones we respect-are still those who give it to us straight." He is right! We respect the apostle Paul for that very reason. Gordon certainly has put his finger on a problem in the church: Somehow we have concluded that the supposed offender is always right. Well, he isn't! Nor is the supposed offender. We must abandon this outlook and learn to determine who, if anyone, is right or wrong in each case. But that takes discernment.
It is easier, of course, simply to accuse the one who is supposed to have given offense than to determine whether the offendee was sinfully sensitive or proud, and shouldn't have taken offense. But that takes discernment, and discernment is work-hard, exacting work. It runs risks, not the least of which is to suffer vilification. Curiously, it is not thought wrong to upbraid an offender even if he proves that an offendee's anger was sinful. The offender is immune to censure, it seems, whether he snarls, snaps, or even bites ) another's heel.
Liberation of the Laity
Much of what we have been discussing goes back to the liberation of the laity. With the rediscovery of the meaning of Ephesians 4:11,12-that God has given officers to His church to equip its members for their work of ministry (an important truth too long covered over by erroneous views of the authority and function of office)-came an overreaction against true authority. (Consider, for example, Hebrews 13:17: "Obey your leaders and submit to them.") The liberation of the laity, with all of the resources and energy that were set loose, has degenerated into anarchy. The laity are to minister, but within the sphere of biblical authority that is invested in the office-bearers of the church-not apart from them. Instead, men and women have arrogated authority to themselves, and have gone off to do whatever is right in their own eyes. As a consequence, individuals with money, or those who are able to gather a following because of their popularity, demand that the church accept their idiosyncratic views -or else. They have weakened the church by draining off funds and personnel into parachurch organizations and "ministries" that compete with her. And they have directly challenged her rights and prerogatives to conduct valid ministry ordained by God by hanging out shingles under which they, in a specialized manner, claim to be able to render "more professional services."
The Christian world has adopted the nefarious practice of merchandising people rather than pro- claiming Christ. It has appealed to the groupie spirit that is abroad in the land. There is little or no ability to distinguish between this and the true, God-ordained leadership that is so essential to the welfare of the church.
This is one reason why the scandal associated with some televangelists and spread across the newspapers and magazines of this country was possible. It was fueled by uncritical support from millions of Christians who succumbed to the groupie mentality rather than exercising proper evaluation of both the content and methods of those involved.
Truly, oppressive church government was a pompous evil to which we certainly do not want to return. Nor do we want to see pastors burdened with the task of "doing it all themselves." We are glad for the energy, gifts, and dedication of the laity. Yet in some ways the present situation is every bit as problematic as the former. When unordained persons, subject to no one and ordained men (who strike out on their own in "ministries" unapproved by their churches) command millions of dollars each year and wield the influence that such money is capable of generating (so that organized churches must either follow their lead or seem inconsequential to their own people), the liberation of the laity has gone too far. In fact, we could almost say that there is a new prelacy abroad today-rule of high profile personalities who are assuming the role of leadership for the church while operating outside the church and her authority. Along with this new turn of events, discernment has deteriorated. It is put out the door just as surely when "heroic" leaders call the shots as it was when powerful prelates reigned. Thus the liberation of the laity has become a new bondage in which some (relatively few) lay persons dominate the people of God and do all the thinking for the rest. When chaos prevails and things are not done decently and in God's order, we are bound by a freedom that has turned into license. This in turn erodes discernment.
Other proximate factors are also leading to the decline of discernment, such as the widespread "feeling" orientation in the church and the deceptive ways in which the enemy packages his products. Yet these four-the disappearance of church discipline, continuum thinking replacing antithesis, the deemphasis of systematic theology, and liberation of the laity-are sufficient to demonstrate that many closely-connected factors play a part.
The Basic Problem
These and other proximate problems that contribute to the present lack of discernment in the church all go back to a much more basic problem. It has been a perennial problem among sinful human beings ever since it was planted by the evil one in the garden. This basic problem is so important that I want to devote a separate chapter to it. But first we must take time to understand thoroughly just what the Bible means by discernment.
- The Lack of Spiritual Discernment
- What Caused This Lack?
- What Is Spiritual Discernment?
- The Basic Problem
- Concern To Discern
- Learn To Discern
- A Program
- Discernment in Giving
- Some Trial Materials Conclusion
This document has been posted by permission.
For Further Information from Jay Adams
Call Church of the Redeemer Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
(864) 486-9154
Click Here for more materials by Jay E. Adams