Ministry and Preparation for Ministry XXII

Question #1: 

Hey Dr. Luginbill,

Unfortunately, there will be no DTS this year. They basically said I need more church involvement/service. At the end of the app I tried to qualify this by citing some of my personal struggles and noting my erratic living situation the past few years, but I think this came back to bite me. They basically said that because of this I need to stay in one place for longer. They also ruled out a Spring admission.

Another problem now is that I literally have no plans whatsoever. I definitely kinda put all my eggs in one basket. I don’t feel that the Lord wants me working a secular job because I don’t need the money and I think it would be a waste of time, yet I’m not sure my best course is to sit in my apartment and just do Bible study. I could get more involved at the church (which is hard because I only stayed at this church to say I was at the church for the app, and switching churches would reset the clock basically) or volunteer with Cru or Young Life, but these don’t seem like they’d be very large time commitments anyway. I got into Asbury Seminary but I sort of ruled this out because I thought the curriculum for the degree was lacking substance. Seminary seemed like a good option but to be honest there aren’t many great options out there. Regardless, I want to spend most of my time preparing to teach. This will be met with opposition, however.

These are my thoughts right now.

Thanks

In our Lord,

Response #1: 

I'm sorry to hear this. I was praying for you to get in – and to meet up with some other young men who were not blinded to the truth (or to be able to lead some to it). God's plan is always perfect, so we have to accept that He knows what is best. There is probably a good reason why you didn't get in.

In our earlier correspondence about DTS et al., I did mention that firm connection with a church/denomination was key for these places. They don't want their cookie-cutter model disturbed. Did you mention in your app anything about Ichthys? If you did, and if they googled it, that also would probably not have been helpful (if those doing the evaluation read anything on the site).

As to next steps, well, you could go to Asbury and try transferring to DTS after a year if you didn't like it. I'm sure that Asbury (and all such places) would require you to be involved in a local church/denomination while there, and perhaps that would satisfy DTS going forward. As to "lacking substance", I'm not sure what you mean since all these places "lack substance". I will say that DTS is much better at presenting itself as being substantive than the others are. I remember getting their catalog while I was doing my second B.A. (in Classics) at the Univ. of Illinois after the USMC and being mightily impressed. But, really, just because they have some impressive course descriptions doesn't mean that the pabulum taught therein is any different. If you want to learn Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic), DTS is not going to be as good as a secular university which has deep offerings in these languages. Same goes for ancient history. As to Bible exegesis/interpretation, if you are reading deeply into Ichthys, you are already light years ahead of DTS (IMHO), in method and definitely in content. That goes double for theology.

In my estimation, what you could get at Asbury would probably be just as good (or bad) as what you would be getting at DTS. Same goes for Talbot, Trinity, Western Conservative Baptist and other such evangelically oriented schools. Places like Fuller, Gordon-Conwell, Chandler and Garret might have better linguistic offerings, but it's hard to find any Christians at those places.

So it all depends what the plan is. I agree that "to sit in my apartment and just do Bible study" is not the best approach (maybe not the worst one either, however). It's hard to devote oneself to a basic study of church history without being in a class, and that is much more the case for studying Greek and Hebrew.

The big problem (or advantage) of any of these seminaries is that if you have mastered most of the material at Ichthys solidly, you will be challenged by the doctrinaire attitude of many of your classmates (and most of your professors), who have the idea of a set of doctrines which are inviolable (when in fact they know less than they imagine and much of what they "know" is defective). AND they are not there to learn more, really, or to be taught more, definitely. They are there for the most part to "check the box" to have the credential to go on and pastor a church in the same old "nod to God" way – and to get some tips on how to make a success of that too.

If you were to find a few friends there with a different attitude – as I was blessed to do – that would be all to the good. But if they are not there to be found . . .

As I say, God works all things out together for the good, so perhaps this is for the good, at least at this time and for that place.

Do feel free to write me back about this.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #2: 

Dr. Luginbill,

No, I did not mention Ichthys or Bible Academy (link). Like I said, I think what did it was what I wrote in the "is there anything you'd like the admissions committee to know about your application?" section, namely that I hadn't been established fully at the church for several reasons, but I think this backfired.

I think you're right that Asbury would probably not be too different. I liked DTS because the core curriculum for my degree seemed pretty extensive. Asbury, on the other hand, just offers fewer classes to teach the same material. So, basically Dallas just used more classes to teach every Bible book and systematic theology, whereas Asbury just has "NT Intro" and "OT Intro" plus a couple theology classes to teach the material. I think the professors at Asbury are just as good, most likely. I just don't know if I feel so compelled to do it and then try to transfer. Plus, once I got there, I'd make friends and then it'd be hard to transfer even if DTS is better.

I think I'm going to keep my apt in NYC and spend at least the next few months working things out. To give you a feel for things, I personally feel that God is going to really help me excel with my studies in the coming months. I think I should be able to grow at a faster rate and discern more closely what He wants me to do. So although I don't believe I am at full speed right now, I think by the end of the year I should be. I've been trying my best, and although my application is never perfect, I've been seeing things progress slowly. The main obstacle has been being able to sit down and grow spiritually given some of my lingering cognitive handicaps. I could go on...

So I think I'll just hold off for a little while longer. With the languages and history, I'm sure I can learn them somehow, even if it's not in the most traditional way. I feel like with history, especially, there's so much to learn that you kinda have to do a lot of self-study/reading.

Thanks for the help

Response #2: 

OK, understood.

I would suggest focusing on the Bible Basics series (link) and mastering all of the material as a first step. Also, self-study of Greek and Hebrew is not a bad idea. I could recommend some resources (and there are some things about that at Ichthys).

If you are in NYC, there are plenty of colleges and seminaries in the area which might let you take a class or two as a not fully enrolled student. You might want to check that out.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #3: 

Sorry for the delay.

Understood. I'll let you know if I need some extra resources.

So, I actually decided to do a one-year online apologetics degree at Liberty. So I'll be living in NYC doing these 8-week classes starting tomorrow as I keep going to the church and doing what Dallas wants me to do. I think I'm still gonna shoot for next fall at Dallas. Seems like it's impossible for them not to accept me then since they've basically told me what to do in the meantime--they put a "pause" on my application.

Response #3: 

Interesting. I do think what you told them was probably the reason for the pause.

__ is just completing (has completed?) an online degree with Liberty as well. Let me know what you think and maybe I'll ask him about it.

Keeping you in my prayers, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #4:  

Hi Dr. Luginbill,

How are you doing?? I hope well. I’m sorry I wasn’t in touch at all this fall.

I wanted to update you on my seminary plans/situation going into the Spring Semester. I also have a few questions about stuff that I thought you could maybe answer. I have some big decisions to make within the next few weeks. I’ll try to be succinct (I failed at this).

So, I finished my first four classes of the Liberty apologetics degree this fall and they went okay. I learned some stuff but unfortunately felt like I was just getting a lot of it done as opposed to being engaged with it, even though I got As. It wasn’t the material as much as it was just being in a difficult situation being alone without a ton of support I believe. I was still progressing a bit and so think this had to do with the lack of absorption/engagement with the material.

But, now that I feel fully healthy, I’m reconsidering whether or not my current set-up is conducive to good health and productivity. My mind has cleared up a lot on this thanks to God, and I worry now that being alone in my apartment for the next 8 months doing online classes will make it harder for me to battle sin and grow at a fast pace.

So…I’m seriously considering moving to Wilmore, KY and starting at Asbury this February. I think I might really be ready for it, and I’m trying to discern whether being in an immersive community is really the obedient thing to do or not. It might be critical for me to have the prayer, support, and community moving forward. I think I probably need to experience this stuff for real before I decide to do things predominantly remotely, which is practically what I’ve done for the ~4 years I’ve been a believer now.

One serious thing holding me up, though, is the possibility of getting a shot at DTS. The prospect of a fall admission seems likely as long as I do what they say (the church stuff). I do wonder if the isolation in NYC would make it harder to stay on top of things, though, and I would hate to wait 8 more months and then not get in. So it’s basically either Asbury now or the POSSIBILITY of Dallas in the fall. If I didn’t get into Dallas, I would just do Asbury and a lot of what I’m writing is meaningless.

This leads me to my next question, though. I looked back at our emails from August and you said that you thought Asbury would probably be the same quality as DTS, whether good or bad, despite apparent curriculum differences. I think you might be right, but I’m a little unsure since Dallas seems more thorough and extensive. For example, Dallas’ core is like 8-9 Bible exposition courses whereas Asbury is more like 5. It’s basically the same for theology. I think the thing with Dallas here might be that I would be pushed to learn all the relevant material considering I feel I still have a lot to learn before teaching, so that’s why I feel the breadth of Dallas might be better, but what do you think? Asbury would make up for the difference with electives on specific Bible books, but you warned me about such classes in a previous email, or at least exegesis (of X book) classes. I ask this because I don’t know how much I can do/learn by myself, but I suppose I will have to keep growing/learning alone once I’m done with seminary. On top of all this, I do plan on learning the languages, maybe at Asbury or Dallas.

Last thing about the courses/curriculum: Asbury is Wesleyan and much more Arminian and is not hard on OSAS like Dallas, so that’s a plus. Should I be bummed that they don’t have a serious systematic theology curriculum, though? I suspect you will say no, but I would still kind of like to touch the bases with all the ‘ologies. I might ask about their philosophy or approach on this when I visit Wilmore next Monday, because I should be meeting with a professor.

Another good thing is that Asbury didn’t care about the church stuff to get in and will not care what I do when I get there, per the admissions woman. Dallas is the opposite. I should also mention that I do have a room in Asbury housing reserved at the moment and there are seats open in many classes, so that is not a concern.

So let me lay out the questions more simply:

1) What do you see in scripture on the venue for fellowship? Do you think in-person is the ideal generally speaking? I know this is sorta broad, but it might help with the studying alone vs. full immersion question.

2) Do you think the Dallas breadth is maybe worth waiting for, or do you think I can make up for it with outside study/learning?

3) Is there anything beneficial about systematic theology in your eyes? Dallas is more traditional but Asbury has a different approach.

Any guidance is appreciated. I know you won’t decide for me, but I appreciate the help. I might ask Curt the same questions, but probably in a shorter email.

Thanks a lot

In Christ,

Response #4: 

Doing well, my friend.

Good to hear that you are making progress towards your goal.

In terms of the seminary question, Asbury is Methodist and much more "progressive" than Dallas, so there are some serious differences in doctrinal stances.

For me, the real question has to do with your reasons for going to seminary in the first place. If you are looking to get placed as a pastor in a brick-and-mortar church, it would be good to investigate just where the graduates of each end up going. If you don't care about that and are wanting education, that's a different story. To be honest, I think in terms of systematic theology you would be better off reading and re-reading the Basics Series at Ichthys (link). Systematic theology at Talbot was a big disappointment to me. In fact, as mentioned many times, the real benefit of going was meeting other followers of my mentor, Col. Thieme, who were likewise trying to gain some preparation for genuine ministry. You might find that (in general terms) at either place, but then again you might not. In terms of methodology of exegesis, again, I think you'd be better off focusing on the Hebrews series (link). Both places will have canons of interpretation with which you will probably not agree (since they are patently defective). There would be some benefit to going through the exercises which classes will force, but also some trouble therein when correct procedures bump into their preconceived ideas about such things. I did, as I often say, also benefit from Church history classes. You might also get some help with Greek and Hebrew (probably more from Dallas than from Asbury), but here too secular course work would be preferable.

Whichever way you choose to go, it won't necessarily be an easy road, and you will have your principles challenged at many points along the way. That can be tough enough in company with some like-minded individuals, but doubly tough if you're all alone there. I do promise to keep you in prayer and to be a sounding board for you. You might also seriously consider making some contacts with the Ichthys forum folks (if you haven't already done so) since they would be an excellent support during those days to come.

Do feel free to write me back about this, and please do keep me in the loop about your visit and decision.

Keeping you in daily prayer, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #5: 

Robert,

Okay. While it's not the best reason perhaps, the reason I'm inclined to go to seminary is because I am in a unique position financially and feel the call to pursue full-time ministry. It seems like the only logical thing to do because I know God does not want me working and am fairly confident that just studying alone in my apartment and trying to teach remotely is probably not the best course of action. So, it's mainly for the education and the community/camaraderie I could get. It would also get certain people like my parents off my back and would be somewhat enjoyable. I could also see myself finding a mentor in the giving space because I do feel there is a lot of money that I can put to good use for the Kingdom if I investigate and do things carefully.

With reading Ichthys, even though I have certainly benefited from it, I'm not entirely convinced that Ichthys has all the answers. I suppose I also have never fully bought the idea that we must submit to one or two teachers for growth, and I'm not sure I see that in scripture. I think that it could even create an unjustified dependence on one guy when it should be the Word above all. I have tried to use commentaries and various sources to find correct interpretations and don’t think this is a bad approach.

I’ll keep you updated.

Best,

Response #5: 

I don't think anyone does well sitting home alone.

In terms of language skills and other tools, are you still in NYC? There are probably a lot of options for learning Greek and Hebrew in an academic setting there.

Best wishes.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #6: 

Hi Bob,

I apologize for the delay in updating you.

So, overall the visit went well I thought. Curt Omo gave me some potential concerns like some charismatic teaching and generally thought that Asbury did not have much going for it. I am pretty convinced that I should go nonetheless, but your thoughts here might help. He suggested that the M.Div. curriculums at places other than DTS are not comprehensive enough and do not teach every Bible book, but I know that I will have to keep learning regardless of how long the degree is or when I graduate. I feel like this is something I will inevitably have to get good at.

I talked to a few students/admissions people and a professor. I asked about the small handful of charismatic professors but they affirmed it was a small contingent. I asked about the more egalitarian leanings of women in ministry and they said some people lean that way but that I wouldn't be opposed or anything for my beliefs. So I think these are good things but I could see how a mix of everything could make things murkier and trickier to see or discern through. But I do think that my discernment is fine and that I won't be influenced in far-off directions. You did mention that Asbury is probably more progressive than DTS, though, and I think that's right. Curt said that the students really might not know what they are believing/doing, but I do believe that I am thinking for myself enough. On top of this, my research has shown that there are a handful of decent profs that I could take classes from.

Frankly, I think that asking everyone for advice is giving off the impression that my discernment isn't very good, but I don't think that's the case. I know that I need to make a choice on my own and go from there. It will probably not be an "easy" experience, but I think a handful of humble, committed believers that I could find would be a success.

Let me know what you think.

Thanks a lot

In Christ,

Response #6: 

Sorry for the delay (posting day yesterday).

Re: "Frankly, I think that asking everyone for advice is giving off the impression that my discernment isn't very good", well, that's probably an occupational hazard involved in asking for advice in the first place. But nobody knows everything (Prov.11:14; 15:22). Wisdom resides in having the discretion to recognize good counsel from bad.

The decision is yours, obviously. You are the one who has to follow through on it and do all the hard work connected with it.

There is no perfect seminary. In my opinion, there isn't even a good one out there at present . . . not at least where a person with access to this ministry (e.g.) could get better doctrinal training. Anywhere you go they will be wrong about many principles of truth (which should have been figured out and straightened out long ago but are cleaved to out of tradition), and also flawed in their methodology of scriptural interpretation (a little or a lot, depending on the professor); on top of that, the language modules are far inferior to what you would get at a secular university studying Greek and Hebrew.

That doesn't mean you can't benefit from going to a seminary. I certainly did (of course the times were different and the level of truth available different as well). You will be tested in lots of interesting ways and you will "learn things" that you weren't anticipating, much along the lines of seeing first-hand what the problems in the Laodicean church are. This can also be helpful. I also think I might have mentioned that church history proved a valuable set of courses for me personally. I also got some Aramaic which I had not had at Univ. of Illinois. Best part, as I often say, was the group of people I met (Curt Omo among them).

The pluses and minuses discussed above and in prior emails will be found at virtually any Protestant seminary you might choose to attend, just a differing mix depending upon where you go. I think it's also true that none of these places will prepare you spiritually or doctrinally. You'll have to do that on your own in tandem with the seminary work. I know you've expressed reluctance re: Ichthys (that's your business). But you'll have to get that support from somewhere until you are ready to "feed yourself" in the process of doing your own ministry. Unless and until you ARE a functioning teacher, everyone needs a teacher.

Thanks for the update.

Keeping you in prayer on this.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #7: 

Bob,

Okay, thanks for the thoughts.

I’m curious if you know/what you think about “inductive Bible study” and this interpretive approach. This might be telling as I’d be taking a class on it very soon.

On the other points, understood.

When it comes to Ichthys, I do read it, however, I just think I need to consult several perspectives before I land on any particular interpretation of something. I have certainly come to think for myself the past year or two and always try to check scripture on everything. I’d like to do this at seminary as much as I can.

Thank you for the prayers. I certainly need them.

Best,

Response #7: 

On “inductive Bible study”, as far as I'm concerned, this is basically the same "personal impressions" method that substitute-for-teaching-in-the-main-assembly Bible studies have been using forever (with a patina of standardized methodology to make it seem more legitimate). A passage of scripture means what it says and says what it means. A pastor-teacher's job is to figure that out and teach it, fitting the truth into the context of the entire Word of truth; in doing so, there will be obvious applications, but these are not the be all and end all of interpretation (that is pure sermonizing).

I have no problem with you "thinking for yourself". What I am getting at is that any pastor-teacher needs to have his essential, personal "systematic theology" figured out before he starts teaching others. Ideally, this will be an improvement on what he has received. But it's also not a Smorgasbord. The truth is what it is. Substituting bad for good is always a mistake. The process of deciding on individual points is anathema to spiritual growth for non-pastor-teachers. It's only a positive thing for pastor-teachers who are putting together their personal framework and doing it the right way. Since I am personally convinced that major changes from what Ichthys teaches across the board would be moving away from the truth rather than closer to it – and since I am concerned for your spiritual welfare – naturally I feel strongly about this.

Your prayers are appreciated too, my friend!

In Jesus,

Bob L.

ADDENDUM (from: https://ichthys.com/mail-old-testament-interpretation20.htm#Melchizedek

So, if you are a pastor-teacher, I respect your right to make these "calls" yourself: you are responsible to the Lord for what you teach, after all, and that is an awesome responsibility.

But if you are not gifted as a teacher, and, even if you are, if you have not yet gotten to the point through study, training and preparation where you are capable of feeding yourself spiritually and others too (and are actually doing so), then you need to attach yourself to a ministry where you can grow and can be fed. It's not a matter of points like this; it's a matter of authority. Col. Thieme was certainly right about that. No one can grow by merely amassing information in the brain. Only what is true can produce growth, and only if it is believed. A person can be aware of ten different interpretations of a passage/issue and be able to recite and extrapolate them wonderfully well; he/she can even have a preference as to which one is probably right; but a) if he/she is not right, and even more to the point b) if he/she does not really have enough confidence in said point of truth to believe it, then there is no profit whatsoever. In fact, this scholastic approach is more likely to harden the heart over time than it is to lead someone closer to Jesus Christ. Neither the merely academic effort nor the hyper-emotional anti-academic approaches work. Scripture says there are teachers placed in the Church for the edification of its members. All who are not teachers, can only really get anywhere positive and substantial by learning from a good source AND believing what is taught.

To that end, my suggestion is as ever that you find a source you can, after vetting, trust with a high level of confidence; then, study, learn and believe as much truth as you can. I certainly would never deign to suggest that Ichthys is the ONLY such place; but it is one such place, and, quite frankly, the number of good places out there in the waning days of Laodicea is shockingly small. One other place I always recommend is pastor-teacher Curtis Omo's Bible Academy (at the link); see also now BibleDocs (link).

Question #8: 

Hi Bob,

Sorry for the delay again. You know I'm notorious for this.

I agree that a teacher needs to know his stuff before he begins to teach. But you might need to give me some scriptures on relying on one pastor-teacher for growth, because I see the opposite: 1 Cor. 3:21-22, Matt. 23:8-10. In fact, I think this is very similar to the current model of most churches where most congregants rely on the lead pastor for guidance/teaching without doing much digging themselves. Even Hebrews 13:17 says to submit to leaders (plural). I'm sure many people question your authority for the wrong reasons, but I also see some readers being rather obsequious, and I don't think that's healthy. I think that this can also lead to the exclusion or denigration of other good teachers that might be out there. I do plan on teaching down the line, but I don't want my teaching to be derivative because I am still responsible for spreading what could potentially be false teaching. I need to come to an honest assessment of the text and teach what I think is true.

Response #8: 

No worries. Everyone has their own schedule and rhythms.

On the substance, I fear you are misunderstanding what I'm trying to tell you. I could care less about my own "authority", except where the Lord is concerned. Pastor-teachers do have authority, whether they like it or not. They are under authority (to the Lord), they are responsible to teach the truth (or they have Him to answer to), and those who CHOOSE to listen to them are responsible to accept what is said . . . or go somewhere else – that is, if they want to grow (only what is true and believed produces growth). The reason for the latter is that those who are not pastor-teachers can only grow by accepting the authority of someone who is. That is true even of those who have the gift but not the requisite skills, preparation or experience to be feeding themselves yet. Anyone who is violating the principle above is making themselves their own authority without God's authorization. That will never come to any good . . . because it can never ever result in spiritual growth.

From a practical point of view, a young man who determines he has the gift of pastor-teacher and who is likewise willing to do what the Lord wants him to do, prepare and then teach, will need to submit himself to some system of systematic teaching to get anywhere. The Presbyterians have one. The Baptists have one (several, actually). Even the Roman Catholics have one (granted that it is almost entirely devoid of truth). There are non-denominational systems too. Scofield essentially encapsulated one in his Study Bible. Chafer followed Scofield. Thieme followed Chafer. I followed Thieme (not to put myself on the level of any of these others, merely to show the derivation). In my own teaching, I have always sought to put the truth first even when it meant going against what the system I learned taught. But . . . I learned the system first, AND I was very careful to diligently search out every principle of truth whether agreeing completely or disagreeing completely or making minor alterations in the way it was presented.

Isn't that what we are all supposed to be trying to do? Get closer to the actual truth?

This isn't about "me". If you have a problem with anything taught at Ichthys, well, you'd be pretty unique if you didn't have some "bones" in the fish. The best policy for someone trying to prepare for ministry is to first find the very best system of theology he can after a diligent search, then master that system, then improve upon it where it may need improvement, expand on it where it may need expansion, and make full use of it to teach the truth "even if" the method and the doctrinal essence stays the same, in order to feed our Lord's sheep.

Re: "I don't want my teaching to be derivative because I am still responsible for spreading what could potentially be false teaching". If you think that Ichthys is false teaching, then you ought to flee far away from it and find some place where there isn't any false teaching. That is the very first job of any believer who wants to grow. How much more for a prospective pastor-teacher.

Re: "I need to come to an honest assessment of the text and teach what I think is true." Of course. But just because you think it is honest, doesn't necessarily make it right, and if it's not right, then it's wrong, and if it's wrong, it's false teaching . . . regardless of how you may personally feel about it. It's the Lord we are trying to please, not ourselves. This is all about the truth.

Every pastor-teacher needs to have a basic framework of truth in their hearts, fully mastered and corresponding to the actual teachings of scripture. This framework can and should be improved, refreshed and expanded daily, but it has to start somewhere, and the more comprehensive and closer to the full truth of the Bible it is, the better. If you think you can find a better one than Ichthys, then you should embrace it. Coming up with one of your own from the ground up on your own is nearly impossible and not without its dangers. Every point of doctrine is important and choosing one from column "A" and one from column "B" haphazardly usually ends up undermining whatever framework was there to begin with (rather than building up a better one).

This is all theoretical, of course. Perhaps you could tell me, what Ichthys teachings, in particular, do have trouble with?

From my point of view, this is about the truth, not about "men" or multiple teachers. I would be happy to have you and everyone else at Ichthys have dozens of teachers . . . if these others were teaching correctly, teaching what was true, teaching in a manner that led to true spiritual growth. I don't see a lot of that out there at present. Just the opposite.

The way I see it, you should be seeking out the truth and the best place to learn it from. It doesn't make any difference to me if someone uses this ministry or not . . . except that I am zealous for the Lord's glory through the edification of His Church – and in my perhaps not so humble opinion there aren't too many places that come close to Ichthys for accomplishing that.

So in short, if you can find a better mousetrap, use it. If you can build a better mousetrap, build it. But just because there are plenty of people out there talking about mousetraps doesn't mean that they have any idea of what they are talking about. The proof is in the catching.

Here's the best link to answer your citation questions:

BB 6B: Ecclesiology, section II.B: The Pastor-Teacher

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #9: 

Hi Bob,

I apologize again for the long delay. I'm just getting settled in here at Asbury.

Okay, I've tried to organize my thoughts carefully here. I agree with and understand most of what you are saying, but I guess I would apply many things you said about PTs to non-PTs as well. I apologize if any of this is me preaching to you when you know this.

Re: "...those who CHOOSE to listen to them are responsible to accept what is said . . . or go somewhere else -- that is, if they want to grow (only what is true and believed produces growth)." I assume you agree, but I would say that non-PTs are responsible for accepting what the PT says, SO LONG AS what is being said is true, not just "what is said". As you said, only the truth believed and applied leads to growth, not what we think to be true believed and applied. Maybe that's what you mean. But if a non-pastor-teacher readily accepts something false and then acts on it, that person is still responsible for that sin, because he is the one sinning. The pastor-teacher might be culpable as well, but that person is responsible for the sin himself. To take an extreme example, if one accepts OSAS and then takes the mark of the beast, we know what his fate is. Now, I suspect that one would have to reject many other truths to ultimately decide to take the mark of the beast, but the reasoning still applies.

I agree that a non-PT should not reject a genuine PT's authority. I guess I just don't see how "...those who are not pastor-teachers can only grow by accepting the authority of someone who is". Wouldn't this place a barrier between the text and the reader so much so that the non-PT should just stop reading the scriptures for himself? I guess my point/question is: at what point do we "reject" the authority of the PT and not believe what he says? If something is clearly false, we obviously don't believe it. Also, when you say, " I would be happy to have you and everyone else at Ichthys have dozens of teachers. . . if these others were teaching correctly, teaching what was true, teaching in a manner that led to true spiritual growth. I don't see a lot of that out there at present. Just the opposite.", this doesn't seem so consistent with the rest of what you are saying because if several teachers disagree on a doctrine, well...whose authority do we accept? I'm not sure if suspending judgment is necessarily the right thing to do either. Maybe you were being kind of sarcastic here, but you tell me.

We can discuss individual points at another time, but I guess I would like to start here because I think this teaching, even if you're right, has huge implications.

Best,

Response #9: 

How do you like Asbury? Exciting times! I'll make a point of keeping you in prayer for the best possible experience and preparation.

Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you.
Hebrews 13:17 NIV

Here's the principle and the rationale: our objective is growth, progress and production. Submission to authority is to one's personally chosen pastor's teaching authority (NOT his control of one's life), to accept what is taught as true as best we can (or find a place more to our tastes), to believe it, to apply it, and then to share it. That is the way we gain rewards. That is the way we do what Jesus wants us to do.

“Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?"
Luke 6:46 NIV

If we accept that our job is to grow closer to Jesus Christ, to emulate Him, to follow Him, to build up His Church, is there any other way to do this rather than through the truth, the actual truth of the Word of God? So isn't getting to the truth the most important thing? That is impossible to do without the Bible. And the Bible can't be understood beyond obvious truths without good Bible teaching. And for good Bible teaching to have any positive effect whatsoever, not only does it have to be true, it also has to be believed. But if the authority of the teacher is not accepted, then the teaching is not going to be fully believed and accepted. Instead it will be "refereed". But by whom? I pass judgment on my students' exams. But for very good reason it doesn't work the other way around. If they come to believe I don't know Greek and Latin well enough for them to get anything out of my classes, or if they think they've gotten to the point that they know it better than me, then they ought to move on. Same thing goes if a believer can find a better teacher or a better system of learning.

I think that applies to all men who are training for ministry too. Until one gets to the point of being able to "feed oneself", a place it took me well over a decade to get to after I made the commitment, then doesn't it make sense to need to be learning from someone else? Because if one is just bouncing around between various ideas and not knowing what is true or eclectically believing this and not that, and not on the basis of a solid foundation but merely out of personal preference, that is a recipe for disaster.

I'm certainly not saying that you even have to read or study anything at Ichthys. But I would recommend finding the right system of teaching out there which will set a good foundation for you. From a good foundation, you can build, so that, even if you make some mistakes, you will at least have something to show for it in the end. But making oneself the arbiter of all things before one knows enough to reasonably do so is building on sand (which explains Hebrews 13:17 and similar passages).

"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”
Matthew 7:24-27 NIV

As often mentioned, Curt Omo's Bible Academy is a wonderful teaching ministry. I learned from Col. Thieme, and Berachah Tapes and Publications still offers his materials for free. One could do worse than mastering Chafer's Systematic Theology (though it is pre-Trib). And there are other ministries out there and other systematic theologies too. No doubt you'll be exposed to some of them at Asbury. If you think you've found something better than Bible Basics at Ichthys, by all means avail yourself of it. But taking the Smorgasbord approach without a solid grounding is working without a net (and has predictable results).

Please understand. I'm not saying not to read other things. Far from it. Seminary in particular is for expanding perspectives. Even more importantly, you should read your Bible diligently every day (ideally, in Greek and Hebrew as well as in English), carefully weighing the truth in the Spirit at all times. I'm also not saying you shouldn't think for yourself. Seminary in particular is a time for branching out. But again, without roots deeply gripping solid rock beneath, the chances of the tree reaching the heights is limited. In time, it'll turn to the sun as it feels it. But not if it's uprooted by the first big storm.

You can't grow from what you don't believe, and also not if what you are putting your faith in is not true. The more truth believed, the more growth, especially as testing and application strengthen one's hold upon what is believed.

"A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher."
Luke 6:40 NIV

This is not Roman Catholicism. We all get to choose who we want for our teacher or what system of truth we want to put in that place of authority. But until we've got the tools (languages, depth of knowledge of the Bible and Bible doctrines, background in other important things such as church history and the history of the ancient world) and until we've got the experience in interpreting all of these things correctly to come up with true teaching, we all need a teacher or the equivalent.

I grew up in the city. When I went into the USMC, I did not know how to shoot. When we got to "range week" at TBS, I was very careful to listen in all humility to what was said. I practiced diligently on my off time "snapping in" so as to become a good shot. I worked at it – and I soaked in everything they told me . . . because I figured that my instructors knew what they were talking about and that the system of marksmanship they were sharing with me was solid. Once it came down to practical application, I'll admit I did take a few liberties, altering in small detail to make things work for me individually. I never qualified less than expert as a result (the highest ranking), and I never regretted being humble enough about my ignorance (a rare thing for me at that age) to learn. For all but the naturally talented, in my experience of the world, most things work that way. And that's what I read in scripture too. Get the most you can from the best you can – don't think of it as an imposition but an opportunity – and then build on that foundation of your choice to develop your own ministry, the one the Lord has for you.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #10: 

Hi Bob,

Okay, I understand what you're saying. I probably should've said a little while ago that I'm not questioning your gift or authority as a teacher. I guess I just struggle with this teaching and want to sort it out.

I'm not sure if it's worth going on about it, but I guess I would just reiterate what I was saying before, namely that there comes a point where we simply don't believe something if we know it to be false. Incorrect teaching believed and applied doesn't lead to spiritual growth, but the truth believed and applied does. I'm saying that accepting the authority of a teacher and readily, blindly accepting teaching that could be false without any individual due diligence could lead to a faux spirituality, a faith based on wood, hay, or straw (1 Cor. 3:12), or even on the sand as you quoted. I'm not necessarily saying that what you're teaching is false, only that IF it is false, then it would create problems for believers. I'm just struggling with this because if only the teacher can extract the correct meaning from the text, how can he exactly expect the student to understand it then? If the believer can't verify what he is being taught on his own, then essentially everything would have to be filtered through the teacher, and then like I said, the student wouldn't REALLY be responsible for his sins that come from the obedience from the teaching. You mention Roman Catholicism. If my understanding is correct, it was exactly the Roman Catholic church before the Reformation that taught that the truth must be filtered through particular higher-ups. This is what led guys like Luther and Tyndale to translate the Word into common languages to help others read the text for themselves. I think teachers are necessary. I know that. I'm just not sure I don't see the teacher being supposed to aid the students in seeing things for themselves. I think that's how I would put it.

Asbury is going fine. I think the main reason I came is that I wanted the camaraderie and immersive in-person fellowship, and I think I will have ways to love and serve my friends in various ways in the future, but I'm still working on that. I think that'd be much more enjoyable than joining a church here and being of service out of pressure. Frankly, and I don't want to be proud or anything, but I do see myself as more gifted intellectually than most people here, and I feel responsible for cultivating that gift and helping those around me. A lot of that is thanks to Ichthys, and I actually will be checking several things from the site. With conversations on free will, for example, I don't see many people understanding how God's plan really works, the genius of it and everything. Most people view God's sovereignty and free will to be in conflict and paradoxical. I have a long way to go before I think I can officially "teach", but I always want to clarify the truth when I can. Oh...and I had to sit through a 3-hour long class last night on miracles from my charismatic professor. Hoping it was by far the worst class I'll ever have.

Thanks for the thoughts.

In Christ,

Response #10: 

Re: "we simply don't believe something if we know it to be false", amen! This is the apparent dilemma that all believers face, but it is only apparent. Our Lord told us that a tree is either good or bad. And we judge which is which by the fruit. If we are eating from a bad tree, that ought to be pretty apparent – and we should seek a good one in that case. If we have validated that the tree is good, then the fruit will help us, not hurt us. For someone who is gifted to teach, indeed it is incumbent upon that person to find the best tree possible to grow as much as possible before completely striking out on one's own. That is all I am saying.

Believers should always be reading their Bibles for themselves (see the link: "Read Your Bible!"), and it is not wrong to ask questions. The issue is the truth. There is, however, a difference between a believer who is really trying to find the truth in humility and someone who is only interested in their own (usually unfounded) opinions. There are plenty of the latter in Laodicea and precious few of the former. That goes double for ministries which are genuinely seeking the truth beyond nodding to a stale and in many ways incorrect tradition. Finding a "good tree" is rare, so abandoning it for some unknown quantity is a dubious prospect. At some point, pastor-teachers do need to strike out on their own when they begin teaching others: at that point they are responsible for what they are teaching . . . so they'd better be right about it. Until that point, learning a system of theology and teaching is the best foundation a prospective pastor-teacher can lay down.

So it makes sense to find the best one possible and learn it inside out. Luther was a doctor of theology. Much of what he had mastered turned out to be wrong, but not all of it. Without that foundation, even though it was shaky, it's hard to see how he would ever have been able to break the new ground he broke. If we are moving forward – and if we are part of a heritage of believers who are moving forward – then we can overlook small differences and not break fellowship over them, even as we personally choose the truth over everything else and teach that truth when the time comes for us to minister ourselves.

For those without the gift of pastor-teacher, there is no way to become spiritually mature and to progress without being dependent upon someone else' ministry. Every believer should read the Bible for themselves and if they become convicted of serious error in the ministry they are aligned with, they should find something better. But again, this is binary choice for those without the gift and without, very importantly, the preparation to make detailed theological distinctions themselves. Pastor-teachers have to be convinced of the truth of everything they teach or they shouldn't teach it. Other believers need to have a level of confidence in the ministry they've chosen to follow – and as long as they are following it, they should commit to believing as much as they can, setting aside the "bones" when it comes to things they have a hard time accepting. If it gets to the point where the "bones" are greater than the "meat", said believer should consider finding another fisherman.

This is not an "un-refereed event". The Spirit seeks the growth of us all, and He is working with us all to maximize that growth. If a believer in genuine humility is troubled by discrepancies between the Bible and the teaching of the ministry he or she is under, the Spirit will help him/her find a better place to grow. If it's a question of arrogance, however, just being unwilling to accept things that are true because they are uncomfortable or for whatever reason just rub the person the wrong way, then the Spirit won't be involved in that person's abandoning a "good tree". We may not be able to tell the difference between person A and person B, but the Lord surely knows the difference. And in terms of ministries, that is certainly the case as well. No one who ever wanted to grow was ever left in the lurch by the Lord. He/she may have had to "seek" in order to "find", but those who seek DO find – if they are truly seeking and doing so in genuine humility. God takes care of it.

(26) From one man he created all the nations of mankind – that they should come to inhabit the whole face of the earth. He fixed and determined the specific times and extent of their habitations, (27) to the end that they should seek out this God, that they might go in search of Him and so might find Him – for He is not far off from any one of us.
Acts 17:26-27

Tyrants want their authority obeyed for its own sake – and there are plenty of tyrannical pastors and denominations out there. A man who is genuinely trying to do what Jesus told us to do, namely, "feed My sheep!", knows that if believer X doesn't accept his teaching authority, said believer will never grow, because only what is true AND is believed turns into the "full knowledge" in our hearts which produces that growth.

Re: "how can he exactly expect the student to understand it then?" It is impossible . . . without the Holy Spirit. Pastor-teachers derive truth from scripture through the Spirit, and believers have truth made understandable to them when they hear it and believe through the same Holy Spirit – and not otherwise in any case (see the link: "Epistemology and Spiritual Growth").

(9) But as it is written: "What the eye has not seen and the ear has not heard, and [what] has not entered the heart of man, [these are the very] things which God has prepared for those who love Him". (10) And God has revealed [these very things] to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches out everything, even the deep things of God. (11) For who knows the things of a man except the spirit of man which is in him? In the same way too no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. (12) And we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, in order that we might know the things graciously given to us by God. (13) And these are the very things we are speaking about, not in words taught by human wisdom, but with words of the Spirit, communicating spiritual information to spiritual people. (14) Now the unspiritual man does not receive the [deeper] things of the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him and he is not able to understand them because they are appreciated [only] through spiritual means. (15) But the spiritual man does appreciate them all, though he himself is not appreciated [in this regard] by anyone. (16) For [as it says] "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Who will instruct Him?" But we do have the very thinking (lit., "mind") of Christ (i.e., His truth from the Spirit).
1st Corinthians 2:9-16

Re: "I'm just not sure I don't see the teacher being supposed to aid the students in seeing things for themselves." Of course we want everyone to know the truth! We want everyone to be built up in the truth so as to see it and understand it and master it so as to be able to use it and apply it for themselves. That is the whole point behind Ichthys. If a believer will calmly and diligently read these materials, believing everything they can (setting aside the bones), they will grow – and will be able to help others through ministry thereafter likewise. That is what we are supposed to be doing.

(11) Christ Himself appointed some of us apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers (12) in order to prepare all of His holy people for their own ministry work, that the entire body of Christ might thus be built up, (13) until we all reach that unifying [goal] of belief in and full-knowledge of the Son of God, that each of us might be a perfect person, that is, that we might attain to that standard of maturity of the fullness of Christ; (14) that we may no longer be immature, swept off-course and carried headlong by every breeze of so-called teaching that emanates from the trickery of men in their readiness to do anything to cunningly work their deceit, (15) but rather that we may, by embracing the truth in love, grow up in all respects with Christ, who is the head of the Church, as our model. (16) In this way, the entire body of the Church, fit and joined together by Him through the sinews He powerfully supplies to each and every part, works out its own growth for the building up of itself in love.
Ephesians 4:11-16

Thanks for the update on Asbury. Sounds pretty much as I anticipated. From what you've said, it seems you can already see that beyond the superficial, when it comes to a foundation of truth, you're already miles ahead . . . even of some of your professors. Praying for you to make some connections there with some other men who are genuinely seeking the truth.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #11: 

Bob,

Okay, yeah, I agree with what you're saying essentially.

You make a good point about trusting trees and holding small disagreements tentatively.

And that makes sense about the Spirit teaching us. I'm still not entirely sure if that means laymen shouldn't be learning at least some study methods or hermeneutics, though. Maybe you agree. I don't know.

I think we've sorta exhausted this.

Thanks

Response #11: 

I'm all in favor of all believers learning as much about the Bible as they can. All believers should read their Bibles for themselves. Producing substantive teaching from which others can grow requires the gift of the Spirit . . . and a great deal of preparation. Sharing teaching which the person has learned under a good Bible study ministry and buttressing that teaching with the sorts of things you suggest is all to the good. It's only when someone who does not have the gift (nor the tools nor the preparation) gets bit by the "arrogance bug" that problems arise.

Don't [appoint] a novice [as pastor], lest his head swell and he fall under the [same judgment as] the devil.
1st Timothy 3:6

Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.
James 3:1 NIV

Have a good week of classes!

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #12: 

[omitted]

Response #12: 

As to your own situation, I can relate. I remember that after I got out of the USMC and got a second B.A. on a financial shoestring, I cashed in everything I had thereafter to go out to California and get a seminary degree next. I had nothing and no clear idea how I would get through. And it seemed as if everyone out there drove a Mercedes and wore designer clothes. Meanwhile I was living in a bedroom and sharing a bathroom and a hot plate with two other seminary students in opposite bedrooms in the original farm house (from when it was an orange farm) in Buena Park, CA. I do remember that it was grating (money and money issues have been grating all of my life), but I also was very clear on WHY I was doing what I was doing. I could have stayed in service and gotten my pension. I could have set myself to some lucrative field. I could have continued in grad school immediately at U of Illinois (I had been accepted and even had financial support for the next fall). But I wasn't looking to rewards in the here and now nor to the opinions of other people. I was concerned with pleasing the Lord. What He wanted and what He thought were more important to me than how I may have felt . . . and they still are. I'm proud to call "brother" someone like yourself who has the same view of this world, looking forward to the next one.

. . . as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.
2nd Corinthians 6:10 NKJV

I am keeping you in my prayers on this every day, my friend. Thanks for your prayers too!

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #13: 

[omitted]

Response #13: 

On your other question, there are always people who will tell you "that's impossible" – but if it's what the Lord is backing, it will be possible. Some of my cohort at seminary were supported by private individuals and helped through seminary that way – and wouldn't have gotten out of it what they got out of it without that support (on account of having to work their way through). So from the human point of view, me retooling for Classics with a second B.A., going to seminary in between that and Classics grad school, surviving the experience financially and landing (and keeping) a tenure track job was equally a far-fetched long-shot. But God worked it out. I didn't ask anyone else to put a bet on me, however – except my parents (to whom I will always be GREATLY indebted). I don't judge other believers absolutely; I do retain judgment when it comes to what I think and say and do in their regard.

Finally, I will say that I'm not really in favor of a believer obligating him/herself to "long term commitments" for financial support of someone else, even in a very good cause such as supporting a seminary student. That is great for Bill Gates and the like. Ordinary people living in the world find their circumstances changing all the time. What if the person gets married in a flash and has kids right away? I've never regretted giving of any sort when it was a "one time" thing. I can only think of one time when I formally obligated myself to a monthly donation – and I ended up regretting it (with the "help" that it provided in the end probably being not much help at all to the actual kingdom of God, but a genuine monthly drain on me when I could least afford it).

On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up.
1st Corinthians 16:2a NIV

For if there is first a willing mind, it is accepted according to what one has, and not according to what he does not have. For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened;
2nd Corinthians 8:12-13

So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver.
2nd Corinthians 9:7 NKJV

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #14:  

Thanks for the info. You have an incredible site. How long did it take to compile all this?

Response #14: 

Thanks for the good words!

Ichthys began as a small group Bible study when, after seminary, I was working on my Ph.D. at UC Irvine. I had been working on these things since the late-70's when the Lord "got my attention" while on active duty in the USMC, and even after the small group, it took a while to start putting things together in the manner you now find them. At that time, there was as yet no internet. But Ichthys finally "went live" on October 22, 1997, and I have been developing and adding materials ever since. So I guess "most of my life" is the simplest answer. Here are a few links that explain the background in more detail:

Luginbill Biography FAQs

Origins of Ichthys

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #15: 

Hi Bob,

How are things? It has been a minute here.

I'm still stuck in this awful limbo phase where weekly ministry video content releases are all stalled until I iron out the final technical bits and bobs necessary/prudent for supporting content generation in the long term. It's "different" technical bits and bobs compared to before (although I know it all basically sounds the same to most non-technical people), but nonetheless, it is a bit discouraging to keep having the end in sight, but yet seem ever just out of reach. I know I've said similar things before, so I'm getting a bit of deja vu here.

As soon as I get the last matters ready, the plan will be to have at least three videos a week: one for our Ichthys group study (we'll be going through BB4B next), one for the in-person Bible study I've mentioned before, and then one that I just make on my own time ad hoc during the week. Once the schedule is in place, as I've mentioned before, I'm looking forward to the pressure that the consistent structure will inherently introduce, since I always do better with formal pressure.

1) What is the difference between godly encouragement/exhortation and the problematic sort of "accountability partners"?

And that brings us to the topic I want to ask about. It goes something like this:

Many of us (myself definitely included) tend to do well if we have some sort of pressure pushing us to get things done. It is for this reason that people going through boot camp have drill instructors rather than being left to their own devices; why serious athletes have coaches that push them to train hard; and even why people going to the gym often try to find workout buddies to encourage them to take it seriously. Most of us have a very hard time being hard enough on ourselves to achieve anything near maximum results. So if this sort of thing is objectively useful in these instances, why not also in spiritual matters?

I could go find specific quotes, but I know that Ichthys is at places rather critical of the concept of so-called "accountability partners." Of course, there are some manifestations of the concept that clearly end up doing far more harm than good. People are not to completely hand over their free will to cult leaders who dictate all they do, for example. That is certainly not prudent or godly.

But what of the idea of having a Christian friend be your "Bible workout buddy?" Or having a mentor act in a manner more similar to a coach or drill instructor, to apply some degree of pressure and encouragement to "train harder?" Do these ideas cross problematic lines in terms of "accountability partners" in the negative sense? In this question, I'm sort of asking in the general sense.

2) Some particular cases to consider, perhaps

2a) In discussing this concept in our recent Bible study, I asked about how __ has organized daily Bible study times with his family, since he's mentioned before to us that it works very well for them. There is sort of an implicit expectation that family members show up consistently to that, right? Yet that "smells different" to me than the version of accountability partners that I would sort of knee-jerk condemn as problematic. So... why exactly is that the case? Like, due to what mechanics is the one OK (and perhaps even very beneficial), while the other is a bad idea?

2b) We talked about how in most of Laodicea, people asking each other "why weren't you at church last week?" is not a great proxy for much, since if not much of substance is taught in the church services then... yeah. But on the other hand, what of, for example, our weekly Bible study wherein we go through Ichthys materials? Should there be any friendly pressure between us to encourage each other to consistently make our meetings rather than having spotty attendance, for example?

2c) Anecdotally, I have heard that spouses can very much sharpen each other spiritually if they both push each other to more and more put their focus on Jesus. Basically, your significant other can effectively push you to be a better Christian. Married couples can together decide to try and hold each other accountable in their spiritual progress and dedication, and things like that. And in this, there is a degree of looking over each others' shoulders spiritually, right?

3) Other parallel things in normal life

One could perhaps consider negative examples (i.e., in the sense of trying to stop behaviors). For example, alcoholics have AA groups, drug addicts trying to get clean have similar rehab groups, and so on.

But I think the closer parallels from normal life would be positive examples (i.e., in the sense of trying to start/consistently maintain behaviors). For example, people who make agreements to go to the gym together X days of the week, learn a new skill or hobby together, or things like that.

It seems to be accepted good practice to not try to do any of this sort of thing alone, but instead do these things with someone to sort of hold your feet over the fire a bit so that your compliance is better... so-called "accountability partners." So the question is, if there are benefits there, then we don't do similar things spiritually because... well because spiritual things are just inherently different from material things?

Or is it that despite such approaches to exercise or habit formation etc. being popular and in vogue at present, we shouldn't indulge in those approaches as Christians either (and instead treat everything as ultimately being matters of individual free will)?

I think where I get a bit lost is saying the concept of accountability partners is OK for these things over here, but not OK for spiritual growth specifically. I feel like it ought to be more obvious to me why these different matters are apples and oranges, but right now they both rather look like apples to me, and that's why I'm asking questions.

In this question, I am trying to understand "the why" behind us saying that accountability partners as a concept might be fine in some areas, but not spiritual matters. (If that is in fact the stance we ought to take).

4) My specific interest in the concept

Well, mostly I'm stuck in procrastination-land right now, since there are all these moderately unpleasant technical tasks I have to finish off before I can start pumping out content videos in earnest. And I've just had a really hard time getting myself across the finish line in these matters, even though I'm close to it.

I was wondering if maybe getting people in the group a bit more involved in my plans so that they could go and bother me about things if I start slacking could perhaps light a fire beneath me a bit. That was sort of the idea that spurred me to consider the concept in earnest.

Any thoughts on that specific idea and my particular circumstances, as it relates to all this?

I think I organized the questions reasonably separably here, so what do you make of (1), (2a), (2b), (2c), (3), and (4)?

Your friend in Christ,

Response #15: 

Always good to hear from you, my friend.

Re: "I'm looking forward to the pressure that the consistent structure will inherently introduce, since I always do better with formal pressure". Well, you know yourself better than anyone else. I would be chary of starting out with a level that is too high and codifying that. Many people have found that setting a "very do-able" level and exceeding that when possible is more workable . . . because sometimes even the "very do-able" seems nigh on impossible. Besides, what's the penalty for failure (besides making yourself feel bad even though you are doing good things)?

1) Re: "Why not also in spiritual matters?" Because it doesn't work.

Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever.
1st Corinthians 9:25 NIV

As Paul demonstrates here, what we are doing is fundamentally different in every way from potentially comparable human endeavors. The secular athletes Paul mentions did often have coaches to help them compete in zero-sum competitions against others. But there's nothing of this sort in the Bible, probably because we are cooperating with each other, not competing against each other. Isn't a pastor-teacher a coach? Didn't Paul criticize and encourage the Corinthians, e.g.? Yes, but collectively and not individually for a reason. And that is the rub. If I tell you personally what to do, how am I not taking over your free will? If you only read your Bible because I make you do it, how is that going to contribute to your spiritual growth? The entire "discipleship" movement (whatever one wants to call it) is anathema to the independence every believer needs to exercise to become mature and to enter into ministry. It makes spiritual babies out of everyone in its best manifestations; in its worst ones, it makes cult followers. All cult members are "accountable" to someone other than the Lord. We are accountable to Him. We cooperate as one Church; we are responsible individually to Jesus Christ to do that well. Discipleship individualizes the cooperation and collectivizes the individual responsibility – in other words, it has things exactly backwards.

2a) What you do with your wife and children is your business. They are under your authority (and love responsibility) and, to the extent that you make them and they let you, you could experiment with this. But even here it would be better if they followed your example on their own. You can't force them to believe. You can't force them to grow.

2b) Re: "Should there be any friendly pressure between us to encourage each other to consistently make our meetings?" Oh I dearly hope not!!! The next thing you know, you'll be the Baptist church.

2c) Re: "Anecdotally, I have heard . . ". Clearly, you have never been married. I have never heard this. More to the point, I have never seen this. If there is any truth to it, it is probably still mostly a mis-impression based upon witnessing a truly blessed marriage where both partners are equally enthusiastic about the Word of God from their own free will. In such a case, of course there will be mutual support. But you can't legislate it (not and have it work). Otherwise, what a good recipe for divorce.

3) I don't believe in AA or any such "support group" organizations. This is like needing to learn how to walk again after an accident and never ceasing to use your crutches. You'll never get there. I don't inveigh against them. I don't tell people not to join them. But, obviously (or so I thought), if we are relying on someone else to do the hard lifting for us, we'll never get to the point of independence necessary to be able to function on our own, to survive and, hopefully, thrive – in anything. If I do your math homework with you (so therefore essentially "for you"), will you ever learn math?

Re: "people who make agreements to go to the gym together", etc. I don't have a problem with that. But if we had such an agreement, and you forced me or I forced you to go on a day that otherwise one of us would have missed, then I/you might benefit from the exercise, but not from the building up of a personal good habit of exercise. In fact, you/I might become dependent on the other and not exercise otherwise. What if we both don't want to go? Then we are furnishing each other with an excuse. What if one of us moves? Yes, this is a small thing but then so is exercise. In spiritual matters, if you can only stop committing sin X because I'm going to ask you about it this evening, then you really haven't accomplished anything besides using me as a crutch (and will begin again as soon as I'm no longer holding you to account if not sooner). Also, with this method, I make you my slave (even if it's not immediately obvious). And vice versa.

Re: "are benefits there?" If we go to the gym the benefit is getting in better shape. But if the trade off is dependency (a terrible negative in its own right); and then in the long run even this benefit could be lost if you or I can't be made to go or sprain an ankle so the other one doesn't go or moves etc., etc. Look, there's nothing wrong with doing this sort of thing in secular matters (although for a believer it is also very good to consider WHO you are doing it with because this behavior will link you closer to them). But in spiritual matters, individual spiritual growth, progress and production are what count. I can try to encourage you to grow, but I can't do it for you, and no amount of "discipleship" will change that. I can try to comfort you when your are suffering from testing, but only you can go through the test and pass it, and to the extent that you are relying on me to pass, you've already failed. I can try to support you and your ministry, but you are the one who is going to have to be doing it, and if I am doing it for you, well, this is a little like me doing my kid's science fair project and letting him pretend it's his. The judges might be fooled but the Lord never is.

4) Re: "And I've just had a really hard time getting myself across the finish line in these matters, even though I'm close to it." You're not unique. A lot of great believers have had to fight through a lot of flak, often having to do with motivating themselves, before they got to where the Lord wanted them to get. But it is you who has to do the motivating. No one else can. We can fuss at you. But, believe me, it won't help and it really could hurt. Because if you do what THE LORD wants you to do because people are fussing at you, your motives are going to get confused. Better to spend some time with Him in prayer. The Spirit is able to stir you up and also to direct you in terms of the approach you should be taking here.

So I think you probably get the idea of my take on this. I'm sorry it's hard to get moving sometimes. But you're the one who has to do the fussing. Me doing it or others doing it won't work and, as mentioned, if it did, that would be a problem in the long run.

Don't worry. If this persists, the Lord will start fussing at you – and He is well able to get your attention (cf. Ps.32:9).

Also, don't get down on yourself about this. From my perspective, you are already doing a lot. I think the issue is that you haven't actually started this new thing yet. Once you do, good man that you are, it will develop a momentum of its own. Which is why I would argue for setting the bar a little lower. That way, when you "do what you do", you can feel good rather than bad about it. If feeling bad were productive, that would be one things. But for most of us, it is counter-productive.

What you are doing has an "eternal weight of glory" connected to it (2Cor.4:17). You certainly should feel good about that! Better to work on your reward motivation as well as focusing on the imminence of what is about to happen than to subcontract the problem (IMHO).

You're running a good race, my friend! Keep it up. If you can add a lap in training every day, do so. But do so because you want to – for the glory of the Lord and the building up of His Church.

I'm doing OK. Spring break here. I'm getting a lot of admin tasks off my plate and trying to set up for the "home stretch" of the semester. Last summer was all home-improvement. This year I have to focus on getting back in shape and reigniting my Classics research.

How are you doing?

Keeping you and your ministry and your family in my daily prayers, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #16: 

Hi Bob,

I had to look up what "chary" meant -- "cautiously or suspiciously reluctant to do something." Indeed. I will start out with just the in-person Bible study and the Ichthys group meetings every week (so ~2ish videos per week), and then scale up from there. I agree that it is wise to build up to things and not bite off more than one can chew. The wider point is just that I'm looking forward to the time when my energies can be directed towards actual content production rather than framework/technology matters, and I feel like I'll struggle with procrastination and lack of enthusiasm substantially less once I know that others will be actively relying on me having Bible teaching ready every week. At least I certainly hope so.

In terms of how things are on my side, well as a federal employee, we've had a lot of drama (the bad kind) the last few weeks with all the Executive Orders flying and a lack of clear guidance about what actions are necessary for us to take. No matter what one thinks of the politics of some of this stuff, the reality on the ground is that there has been a lot of chaos and uncertainty (and fear/anxiety for all of our new guys, who weren't sure if they were just going to randomly come in one day and find themselves fired), wasting a lot of time and brainpower. Our leadership is doing the best they can, but they don't know anything more than most of us, and with guidance changing what feels like daily, they keep having to give us contradictory orders. Lots of feelings are flying around due to all this, but I've mostly not worried about it, since there's nothing I can do to change anything about it even if I wanted to. And those of us in the DoD have it better than folks in such places as the USAID, the CDC, the department of education, etc. We are less of a political target, I suppose.

One unfortunate thing is that we lost the ability to work from home. I was fond of that, and think it has practical advantages, such as saving commute time, and also preventing me from getting interrupted so often by coworkers (which I personally think helped me get more done). But alas.

[omitted]

A new set of numbered questions:

More specifics on the lack of comparability between the material and the spiritual?

The secular athletes Paul mentions did often have coaches. But there's nothing of this sort in the Bible.

I think it's this idea of individual teachers/coaches/etc. being beneficial in athletics (and other endeavors too: painting instructors, dance instructors, whatever) that makes me want to understand the differences between the material approach and the spiritual approach at a deeper level. It seems so entirely uncontroversial in these material areas that I can certainly see why people try to import it into spiritual growth too, even if that is ultimately misguided. Coming into this, I sort of figured you'd say things along the lines of what you did (so color me not too surprised -- although I'm glad I asked directly anyhow), but I just don't feel like I'm at the point where I can explain it inside out, backwards, with my eyes closed... etc. In other words, I'm just not ready to teach it myself until it clicks into place more. But I'd like to get there on it, hence the conversation.

1) Confirming exactly what it is we are saying

Here are some premises that people seem to hold to be true, nearly axiomatically:

For a given athlete (e.g.), they will make decidedly more progress following the detailed training plan of a professional coach than trying to DIY things
Smaller "class sizes" are universally taken to be better than large class sizes, since teaching/advice can be better tailored. One-on-one is considered the very best in this regard, since feedback can then be completely individualized.

Just to make sure I understand exactly what position we are putting forward as true, we are saying:

At the same time it can actually the best choice for a professional athlete (or what have you) to have an individual coach that tells them what to do (i.e., in terms of formal decision power being handed over to them)
This will never be the case for matters of spiritual growth

The reason why I'm asking is because holding this position is a bit different than saying that having another human being telling you what to do (i.e., handing over your formal decision power) is somehow always wrong in a blanket sense, given the mechanics of human free will. In other words, it's different from condemning individualized coaching as a concept globally. Instead we are only saying spiritual matters specifically don't work that way (even though other areas like athletics can work that way). Is that correct? Or are we actually taking the more universal position of handing over free will = always bad (including in such things as athletics coaching)?

2) The seemingly inescapable (?) logical consequences of making the argument revolve around farmed-out/subcontracted free will

You say

"As Paul demonstrates here, what we are doing is fundamentally different in every way from potentially comparable human endeavors."

And then soon after, in regards to matters of spiritual growth, you say

"If I tell you personally what to do, how am I not taking over your free will?"

OK. So why is this second point not also just as much true in material human endeavors? Isn't sort of the entire point of coaches and personal trainers and so on for them to "take over your free will", albeit in limited scopes?

So, in other words, when you say of believers

"The entire "discipleship" movement (whatever one wants to call it) is anathema to the independence every believer needs to exercise to become mature and to enter into ministry. It makes spiritual babies out of everyone in its best manifestations; in its worst ones, it makes cult followers."

Why don't we say the same in terms of runners, for example:

"The entire "[personal coaching]" movement (whatever one wants to call it) is anathema to the independence every [runner] needs to exercise to become mature and to enter into [running self-actualization]. It makes babies out of everyone in its best manifestations; in its worst ones, it makes cult followers."

Basically, I don't get why we treat the cases independently, if in fact we are (cf. question 1a). It seems to me like the primary argument against discipleship/accountability partners is revolving around these things impinging upon human free will, and fair enough, since they do clearly involve handing over your free will to someone else in some capacity. But it also seems like this same charge can fairly be leveled at just about all instances of the general concept, including all the material examples, like athletic coaching. For logical consistency, don't we also have to throw out all athletic coaching endeavors as suboptimal because they too fundamentally involve some signing over of human free will to a third party?

I'm having problems seeing where I'm going wrong in this sort of black and white thinking, and I think this particular point is a good chunk of the conceptual hang-up for me. Like, I agree with you that the black and white thinking can't be correct, but why? I can't get a handle on the logical intuition that explains the moving parts.

(Sidenote: this matter of getting confused by trying to trace the logical consequences of teachings seems to be pretty representative of my individual weaknesses in personal approach. That is, while some people might shoot themselves in the foot by being too unthinking in believing things blindly, I probably tend to overthink things and get hung up on how the internal logic seems contradictory, even if I know all the right answers on a multiple choice test. We've talked before about how theology is not merely logical, but supralogical, and it is that bit that I struggle with sometimes, I think. Always pros and cons to different approaches, but this is definitely a con of mine).

3) Building intuition about "why" these things might be apples and oranges

I mean, the obvious answer to this apparent dilemma is that the two cases aren't parallel, and that's why there are no violations of logical consistency. If all ducks quack, but X is not a duck, then it is not logically necessary for X to quack. But if you assert that X is a duck, and then assert that X does not quack... ???.

This has to be the answer, in some way. You say

"As Paul demonstrates here, what we are doing is fundamentally different in every way from potentially comparable human endeavors."

What are the salient differences that we should hold in mind when comparing spiritual matters to the material, when it comes to questions along the lines of what I've been asking? What specifically makes the cases different? Some ideas:

3a) Lack of determinism in spiritual matters makes personal athletic coaching not apples to apples?

Is it just because "what you are supposed to do as a Christian" is so much less well-defined than "what you are supposed to do as a competitive tennis player (e.g.)"?

For example, the coach of a tennis player might be like:

"Your backhand is a bit weak in a relative sense, so let's do some drills on that."
"Your serve is going too far to the left. Make sure you don't angle your racket so much when applying force. Practice better-placed serves 100 times until you don't have to think about it as much."
Etc. etc.

There is a very finite, deterministic set of desirable actions to take in tennis. Certainly much less flexibility than the multitude of different spiritual callings that God calls Christians too, right?

So is that why handing over our decision-making to a professional coach makes sense for tennis but not spiritual growth -- because it is generally possible to know what "right" is for the former, but not the latter? Or is that at least part of it?

Tennis aside, what of less overtly spiritual decision spaces that are also less deterministic? For example, I doubt that people really have "coaches" that they hand their free will over to in choosing a career path, in choosing who to marry, and so on. There may be "right" answers to these questions (from the perspective of God's Will for an individual)... but a third party ain't gonna know them.

See, if we view things this way, then it seems to largely resolve the tension I'm struggling with. If we were to formalize the logic a bit, we'd say something like:

If determining the "right" path is complex and sort of obviously indeterminate, then
Handing over your free will (=decision-making power) to someone else is problematic. Otherwise, not.

Running through our cases, we'd say:

Athletic coaching = not really indeterminate (I mean, it's a spectrum, but you get the idea) = handing over your free will is not problematic
Choosing a career = indeterminate = handing over your free will is problematic
Choosing a spouse = indeterminate = handing over your free will is problematic
Spiritual matters = indeterminate = handing over your free will is problematic

3b) Lack of eternal consequences make personal athletic coaching not apples to apples?

I mean, I think this point is true, but I'm not sure it has much relevance to the present topic.

3c) The indwelling Holy Spirit makes personal athletic coaching not apples to apples?

How about the fact that spiritual decisions incorporate feedback from the indwelling Holy Spirit in a way that material decisions don't?

It seems to me like the set of things that are fundamentally indeterminate decisions (3a) are also those that will obviously involve getting feedback from the Holy Spirit in order to get things right (3c, here) -- these are exactly overlapping sets. In this sense, I suppose we'd say that choosing what career to pursue and who to marry in fact are spiritual decisions, in that making the correct decision necessarily involves listening to the voice of the Spirit.

The point again is that things like athletic coaching by and large are a separate bucket from these sorts of decisions, in that the mechanics of decision-making do not involve seeking feedback from the Holy Spirit. We could thus restate things, similar to how we did in 3a:

If making a decision will necessarily involve incorporating feedback from the Holy Spirit to get things right, then
Handing over your free will (=decision-making power) to someone else is problematic. Otherwise, not.

Again, stating things this way makes a lot more sense to me. What do you think?

4) How my present circumstances would be evaluated by the new model

I think the logic would go something like this:

The current path for me is a bit indeterminate. There is no obviously "right" way for me to get from where I am to full content production, but many different paths, many of which could probably end up being right for some person in some set of circumstances. Additionally, decisions like whether I should start producing content now or wait until get XYZ things done, what order I tackle the remaining tasks, etc. are all also somewhat indeterminate in that they are conditional upon circumstances rather than being black and white across people/circumstances
All this basically means that the idea of coaches/accountability partners/etc. is not appropriate here, because these sorts of indeterminate decision spaces need us to rely upon the Holy Spirit, and are not "like" such things as athletic coaching.

Thoughts?

So this time, what do you make of (1), (2), (3a), (3b), (3c), and (4)?

Your friend in Christ,

Response #16: 

I think you are right that when you have a commitment to fulfill, it does act as a spur and a goad to do more than you might otherwise do. So for that reason it's very important not to overburden oneself with commitments that can't be kept. That's the other side of the coin here. We don't want to be procrastinating forever; we also don't want to get people depending on us and then let them down.

Thanks for the very insightful report about how the recent events are affecting you in your position. I'm personally not a fan of taking drastic actions without much serious consideration of their consequences. It usually ends badly. I'll be praying for you and your situation.

[omitted]

Re: "It seems so entirely uncontroversial in these material areas that I can certainly see why people try to import it into spiritual growth too". Agreed. But there are some critical differences. Daniel didn't have a coach in the lion's den. David didn't have a sling instructor at his side when he faced Goliath. Paul didn't have an editor helping him to pen the letter to the Hebrews. These men were applying truth they had learned previously once on the field of spiritual battle. As a pastor-teacher, school days are over. You are now responsible to the Lord. If you have a coach, tutor, instructor, cheer-leader, it is Him . . . and the Holy Spirit.

Secondly, we are talking here about free will and its exercise in the most important of all things in this life: spiritual growth, progress and production. Whether I can play a violin sonata well is an area where I might benefit from such help. But, other than the fact of using my free will to commit to doing it, there really is no great moral aspect to it – or to any other skill where I might be coached.

Spiritual growth is different for many reasons. For one thing, I can judge a violinist's technique from observation (theoretically). I can't tell what is going on in any one else' head and heart. And that is where the battle is being fought. If I try to correct a brother from what I see and hear, how am I any different from the Pharisees who looked at the outside and not the inside? They knew that this is what people have to do so they presented a good appearance when inside they were filled with spiritual rot. Change has to come from the inside where no one else can see. I can see if you are procrastinating but I can't see why or what is going on inside of you. Further, if I get you to stop procrastinating by going USMC D.I. on you, 1) you are changing your behavior but are YOU changing inside? 2) for all the good it might do it's only happening when I am yelling in your ear; what happens when I stop? You are now dependent on me. So how good will what you are doing be since it's essentially coming from artificial motivation and not the Holy Spirit? Again, we are cooperating as one Church for one common goal and our motive is love of our brethren and a desire to please Jesus Christ, but coaching is for competition rather than cooperation and shifts the desire to please to coach.

1) See above. Also, coaches in the secular realm work on technique. They mostly take motivation for granted. True they may yell etc., but no one would be on the high school football team if they did not really want to play football and win. So we are talking about minor adjustments in motivation for the already highly motivated. In spiritual matters, just as we can't "coach" someone to believe in Christ – they have to want to do so – so also we can't "coach" someone to get cracking with spiritual growth . . . except as a group (cooperation). That is what pastor-teachers do, after all. But if we get individual, it all gets subjective in a bad way.

2) Re: "Isn't sort of the entire point of coaches and personal trainers and so on for them to "take over your free will", albeit in limited scopes?" If this were really possible, then all I would have to do to be a super bowl MVP would be to hire the right personal trainer. Talent aside, no coach or tutor or personal trainer can put in what the individual is not willing to put in. But again, there are fundamental differences since here we are talking about response to the truth on the one hand versus personal ambition in secular matters on the other. And that makes all the difference.

3) Re: Tennis. If I give you instructions about your lob shot, I don't expect you to say, "I don't want to improve my lob shot". In other words, in a secular endeavor I take it for granted that you want to get better and, not less important, I as a good coach am able to help you get better by working with you personally. In the spiritual realm, the motivation has to come from inside and very few are really interested in getting better at spiritual growth, progress and production. Secondly and, not less important, there is no way I can really help you one on one. All I can do is tell you the same truth I tell everyone else collectively because only the truth can help you – if you believe it and apply it with the help of the Holy Spirit. In fact, to the extent that I tell you the truth one on one in terms of HOW you should be applying it, to that extent there are two dangers 1) of me taking over your free will; 2) of me getting it wrong entirely since I don't see inside of your heart (specific application differs believer by believer). The main difference is, "This is how everyone should do a lob shot" vs. "this is how YOU should do a lob shot". The latter may work in tennis coaching but it doesn't work in spiritual matters. "This is how everyone should pass this spiritual test" vs. "This is what you are doing wrong in not passing this spiritual test". A tennis coach can see what's wrong with your back hand. I can't see what you're doing wrong in terms of your ministry application if in fact you are doing anything wrong at all; not with the same absolute precision. And even if I could, the times when we should be intervening like this should be rare and infrequent if at all. We certainly don't want to start writing procedures for doing it. That is legalism and before you know it we are the Baptist church (or even the RC church).

4) "There is no obviously "right" way for me to get from where I am [to where I want to go]". Not obvious to me. And if it's not obvious to you, it's CERTAINLY not obvious to me. But God knows. And the Spirit knows. There is so much uncertainty from our point of view that it's probably over-optimistic to believe we've even uncovered all the problems yet or sussed out all of the possibilities. How do you know how the Lord will use you once the Tribulation begins? And if you don't know, I CERTAINLY don't know. So best not to turn your free will over to me (or anyone else).

It's fine to be wondering about "what to do next". As I probably shared with you, when I was in seminary and, after the first year, decided that going the traditional route of getting a church in a denomination was NOT going to work or be right for me, I spent a great part of that summer taking long walks around Buena Park CA trying to figure it out. And it went one step at a time. Step one was abandoning what didn't work, so I switched from the MDiv to M.A.B.S. track (no sermon prep, missions, counseling, etc.; but more Hebrew). Next step was finding a way to make a living as a support for whatever ministry the Lord had (so I applied to graduate school – only one, but the Lord worked it out). Third step was finding a way to minister, and this developed in ways no one could have imagined. A face to face small group led to a "by mail" regular study which, in the passage of time, led to Ichthys.

So I don't think you're really procrastinating. I think you're feeling out what exactly it is you're supposed to be doing. I wish I could give you the answer. But if my own case is any sort of paradigm, well, there wasn't even an internet when I quit the USMC to pursue ministry . . . not until many years later. You might start with what you know doesn't work or isn't going to work and move on from there. One thing I do know, the Lord is preparing you for something, and you will know it when you see it. Until then, my best "coaching" advice is to stay faithful to what you've taken on, and keep preparing for what's next, whatever that may be.

Keeping you in my daily prayers, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #17: 

Hi Bob,

First, some "understanding checks" in my own words - does all this sound right?

I think something this last round has helped me parse out is that when we talk about "coaching" we are really talking about multiple separate things:

A coach telling you what things to do (i.e., in what direction focus and attention are being pointed; think changing behavior/approach/technique/etc.)
A coach helping enhance your motivation to do things

There are some reasons why (1) is possible for secular things but not material things.

Basically, we can't ever really have the perspective necessary to guide people's spiritual decision-making since we cannot see into their hearts, and thus have no way to identify problems/potential improvements and suggest changes. At least not with the degree of precision that would be necessary for this to be at all useful as an approach. But since secular matters of technique can have that sort of accurate observation/feedback loop, then they are different in this regard.

As to (2), you make the point that honestly coaches don't have tons to do with motivation to begin with (even in secular things). Perhaps it is not nothing, but it's not like everybody who hires the same coach will have the same outcomes, even if they start out with similar base levels of natural talent/aptitude. Why? Because the biggest part has to do with their internal motivation, not whatever small though nonzero amount of external motivation the coach might provide.

So while the motivation coming from coaches may be nonzero, it is certainly a poor place to put one's emphasis in a relative sense.

Questions

(1) Well, isn't some better than none?

This notion of "nonzero, even if not jaw-dropping" brings me to something that I think I'd been struggling to articulate: aren't even small improvements still improvements? Even if we can't have them all the time, isn't it still better to have them some of the time rather than none of the time?

For example, if we say coaches can't go all drill instructor on you to get you to succeed if you don't already have some motivation to begin with... but that them doing this does do at least something... then isn't it still good to have a coach who dangles you over the fire to eke out every possible advantage? Isn't something still better than nothing, even if it's not earth-shattering?

And regarding the potential for "crutches" to be taken away being an argument against them, well isn't it better to make use of them so long as you are able to use them, even if that is not all the time?

Just as with the "isn't something better than nothing" with the motivation coaches might offer, why can't we make a similar argument here along the lines of "well, even if the crutch may be missing sometimes, isn't it better to use it wherever possible, because some of the time is still better than none of the time?"

(2) Can it be the case that crutches are not replacements for free will, just tools? Are the things necessarily mutually exclusive?

Let's take two things that are arguably "crutches":

1) Using software on your computer to block distracting websites to help you focus better
2) Setting up a system with your spouse where they only let you get the TV remote back (e.g.) once you have worked X hours on spiritual tasks

But someone may protest: well what about when you are using a computer that doesn't belong to you, that doesn't have your special filtering software on it? What about when your spouse goes on vacation to visit family?

I don't understand why the presence of these sorts of circumstances in some situations makes the use of such crutches a bad idea as general practice.

Put differently, why is using the crutch taken as being mutually exclusive with still having to exercise willpower (be that of the secular or spiritual variety)? For example, if I say the crutch "helps" me do something, that is not implying that there is zero need for me to still do the right thing via exercising free will. If it's harder for me to do without the crutch and easier for me to do it with the crutch, then my ability to do the thing is not strictly dependent upon having access to the crutch; it is just a means to an end. If you use a crutch's absence as an excuse for failing, then isn't that misunderstanding the concept of the crutch simply being a tool, rather than being a sine qua non sort of thing in and of itself?

...And if this sort of argument works for these things, then why does it not also work for the idea of coaches/accountability partners, viewing them as merely another sort of crutch? Not in the sense of telling us specifically what to do (which we established above was impossible for spiritual things due to not being able to see into the hearts of others), but in the sense of giving that drill-instructor-esque boost to motivation, even if the impact is not huge in and of itself?

Again, the idea is basically "why not, if every little bit helps?"

(3) Is it because anything we don't do through the Spirit alone is inherently flawed?

Put ungenerously, I suppose one could say that all the crutches involve "fake motivation."

So is the biggest point mostly that we are never really concerned just about what we do but what we and why we do it? And that you can't only examine the one without the other?

I'm wondering if this is the "big point" I've been missing in all of this. Since it would explain why it's not merely a matter of doing the right things (which maybe the crutches can help with), but doing the right things for the right reasons. Those might end up being two entirely different things, I guess?

So this would mean that if I'm dragging myself through Bible reading and Bible study at least partially because I want to "earn my TV privileges back" (see just above for the concept) or because my spiritual accountability partner will fuss at me if I don't, the entire enterprise is fundamentally corrupted?

I would think one would have a mix of both spiritual motivations (i.e., legitimately wanting to read/study the Bible) and the external motivations (wanting to get the TV privileges for that day, wanting to avoid getting fussed at). Human motivation can be a complex thing, and I bet in most cases our motives are never 100% what they should be. But is the gist is that we shouldn't ever intentionally try to get anything else involved other than what we freely choose without any external compulsion, in order to build up our spiritual free will muscles, so to speak?

Thanks for bearing with me on all this,

Yours in Christ,

Response #17: 

I think you have articulated all of this very well. When it comes to issues of application, it's always hard to put an absolutely dogmatic stamp on anything. So of course, when you write me an email I do try to encourage you, but not to the point of being a never-to-be-removed crutch (and you're not looking for that), and never with the idea of taking away your free will (even if I sometimes express my opinion about something you've asked me about).

So, yes, it is a matter of motivation and a matter of degrees. Clearly, "I bet in most cases our motives are never 100% what they should be" is correct. And it's often difficult for us to see this with complete clarity even examining our own hearts (let alone someone else').

So I suppose it's mostly the idea of institutionalizing a procedure that had me concerned. Nothing wrong with getting some good advice once in a while. But a discipleship "partner" is a really REALLY bad idea (even if someone were to argue that it's the same thing). Degrees do matter. Nothing wrong with cod liver oil. But during the 19th century some over-zealous mothers gave their children vitamin A poisoning by over-doing it.

So I would just say in conclusion that the more we do of our own volition and pure motivation the better. Paul helped Timothy, but clearly he wanted Timothy to get to the point of not needing the help. Not because Paul begrudged the help, but because he wanted Timothy to be spiritually independent enough to help others and to earn a maximum reward.

Do feel free to write back if I missed something here.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #18: 

Hi Bob,

Could we go point by point a bit more? The goal being, it's useful for me to know which of the five points (e.g.) I have basically right (such that I can sort of consider them satisfactorily understood), and which I might want to still look more into. I just find this sort of approach helpful.

Let me try to condense the core bits from my last volley a bit more. Hopefully that will make it a lot shorter, and thus easier to go point by point.

Part 1: understanding checks

When we talk about "coaching" we are really talking about multiple separate things:

A coach telling you what things to do (i.e., in what direction focus and attention are being pointed; think changing behavior/approach/technique/etc.)
A coach helping enhance your motivation to do things

1a) Coaches can't tell us what to do for spiritual matters because they can't see into human hearts

There are some reasons why (1) is possible for secular things but not material things. Basically, we can't ever really have the perspective necessary to guide people's spiritual decision-making since we cannot see into their hearts, and thus have no way to identify problems/potential improvements and suggest changes. At least not with the degree of precision that would be necessary for this to be at all useful as an approach. But since secular matters of technique can
have that sort of accurate observation/feedback loop, then they are different in this regard.

Is all the above basically correct?

1b) Coaches are not magical motivation generators. Perhaps they have some effect, but the greatest part still comes from internal motivation

As to (2), you make the point that honestly coaches don't have tons to do with motivation to begin with (even in secular things). Perhaps it is not nothing, but it's not like everybody who hires the same coach will have the same outcomes, even if they start out with similar base levels of natural talent/aptitude. Why? Because the biggest part has to do with their internal motivation, not whatever small though nonzero amount of external motivation the coach might provide. So while the motivation coming from coaches may be nonzero, it is certainly a poor place to put one's emphasis in a relative sense.

Is all the above basically correct?

Part 2: questions

Examples of "crutches" I have thought of thus far:

Using software on your computer to block distracting websites to help you focus better
Setting up a system with your spouse where they only let you get the TV remote back (e.g.) once you have worked X hours on spiritual tasks
Like what sparked this conversation initially: using a friend as an "accountability partner" to fuss at you if you aren't doing the spiritual things you ought

2a) With regards to crutches, what of the concept "some is better than none?"

We just said the motivation coaching can provide (in the sense of being "drill-instructor-esque", and things like that) may be nonzero, but cannot replace internal motivation.

Well, given that it is still potentially nonzero in some regard, aren't even small improvements still improvements? As a hypothetical idea, I know we've been saying it is bad to institutionalize this sort of "motivational coaching" (as in accountability partners). But why specifically should we refrain from institutionalizing it as a procedure in order to get the small (but nonzero) benefits, using the argument that some benefits are better than no benefits?

Even if maybe we can't lean on the crutches 100% of the time (i.e., maybe sometimes they are missing because reasons), if they help when we have them, why not use them whenever we can?

To use an analogy, if we are on the battlefield, say the crutch is like a sword or spear that we can pick up whenever we find one. If it helps us fight better, why not use such tools whenever we can, even if that may not be 100% of the time?

Basically, my question is, what specifically is wrong with this line of reasoning? It seems persuasive on the surface, but I'd like to understand what bad assumptions and so on end up rendering it less impressive than initially apparent.

2b) Trying to answer my own question: is it because accountability partners run afoul of Matthew 6:1?

In some sense, don't both of these hypothetical ideas

Setting up a system with your spouse where they only let you get the TV remote back (e.g.) once you have worked X hours on spiritual tasks
Like what sparked this conversation initially: using a friend as an "accountability partner" to fuss at you if you aren't doing the spiritual things you ought

essentially run afoul of Matthew 6:1?

Be careful not to perform your righteous acts before men to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

This would essentially weigh against us trying to use outside human beings to put pressure on us in any way, since doing such always introduces this idea of "doing things before others", does it not?

This actually seems very convincing to me, and I wonder why I hadn't thought of it before. It's not so much that we should try to be sneaky about our Bible reading and Bible study and stuff (for example, getting overly paranoid about reading our Bible in a coffee shop that has other people around that might observe us doing it), but that we should not institutionalize going to the coffee shop in order to be seen by others. It also probably wouldn't hurt to err on the side of keeping things more private too, just as a precaution.

So with respect to to accountability partners, the problem is exactly that we are institutionalizing being seen by others as the whole point, and it's impossible to do accountability partners in any sense without this consideration being there. Ergo, no accountability partners, QED.

2c) What about other potential things like using filtering software to block distractions and help you focus better?

Since this idea of restricting your internet access doesn't involve performing before others, it is fine in that regard. This would then be a perfectly acceptable matter of application.

After all, it's not like restricting your internet access will inherently make you read your Bible; you still have to make that choice out of proper spiritual motivation. It is just making it a bit easier to avoid bad choices. An analogy would be an alcoholic taking reasonable steps when possible to avoid bars, again, to just make it a bit easier to avoid bad choices. In both cases, doing the things you ought to be doing is still ultimately about free will, so there's nothing wrong with taking these practical sort of steps wherever you personally find doing such to be useful.

Things along these lines seem 100% fine to me, as matters of application, even if we disallow accountability partners according to the "performing before others" logic above. On the other hand, if we run about trying to publicly advertise the fact that we don't go to bars and restrict our internet access (etc.), then we run into problems, because then we are again trying to get others involved. But the point is sort of that these things are not inherently problematic, but are only problematic insofar as you start turning them into means of performative righteousness rather than matters of personal application.

Thoughts?

If you'd rather answer things in a single sentence, how about simply saying that you basically agree with this paragraph (let's call it "the summary"):

(1a) and (1b) are fine as summaries. (2a) as an argument does not work for accountability partners due to the sort of reasoning behind that Matthew 6:1 describes, exactly as you discuss in (2b). What you say in (2c) is fine, regarding personal applications like restricting internet access to help avoid distractions or alcoholics trying to avoid bars where possible being fine, so long as we don't try to perform these things before others or view ourselves as inherently holy for doing them (since even doing these things, we still have to exercise our free will to actually do what we ought spiritually = Bible reading, Bible study, applying truth, helping others do likewise).

So, do you agree with "the summary"? If not, what bits are wrong?

Thanks for your help in all this.

Yours in Christ,

Response #18: 

1a) I think that's right. We can tell an unbeliever how to be saved. We can't really understand why any given individual is not willing to be, or what it would take to change their motivation on this. Similarly with believers. We can tell someone how to grow et al. in general terms; we can even give specific advice; but since so much depends on what's going on inside, tennis vs. spiritual growth is like comparing multiplication tables to advanced calculus (maybe even more of a disconnect).

1b) I think this is true in secular as well as in spiritual matters, but, as in 1a), more true in spiritual matters by an order of magnitude than in secular ones.

2a) I don't like any of the crutches in the example. I also don't see how a person would ever get over using them except just to stop using them so why use them in the first place? In the analogy, your ankle heals and now you can walk OK without the crutch. But in terms of spiritual motivation issues there is nothing that needs to be healed – or if it does, the crutch won't help the healing process but will only make it worse. Believers need to get good at spiritual discernment. How do they do that? By learning and believing the truth, by applying the truth in their lives. Do they make mistakes? Heaven knows. But if someone else is making the decisions for me I'll never get anywhere spiritually until I start making them for myself. Small improvements may be good if 1) they really are improvements in the heart and not surface improvements which merely look better, and 2) if they don't do greater damage to achieve. If I ruin my personal self-discipline in the quest to get better at something like waking up on time by having my friend call me and fuss at me if I'm not getting up, how am I going to get to the point of being able to do that on my own? The small improvement (being up earlier) has damaged my ability to do anything for myself that takes self-discipline. And in spiritual terms it's far worse, because instead of being a growing believer, by committing to "discipleship" I am now merely someone else' trophy; I won't get fussed at as long as I pretend to be "godly" – but inside will be only spiritual decay.

2b) If discernment for believer X is a question of lack of knowledge, that is "easily" enough obtained (yes, you need a good ministry; yes, you need to devote yourself to it). But say this is a question of "don't eat the daisies". An accountability partner can yell at you for eating daisies, and this may stop you from eating daisies. But why, then, are you not eating daisies? If it is only because of your A.P., then you have no fear of God and his truth, only of your A.P., who has become in effect God to you. If your A.P. is 100% consistent with what God wants for you, then at least on the surface things may seem to be better. But of course that is impossible and A.P. will start wanting you to do things that are not really good for YOU to do and stop doing things that are really not a problem for YOU and now your free will has evaporated.

The problem you identify is an additional (and related) one. There are plenty more.

2c) I don't really have a problem with this one except to note that it's not addressing the real issue. In this case, that person X wants to engage in this distracting stuff and is having trouble not doing so. As a temporary measure, it could be OK. The danger, as with all crutches, is relying on it for too much and for too long. If a person has a drinking problem, getting rid of the alcohol in the house is not a bad idea. But it has to be recognized that this is not the problem or the solution. The solution is conquering lack of self-discipline in regard to drinking too much.

Hope this helps!

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #19: 

Hi Bob,

I think I'm most of the way there now. Thanks!

One last thing:

2c) I don't really have a problem with this one except to note that it's not addressing the real problem. In this case, that person X wants to engage in this distracting stuff and is having trouble not doing so. As a temporary measure, it could be OK. The danger, as with all crutches, is relying on it for too much and for too long. If a person has a drinking problem, getting rid of the alcohol in the house is not a bad idea. But it has to be recognized that this is not the problem or the solution. The solution is conquering lack of self-discipline in regard to drinking too much.

When we say "the danger, as with all crutches, is relying on it for too much and for too long," well, why would we want to phase this specific one out? Why put a time limit on it? I get that the whole crutch analogy sort of inherently primes us for looking at these things as temporary (because physical crutches are temporary, to recover from injury -- nobody continues to lug a crutch around after their ankle has healed). But I'm struggling to see where the opportunity cost is for things like this that would make us want to get rid of them in the long-term.

If we view things in terms of a battlefield analogy (rather than a crutch analogy), we would be talking about trying to avoid the parts of the battlefield labeled "Here Be Mines," right? Isn't knowing that there are mines and deciding to go walk through the minefield anyway because "God can protect us" putting the Lord your God to the test (Matthew 4:7)? Isn't that being foolish not wise? I'm talking about general practice here. Perhaps God calls us through the minefield, and then we'd best go and trust Him to get us through it with complete confidence in His ability to do so. But it is the seeming embracing of risk with both eyes wide open when lacking such a specific conviction that I'm struggling to wrap my head around.

If I were a military commander and my soldier did that (with me having to go rescue him from his own decision), I'd be smacking him on the head and telling him to use his brain, not patting him on the back for his trust in me.

__ tried explaining this to me too last week when I asked for his perspective to help explain the matters. I was stuck on the same thing then: basically, if you as an individual Christian have determined in your head that a path is wise for you (for example, in intentionally blocking the internet when you are trying to focus on your Bible app, ex-alcoholics generally avoiding bars, etc.), then how can someone else come along and say it is "better" to rely on the Holy Spirit alone? How do they know? Sure, it might be better for some people, but that's the whole thing about application -- it can be different across different Christians.

In some ways, this brings to mind the short story about the man in the flood that resolves to "wait upon the Lord"... while turning down all the help that God sent His way. Something like this:

A storm descends on a small town, and the downpour soon turns into a flood. As the waters rise, the local preacher kneels in prayer on the church porch, surrounded by water. By and by, one of the townsfolk comes up the street in a canoe.

"Better get in, Preacher. The waters are rising fast."

"No," says the preacher. "I have faith in the Lord. He will save me."

Still the waters rise. Now the preacher is up on the balcony, wringing his hands in supplication, when another guy zips up in a motorboat.

"Come on, Preacher. We need to get you out of here. The levee's gonna break any minute."

Once again, the preacher is unmoved. "I shall remain. The Lord will see me through."

After a while the levee breaks, and the flood rushes over the church until only the steeple remains above water. The preacher is up there, clinging to the cross, when a helicopter descends out of the clouds, and a state trooper calls down to him through a megaphone.

"Grab the ladder, Preacher. This is your last chance."

Once again, the preacher insists the Lord will deliver him.

And, predictably, he drowns.

A pious man, the preacher goes to heaven. After a while he gets an interview with God, and he asks the Almighty, "Lord, I had unwavering faith in you. Why didn't you deliver me from that flood?"

God shakes his head. "What did you want from me? I sent you two boats and a helicopter."

Moral of the story: sometimes insisting upon trusting "God alone" can be foolish if He's given us tools to use to deliver us, right?
 

Although I suppose that is a physical situation that humans alone could not conquer themselves (since humans can't fly, etc.), whereas mostly what I'm talking about are trying to keep temptations out of sight and mind as general practice because doing such just seems like common sense.

At any rate, the bit that has me concerned is any sentiment that borders on looking down upon people who make such applications and telling them (or rather, implying) that it somehow demonstrates a lack of faith -- that it would be better for them to have trust in God and not use such things, but instead trust in the power of the Holy Spirit alone to get them through. You cannot avoid that logical implication when you use the word "better" in this context.

To me, it just seems like a false dichotomy. One can trust in the power of the Holy Spirit while also taking common sense steps to minimize the risk profile. We don't have to try to "increase the size of the miracle" necessary for God to get us through (so to speak)... and doing so to me just seems like being a bad soldier and not being tactically minded to make best use of every opportunity.

What do you think?

Yours in Christ,

Response #19: 

As I said, the danger is the reliance on the crutch. And, again, it's not the best analogy because believers are given everything we need to grow and then to start helping others. If instead of relying on the Spirit and learning how to apply the truth (which is what growth is all about), we rely on people and what they think is good (which may be anything but) we are just competing with others in the group to look more godly and striving to please our human overseer with no regard for the Lord or the truth or what we are down here for in the first place. I really do think that discipleship is a satanic invention – as all legalism is.

If we come to think that these measures are sufficient and offering protection, since they are not actual solutions this creates a vulnerability. So it's not the "doing it" that is the danger; it's the wrong thinking about the doing of it – which cannot be avoided. As our Lord said to the Pharisees, it wasn't the tithing of the spices that was the problem; it was their folly in thinking that this "solved the problem of following the Law".

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone."
Matthew 23:23 NKJV

As long as some measure is seen for what it is, namely, not a solution but a possible necessary measure on the way to a solution (or in concert with a solution), then I have no problem with it. I have often said that alcoholics ought to avoid bars, e.g. (not that they are necessarily good places for the rest of us to hang out either).

The other analogies I don't really think work very well because what we are really talking about here is Christians having problems doing what they should do (or avoiding what they shouldn't do). So the real issue is how to deal with the sin nature, whether it is resisting our good efforts or luring us into bad behavior. Here, of course, the Spirit is the answer along with the truth, and we all need to be learning to rely on Him and the Word rather than on fleshly strategies. Not to say they are absolutely mutually exclusive, but it does make a difference what we are leading with in how we think about these matters and how we approach them.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #20: 

Hi Mr. Luginbill,

Apologies, one other question!

I've been thinking about ministry a lot and what exactly I should do, like how to structure. I think the whole church attendance thing is wrapped up in this too as I'm wondering how to minister to the people I know and how God wants me to do that.

The other day I came across 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 (which I think God was giving me to strengthen my own faith). Long story short, I got to thinking that I could write a little series up on that, kind of hitting the key points, something like this perhaps:

-The Gospel of Jesus Christ
Who Jesus is and the gospel message

-Perseverance in Faith
The importance of persevering in our faith and the biblical support for that

-The Spiritual Death of Christ
I never got the importance of the spiritual death of Jesus until I got it from Ichthys

-The Resurrection of Jesus and our own hope of resurrection
What that did for us and how it gives us hope for our future with God

-Our Mission
Our work to grow spiritually and get to spiritual maturity, ministry, etc.

I know that your Bible basics series helped me a lot cause I understood like "Jesus died for us" but I didn't understand it in depth like you taught it. I'm thinking of the young women I know and "women's Bible studies" and I don't know but it seems like this might a helpful resource, I certainly can't write it like you could (nor is that God's calling for me, I know that), but I could do something. This is all a rough outline at the moment, but does this seem like a good use of my time/ministry efforts?

I know that I am not a pastor-teacher, but you said on Ichthys that it's ok for women to teach women. I know that pastor-teachers have authority and you said that God gives them the tools to do their work. I don't ever know anything "new" when I read the Bible, past understanding it through a different lens when I learn something that you taught me. Not even quite sure how to word the question, I'm just trying to understand my role. Just want to make sure I'm not doing something wrong or misinterpreting how I am supposed to use my spiritual gift.

Thank you!

Respectfully,

Response #20: 

I have been praying for your ministry effort since you first mentioned it! I think this would be an excellent addition to it. Not only don't I think that there's nothing wrong with it . . . in my opinion it's a great way to start adding to your "heavenly thesaurus". And of course, as every teacher knows, you learn even more about the material when preparing to teach it than you thought you did when you first heard it.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #21: 

Hi Mr. Luginbill,

I was so encouraged by this email, I started working on the project and collecting Bible passages. I'm excited! And as you said, knowing the material well will help me and whoever else God wants me to help.

Now to just keep the momentum up.

Respectfully,

Response #21: 

Thanks – wonderful!

Praying for you and your ministry daily, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #22: 

__ and I were chatting yesterday about ministry work and our gifts, and we were talking about home Bible studies and the specifics of women teaching women.

I'm a little unsure of exactly what women are allowed to do. I know we are not allowed to teach men, but even when we are teaching women and children, are there things we are not allowed to do (of course not talking here about things that aren't loving or godly)?

Like, pastor-teachers have a certain amount of authority over their sheep right? Not wrong or ungodly authority, but they are allowed to do teach with authority and if someone was a wolf in sheep's clothing trying to harm the flock, they could take action right?

But women, even if gifted to help teach other women the truth, don't have flocks since they aren't over a local church, correct? What happens if I start a Bible study and share something I have learned from Ichthys, and then someone says something totally wrong? Am I allowed to (in a loving way) say something to turn the conversation back to the right path so the other women there wouldn't be harmed by it?

Just curious cause I don't feel like I understand exactly what's allowed and not allowed past "women can't teach men".

Respectfully,

Response #22: 

My understanding of this is that the only thing women are precluded from doing is from being the top teaching authority in a local church – but so are men who are not gifted as pastor-teachers or not prepared if they are or have not been placed in that position by the congregation. All other variations of ministries one might imagine are fair game. We just need to listen to the Spirit and grow spiritually to be prepared for what He brings our way.

In terms of hypotheticals, one can always come up with "what ifs?" that might seem problematic. But if we take that approach, we'll never do anything. I could have found lots of reasons not to do Ichthys.

Whoever watches the wind will not plant; whoever looks at the clouds will not reap.
Ecclesiastes 11:4 NIV

If a woman plans and launches a ministry in good faith, one that the Lord has led her to, she can be sure that He will likewise help her resolve whatever problems may arise. This is life. Problems always arise. There are lots of gray areas. But these will part like the morning mist if we keep our eyes on Jesus Christ.

In Him,

Bob L.

Ichthys Home