Tim Keller and Sam Shammas have put together what I think will be a wonderful aid to the Christian’s spiritual life. It’s called the New City Catechism and it’s an interactive exploration of classic Reformed catechisms.

You can use it on your iPad (there’s an app) or on your computer’s browser, and it features both text and video meditations on the catechism questions.

Here’s a bit more background on the catechism:

New City Catechism is comprised of only 52 questions and answers (as opposed to Heidelberg’s129 or Westminster Shorter’s 107). There is therefore only one question and answer for each week of the year, making it simple to fit into church calendars and achievable even for people with demanding schedules.

It is a joint adult and children’s catechism. In other words, the same questions are asked of both children and adults, and the children’s answer is always part of the adult answer. This means that as parents are teaching it to their children they are learning their answer to the question at the same time, albeit an abridged version. The adult answer is always an expanded version of the children’s answer. In the adult version the children’s answer appears in color to differentiate it from the longer adult answer.

New City Catechism is based on and adapted from Calvin’s Geneva Catechism, the Westminster Shorter and Larger Catechisms, and especially the Heidelberg Catechism, giving good exposure to some of the riches and insights across the spectrum of the great Reformation-era catechisms. The hope being that it will encourage people to delve into the historic catechisms and continue the catechetical process throughout their lives.

It is divided into 3 parts to make it easier to learn in sections and to include some helpful divisions:
PART 1 = God, creation and fall, law (20 questions);
PART 2 = Christ, redemption, grace (15 questions);
PART 3 = Spirit, restoration, growing in grace (17 questions).

As with most traditional catechisms there is a Bible verse that accompanies each question and answer. In addition, attached to each question and answer there is a short commentary and a short prayer taken from the writings or sayings of past preachers to help students meditate on and think about the topic being explored. As far as possible a commentary and prayer has been included from the same preacher in each of the 3 Parts so that students can become familiar with their style and work. Those quoted in all 3 Parts are, in chronological order: John Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Richard Sibbes, John Bunyan, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, Abraham Booth, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, John Charles Ryle, C. S. Lewis, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and John Stott. Students are therefore able to read 3 commentaries and 3 prayers from each of these preachers. John Owen and Richard Baxter have been quoted in Parts 1 and 3. John Bradford, Heinrich Bullinger, Thomas Brooks, George Whitefield, Charles Simeon, and Francis Schaeffer feature once with a commentary and a prayer from each.

In the children’s version the questions and answers are accompanied by the same Bible verse as the adult version. In addition the prayers from the adult version have been adapted, modernized, shortened, and simplified for children.

But why a new catechism? Keller writes:

Catechisms were written with at least three purposes. The first was to set forth a comprehensive exposition of the gospel—not only in order to explain clearly what the gospel is, but also to lay out the building blocks on which the gospel is based, such as the biblical doctrine of God, of human nature, of sin, and so forth. The second purpose was to do this exposition in such a way that the heresies, errors, and false beliefs of the time and culture were addressed and counteracted. The third and more pastoral purpose was to form a distinct people, a counter-culture that reflected the likeness of Christ not only in individual character but also in the church’s communal life.

When looked at together, these three purposes explain why new catechisms must be written. While our exposition of gospel doctrine must be in line with older catechisms that are true to the Word, culture changes and so do the errors, temptations, and challenges to the unchanging gospel that people must be equipped to face and answer.

Whether you were weaned on catechisms or find it an entirely new idea, I hope you’ll check it out. I pray it might be a blessing to you and the Lord’s Church.

This past Saturday night, the elders of FBC had the privilege of meeting with a number of potential elders and deacons for another night of fellowship and discussion.  Over the past couple of monthly meetings we’ve been discussing our church’s statement of faith and its use in the life of the church.  As we discussed the statement Saturday, the conversation turned to the importance of the statement of faith in protecting various aspects of the church and its ministry.  As I’ve noodled on that conversation, it seems to me that a local church’s statement of faith should protect five important things:

1.  The Teaching Authority of the Elders.  What keeps the elders and members from descending into theological deadlocks, each proclaiming, “Well, I think it means this” or “To me it means that”?  A health statement of faith summarizes the church’s position on key doctrinal subjects.  That standard helps to raise theological conversation and teaching above the subjective preferences of individuals and anchors the teaching of the the church in the Scripture itself.  One could say, “The Bible alone is our authority,” and that would be correct, but it wouldn’t really resolve the problem of subjective interpretation of key biblical issues.  I mean, what are we arguing about?  Isn’t it “What does the Bible teach?”  So appeals to “The Bible says” can become inadequate for resolving theological conflicts.  Statements of faith are not perfect and certainly do not possess any authority greater than the Bible, but they can go a long way in helping to the church to say “If the elders teach the word of God, and if their teaching squares with our doctrinal standards, then they teach with authority what we hold to be true and it’s our duty then to submit to what the elders teach.”

2.  The Gospel.  Our statements of faith can also protect the gospel message itself.  The statement protects the gospel when it properly defines the Good News.  But it also protects the gospel when it properly defines doctrinal positions touching the gospel.  For example, a good statement of faith takes care to state that baptism does not cause regeneration.  An effective creed helps people to see that a doctrine like the Trinity matters immensely for our understanding of the Good News and the role each Person in the Trinity plays in redemption.  The protection of the gospel requires we define other key doctrinal positions that bear upon the gospel but are not themselves the gospel.

3.  The Language of the Church.  Contemporary Christians inherit centuries old language, sometimes technical language, to define and promote the faith.  The terms we use, like Trinity, has a definite history and function in theological discourse.  Our statements can be useful for preserving such technical terms.  And our statements can be important for protecting pretty ordinary words with extraordinary consequence.  For example, we are not “justified by faith” but “justified by faith alone.”  What’s the difference?  A Roman Catholic can affirm the former but only a true Protestant can affirm the latter.  The ordinary word “alone” has important consequences for the entire doctrine.  Good statements protect the language of the church.

4.  The Unity and Peace of the Church Family.  We are to do everything to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.  Statements of faith help us do that by defining the core articles of faith a local church requires for church unity.  That unity promotes the peace of the church.  Where the essentials are not defined, room may be left for constant skirmishes over belief and practice.  But confessing our faith together preserves harmony.

5.  The Freedom of the Church.  Sometimes creeds are important because of what they omit.  A good statement doesn’t take a position on everything possible.  Weird indeed would be the statement that attempts a required position on head coverings.  Some things are indifferent, others secondary and unnecessary to congregational unity.  Christians may sincerely disagree over some of these issues and fruitfully worship together in the same congregation.  When the creed avoids taking a position on such secondary matters, it actually preserves the congregation’s freedom of conscience.  Members are not bound where the Scripture does not bind.  In charity we extend opportunity for godly fellow believers to hold positions according to the light they have received from the word and the Spirit.  If it’s not a practical secondary matter on which we must agree (for example, we’ll either baptize children of professing believers or not), then we serve ourselves best by not enshrining disputable secondary matters in the church’s doctrinal standards.

6.  The Future of the Church.  Finally, an effective statement of faith helps to protect the future.  To be sure, it doesn’t guarantee a certain future.  Many congregations have departed from their doctrinal history or simply allowed the statement to vanish into the oblivion of church records.  But, a statement of faith actively used in the catechism of families and the worship of the gathered church works to pass along the faith to those coming behind us.  In this way, it makes a deposit in succeeding generations who know the ancient paths and safely trod there.  Without creedal guard rails subsequent worshipers more easily veer onto the soft shoulders of theological error.  Good statements actively used help protect the future of the church.

What am I missing?  What else might be protected by an effective doctrinal standard?

In 2007, the Lord granted me the privilege of publishing The Decline of African-American Theology: From Biblical Faith to Cultural Captivity (IVP).  The book was a labor of sorrow and love–sorrow because of how sharp and deep theological decline has been since the first writing African Americans of the late 1700s and early 1800s, and love because I ache to see my kinsmen according to the flesh brought into the gracious realms of God’s salvation.  For me, the book was an attempt to (a) accurately trace the history of African-American theology using available primary source material, and (b) fulfill a pastoral obligation to advance the gospel and refute error (Titus 1:9).

Because the book “breaks rank” and “the party line,” I expected to be alone against an avalanche of criticism and angry protest.  But the Lord has a people who have not bowed the knee to the baals of theological heresy, a people who want to know the truth and who instinctively if not explicitly knew something had gone wrong in the African-American church.  Jesus’ sheep hear and know His voice, and they follow Him.  Instead of an avalanche of criticism, I’ve pretty much heard a chorus of “Finally” and “It’s about time!”

When theologically conservative, Evangelical or Reformed African Americans call for reform in the African-American church, they feel like midgets facing the titans and juggernauts of a word-faith, charismatic pantheon.  The task can seem so daunting and isolating.  Internally, there’s the constant fight with unbelief and resignation.  There’s wrestling with questions like “Can the African-American church be reformed?”  ”Is the church essentially apostate?”  Sometimes these questions have more to do with us than they have to do with the church.  But the questions illustrate how intense and serious a battle this is.

That’s why it’s difficult to see larger-than-life heretics given a platform in circles of pastors and leaders we respect and we regard as co-laborers in defense and confirmation of the truth.  I’m breaking no stories here.  The news of T.D. Jakes’ invitation to the Elephant Room is widespread and rightly lamented by many.  I’m just adding a perspective that hasn’t yet been stated: This kind of invitation undermines that long, hard battle many of us have been waging in a community often neglected by many of our peers.  And because we’ve often been attempting to introduce African-American Christians to the wider Evangelical and Reformed world as an alternative to the heresy and blasphemy so commonplace in some African-American churches and on popular television outlets, the invitation of Jakes to perform in “our circles” simply feels like a swift tug of the rug from beneath our feet and our efforts to bring health to a sick church.

MacDonald and Driscoll can moderate discussions with anyone they wish.  But we kid ourselves if we think inviting someone so recalcitrant about fundamental biblical teaching as Jakes can result in anything positive.  MacDonald, Driscoll and others will not be the first to privately and publicly exhort, admonish, instruct and challenge Jakes on this vital issue–to no avail thus far.  And we kid ourselves if we think the Elephant Room invitation itself isn’t an endorsement of sorts.  We can’t downplay the associations by calling for people to suspend judgment and responding ad hominem against “discernment bloggers.”  We certainly can’t do that while simultaneously pointing to our association at The Gospel Coalition as a happy certification of orthodoxy and good practice, as Driscoll seems to do here with MacDonald.

This isn’t on the scale of Piper inviting Warren.  This is more akin to Augustine inviting Muhammad.  This invitation gives a platform to a heretic.  It’s imprudent and counter-productive–witness already the Trinity-related confusions and obfuscations happening since announcing Jakes’ involvement.

Can the Lord squeeze lemonade out of this lemon?  Absolutely.  I pray He does.  Is it likely?  We’ll see.

What should MacDonald do now?  I’m not even sure.  There’s an argument to be made for confrontation.  There’s also an argument to be made for separation.  If Jakes could be won over and would publicly teach orthodox Trinitarian views, that could be huge.  If the discussion turns warm and fuzzy, “aren’t we all brothers in the end,” the damage could be irreparable–to everyone.  It’s easy to play “Should of, Could of, Would of.”  Monday morning quarterbacking always leaves fewer bruises than taking Sunday morning snaps.  I don’t envy MacDonald one bit.  I pray for his courage and the Lord’s grace whichever way it goes.  I hope you do, too.

But this I do know, the entire situation raises association, separation, and accountability concerns for me that I did not have to the same degree before now.  It raises significant questions about how members of The Gospel Coalition associate and endorse beyond the Coalition meetings themselves.  For me, it tests the bounds of cooperation.  I’m no Fundamentalist with well-established separation doctrines.  But as one attempting to draw lines–cardinal biblical lines, mind you!–in a community flooded with heresy, this is no easy relationship to balance.  Can I really endorse or remain quiet on an event that features a heretic I’m committed to opposing in writing?  I don’t think so.  That decision is easy for me.  More difficult: Can I really endorse or support a brother who willingly associates with such a heretic and extends them a platform?  Painful.  Sobering.

I don’t even know if I’ll watch the Elephant Room this time around.  But there are three things I re-double my efforts to watch: my life, my doctrine, and the sheep the Lord entrusts to me.

In The Decline, I included a section on T.D. Jakes’ view of God.  For any interested, I’ve reprinted it below.  Now may the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with us both now and forever.  Amen.

—————————————–

Reviving old heresies: Bishop T. D. Jakes and the Oneness controversy.

Perhaps the most significant conflict regarding the doctrine of God among African Americans at the close of the twentieth century coincides with the rise and prominence of Bishop Thomas Dexter (T. D.) Jakes (1958-) of the Dallas, Texas-based Potter’s House Ministries. Writers at The New York Times speculate that Bishop Jakes may be the “next Billy Graham,” while journalists at Time Magazine dub him “the best preacher in America” and one of the twenty-five most influential evangelicals in America.[1]  His influence extends to millions worldwide through his television outreach, speaking tours and popular books. Regrettably, his doctrine of God is taken from doctrinal errors roundly rejected by many modern Pentecostal and Evangelical churches as well as the early Christian church.

Bishop Jakes subscribes to a Oneness Pentecostal doctrine of God. Oneness Pentecostalism is a branch of Pentecostalism with its modern roots extending to the Azusa Street revival of 1906 and revival meetings featuring Canadian preacher R. E. McAlister (1880-1953) and evangelist Frank Ewart (1876-1947) between 1913 and 1915. McAlister and Ewart departed from traditional and orthodox trinitarian views of the Godhead and taught the radical unity of God by denying that God existed in three Persons. They held that the one God appeared in three distinct “modes” or “manifestations”—as Father in creation, as the Son in redemption, and as Holy Spirit in regeneration and indwelling—but that there was only one real Person in the Godhead, namely Jesus. Also known as “Modalism,” Ewart’s teachings spread rapidly through Pentecostal denominations. At its 1916 General Assembly, the Assemblies of God, a major branch of Pentecostalism, rejected the Oneness doctrine of God and required adherence to trinitarian theology. Following that decision, nearly 160 Oneness ministers formed their own denominations and alliances. The Pentecostal Assemblies of the World formed in 1918 as a multi-racial denomination, but split in 1924 along racial lines to become a predominantly African American organization.[2]

Bishop T. D. Jakes stands as a contemporary, though reluctant, representative of Oneness theology. Jakes tends to eschew doctrinal disputes and offers an apathetic defense of his theology by saying, “Christians have always had diversity in their theology and will continue to do so.”[3]  Nonetheless, historically orthodox churches condemn or exclude heretical views as misrepresentations of biblical faith—including the Oneness doctrine of God for its denial of the Trinity.

The Potter’s House “Doctrinal Statement” reads:

THREE DIMENSIONS OF GOD (I John 5:7; Matthew 28:19; I Timothy 3:16)

We believe in one God who is eternal in His existence, Triune in His manifestation, being both Father, Son and Holy Ghost AND that He is Sovereign and Absolute in His authority.[4]

The very title of the section, emphasizing dimensions of God, signals Jakes’s heretical doctrinal stance. The brief exposition that follows uses typical Modalist or Oneness language referring to God as “Triune in his manifestations” but not in his Person.

Outside of this doctrinal statement, Jakes rarely explicates the theology informing his ministry. In one place, he writes, “One of the greatest controversies in all the Bible concerns the Godhead.”[5]  He explains his sense of the controversy with rhetorical questions intended to undermine the credibility of trinitarian doctrine: “If there is one God, as Scripture teaches, how can there be a Son who says that He and His Father are one? If there is only one God, how can there be ‘three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one’?”[6]  Aside from the fact that the biblical writers did not record any intra-Christian “controversy” involving the trinitarian nature of God, Jakes’s own admission of the “mystery” involved in understanding the Trinity should steer him away from attacking orthodox theological positions. However, intrepid in his conclusions, Jakes’s error revives and popularizes the ancient, denounced heretical opinions of Sabellius in the third century A.D.[7]  And in doing so, he does more than merely depart from tradition; Bishop T. D. Jakes’s Oneness doctrine of God “indirectly undermines the Christian view of God’s character, God’s revelation, and God’s salvation by grace.”[8]  Millions of people are influenced by Jakes’s subtle representation of aberrant theology. And given the importance the Bible attaches to accurately knowing God, his revival of heresy is no small matter.

Notes

1.  Gustav Niebuhr and Laurie Goodstein, “The Preachers: A Special Report—New Wave of Evangelists Vying for National Pulpit,” The New York Times, January 1, 1999; David Van Biema, “Spirit Raiser,” Time Magazine, 27 September 2001; “Time Magazine 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America,” Time Magazine, February 7, 2005.

2.  ”Oneness Pentecostalism,” Interfaith Belief Bulletin (Alpharetta, GA: North American Mission Board, 1999).

3.  Downloaded from the Potter’s House website May 17, 2005; available at www.thepottershouse.org.

4.  Ibid.

5.  T. D. Jakes, Anointing Fall on Me: Accessing the Power of the Holy Spirit (Lanham, MD: Pneuma Life Publishing, 1997), p. 7.

6.  Ibid.

7.  For good treatments of Sabellianism or Modalist theology in the early church, see Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine—Volume 1: The Catholic Tradition, 100-600 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971), pp. 176-80; for a brief discussion of the effect of Sabellianism on more contemporary theologians, see, John D. Hannah, Our Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2001), pp. 77-79, 98, 100.

8.  Gregory A. Boyd, Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), p. 12; as cited in Jerry L. Buckner, “The Man, His Ministry, and His Movement: Concerns About the Teachings of T.D. Jakes,” Christian Research Journal, 22, no. 2 (1999).

If you’re a pastor that believes the Bible teaches both (1) the responsibility of man to repent and believe and (2) the sovereignty of God in choosing people unto salvation, you probably spend a lot of time explaining at least one-half of that belief to a number of your congregants. It is a joyful privilege to explain the whole counsel of God, to encourage people in new areas of biblical truth that they might not have seen or understood before.

It’s also sometimes disconcerting for people as they learn things they hadn’t understood before, things that really alter their understanding of the Scriptures and of God in a major way. The fancy-smancy psychological term for this is cognitive dissonance. Well, in a number of such conversations, it’s not cognitive but emotional dissonance. People sometimes see the truth, have an emotional reaction to the truth (not necessarily denying the truth), and decide they don’t like it. Patience is required in such cases, as well as helping people understand that an emotional impulse to deny the truth does not come from the Lord. The truth should shape our emotional responses, rather than our emotional responses shaping our acceptance of the truth.

All that to say: it’s really helpful to underscore reasons why a particular truth should be cause for rejoicing. Truth is for our joy. And that’s true of every truth in Scripture, including God’s sovereign choosing of His people.

A few biblical reasons to rejoice in election:

Election ensures that God’s purposes stand:
“Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad–in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls–she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger’.” (Rom. 9:11-12)

Election ensures that our salvation depends on mercy, not ourselves:
“It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy” (Rom. 9:16).

Election maintains the Creator-creature distinction, producing humility:
“One of you will say to me: ‘Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? ‘Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, “Why did you make me like this?”‘ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?” (Rom. 9:19-21)

Election guarantees our good in life and our glorification with Christ:
“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he justified; those he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:28-30).

“But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thes. 2:13-14).

Election ensures blameless justification:
“Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies” (Rom. 8:33).

Election guarantees that God will be worshipped:
“God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah–how he appealed to God against Israel: ‘Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me’? And what was God’s answer? ‘I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace” (Rom. 11:2-5).

“In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory” (Eph. 1:11-12).

Election establishes grace:
“So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace” (Rom. 11:6).

Election obtains the salvation we seek:
“What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, as it is written: ‘God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day’.” (Rom. 11:7-8).

“But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth” (2 Thes. 2:13).

Election makes the gifts and calling of God irrevocable:
“As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:28-29).

Election accords with God’s plan to make us holy and blameless:
“For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.” (Eph. 1:4)

Election expresses itself with the Father’s love toward us in adoption:
“In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will…” (Eph. 1:4-5).

Election coincides with the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit:
“To God’s elect, strangers in the world… who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood” (1 Pet. 1:1-2).

“But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth” (2 Thes. 2:13).

Election provides the ground for our perseverance in gospel ministry:
“One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: ‘Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent. For I am with you, and no one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city.’ So Paul stayed for a year and a half, teaching them the word of God” (Acts 18:9-11).

“Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal. But God’s word is not chained. Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory” (2 Tim. 2:10).

Election limits the deception and the destruction of the last days:
“those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again. If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them” (Mark 13:19-20).

“For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible” (Matthew 24:24).

Rejoice! And again I will say, Rejoice! The truth will make you free!

I’m not sure what people mean when they call someone a “heresy hunter,” but I’m pretty sure I’m one. It has to do with my own conversion story. Having been committed to the gross error and idolatry of Islam, when I came to Christ I was perhaps a bit hyper about doctrine and theology. Upon being brought to Christ, I was driven to read sound doctrinal works. I didn’t know the term “doctrine” or have a coherent sense of what I was looking for except to know that I wanted to know God. Imagine how my heart jumped when on the first weekday following my conversion, I visited the local Lifeway bookstore, made my way to that shelf or two tucked into the abandoned, dusty corner of the store marked “theology,” and purchased two books: J.I. Packer’s Knowing God and Lloyd-Jones’ three-volume work, Great Doctrines of the Bible.

I had no idea what I was buying, but I’ve not been the same since purchasing and reading these works. It was a tremendous expression of God’s grace to lead me to these men and their work, to start my Christian life in this way. I am thankful, so thankful.

Having known what it is in my own life to believe a lie and to base my life on it, I’m something of a “heresy hunter.” Now, by that term, I don’t mean I’m the type that searches under every rock for any error however so small to slam the person and the idea with all my might. Neither am I angry and vengeful when it comes to error. But I am seriously concerned with it.

So, there’s a certain amount of resonance that’s set off in me any time I come across a passage in the Bible warning of false teachers… and there are a lot of such passages. But today I’m taken with Paul’s warning not of false teachers “out there” but of the creeping effect of falsehood and laxity “inside” my own thinking and teaching. 1 Timothy 4:16 — “Keep close watch… on the teaching.”

In verses 1-5 Paul warned of such corruption in others who would fall for the deceiving doctrines of demons. There, he warned the young minister that some would turn away from the truth. In verse 16, he warns the young pastor of his own corruption in doctrine. “Keep close watch… on the teaching,” on your own doctrine. It’s a good charge to all who would be good pastors. How are we to watch our doctrine closely?

Some preliminary suggestions….

1. Make the Scripture central. A good pastor is a man of one book. He knows no higher science than theology, and no richer art than the study of Scripture. The holy Word of God occupies center stage in his thinking. He seeks to drink deeply from the Scripture, and hears Paul’s admonition to “learn not to go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).

2. Read and re-read good, old books. The old books are still the best books. I don’t think that’s temporal snobbery (at least I don’t mean it to be), or a blanket slight of recent books. But the old books typically offer greater rigor, insight, and depth than most of what’s published in our mass-market-oriented publishing industry.

3. Read bad books once in a while. Not regularly or exclusively, but on occasion, a good pastor reads a bad book. He may do this because many of his people are taken with interest in the book, or because the book is creating a stir in the larger church world. He may read such a book to know what the issues are, what’s at stake, to better shepherd his people, or to sharpen his own apologetics ministry.

4. Read church history and historical theology. Most of the errors we’ll ever see have already been made by someone before us. There’s nothing new under the sun… including bad theology. A good pastor helps to innoculate himself from such errors by reading church history and hihstorical theology where these issues are chronicled, debated and resolved by godly men who have gone before us. Reading church history and historical theology is likely a regular part of a good pastor’s reading diet.

5. Avoid novelty and fads. It seems that this is where most error starts, with a desire to say something new or innovative. The last place we want to be innovative is in doctrine. When a good pastor comes across something altogether new in his study and reading, he will be pressed with three questions at least: (1) Specifically how does this depart with accepted, established truths of the faith once and for all delivered to the saints? (2) What impact does this idea or doctrine have on other important doctrinal issues? (3) How does this impact the lives of people? Is this impact really worth the dangers or problems associated with the novel interpretation? Paul tells Timothy in verse 7 to avoid irreverent, silly myths; the good pastor will avoid these things as well.

6. Keep learning from solid teachers. What good pastor will ever stop learning? And who can master all there is to know from a Tom Schreiner, Al Mohler, R.C. Sproul, and all your other favorite teachers? A good pastor commits himself to continuing to strengthen his knowledge of the Savior and the faith, and he will make a specific plan for such learning. He may take a seminary course (on campus or online), listen by radio or online, attend good conferences, or join a study group, but he’ll keep learning.

7. Be the first to sign the church’s statement of faith. Give yourself to upholding and defending it as an accurate summary of the Bible’s main teaching. And the moment you waiver in your commitment to an article in the statement, confess it to your fellow elders and leaders for accountability, correction, and discipline if necessary. Cheerfully accept the discipline of the church for serious error in teaching.

8. Develop an instinct for identifying doctrinal softness and drift. In most cases, a good pastor is going to be the “chief theological officer” in the body. Consequently, he’ll need to be fairly astute at monitoring his own thoughts and being intellectually rigorous with himself. So a nose for identifying when he’s being lazy or sloppy or indifferent theologically is critical. He has to fight against that tendency toward compromise. He must realize that he will not serve his people well if his tendency is to constantly surrender “small plots of theological ground” whenever the fear of man surfaces. He must discern whether people-pleasing tendencies are the habit of his heart and whether that weakens doctrinal resolve. He must know whether he tends to avoid conflict and whether that erodes his fidelity to the truth. He must know when and how pragmatism assumes control of his thinking such that he’s tempted to leave off sound doctrine and choose a thing “because it works.” He needs a honed instinct for spotting drift and softness in himself and a specific plan for overcoming it.

Here’s a stark reality: Nearly every heresy or widespread doctrinal corruption in the church came while some pastor was on the job. He either introduced it or he allowed it into the body. And a significant number of such errors were developed by men who sought what was right in their own eyes and disregarded the great truths of Scripture and the godly wisdom of those gone before us.

Paul’s exhortation is the most practical and critically important possible. The good pastor’s close watch of his life and doctrine affects the spiritual well-being of his people. By keepig close watch of his life and doctrine, the good pastor “will save both himself and his hearers.” May the Lord give us grace to be good and faithful ministers to His people.

“Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers” (I Tim. 4:16).

This is the text the Lord used to stir me at T4G. C.J.’s sermon was a wonderful exhortation to watch our lives as pastor and deserves repeated listening. In fact, you should probably stop reading this post and go ahead to the link and listen (or here to read).

C.J. makes the point that, especially among Reformed types, we’re better at watching our doctrine than our lives. I think that’s probably correct. But a good pastor wears bi-focals–he sees both his life and his doctrine.

And the two are connected. Right living will not impress Jesus if it’s accompany by wrong doctrine, especially on the crucial matters. Right doctrine should lead to right living. It doesn’t always do so, but that is evidence that we need our eyes on both. If I could make a sweeping generalization (very sweeping), this might be one shorthand way of distinguishing the primary concerns of historically African-American and White views of Christianity. My white brothers have been rightly concerned with right teaching while at times wholely inadequate in their concern for right living. My kinsmen according to the flesh have been rightly concerned with right living, especially with regard to social ethics and justice, while inadequate in their concern for right doctrine. We need both. And this is partly why I think these two streams of Christian tradition and thought need to be in more intimate conversation. But I digress….

A good pastor watches life and doctrine. He sees the connection and gets it. Some thoughts… nothing new. Just basic reminders.

1. A good pastor surrounds himself with A-quality men who help him in watching his life. Accountability is essential. And not just passive, reactionary “accountability,” but searching, probing, initiative-taking accountability. We need people to ask us that tough question that we’re avoiding in conversation, to pursue us rather than merely listen to us. We need others with an agenda for our holiness that is at times more zealous than our own agenda for holiness. This accountability should be one place where the following are also carried out.

2. A good pastor maintains a healthy interest, participation in, and love for his family. Not everyone will agree with my application of that principle. It seems to me that the priority in life is God first, family second, and ministry third. I can’t make idols of either family or ministry such that they rival my affection for God. And if my affection for the Savior and my obedience to Him are strong, I should display high affection for my family. And I take 1 Timothy 3:4-5 to be prerequisites for ministry, and therefore to establish family as a priority over ministry. So, a good pastor will watch his life by watching the ordering of his priorities when it comes to his family. He will develop the ability and habit of saying “no” to that worthy ministry aim in order to say “yes” to that worthy set of relationships called family.

3. A good pastor keeps close watch on his thought life. He fights against anger, jealousy, censoriousness, lust, and the like. And he works to think about those things that are lovely, true, of good report, etc. Too often we listen to ourselves rather than speak to ourselves. And if we’re not careful, what we listen to will be worldly, fleshly, poorly thought out, foolish ideas that lead to wrong conclusions and worldly, fleshly actions. A good pastor watches his life by fighting at the level of thoughts and desires, planting godly seeds and plucking out thorns and weeds before they choke his life.

4. A good pastor protects himself, his family, and his church from sexual immorality and the appearance of evil. A good pastor knows not to make any provision for his flesh or to leave his life open in such a way that invites unwanted attention, advances, or confusion. He doesn’t meet or travel alone with women. He is not a shoulder to cry on for vulnerable women. His office is open or within view, avoiding the cloak of secrecy. At least his administrative asistant, and probably his admin. asst. and his wife, are aware of when he is meeting with women and what is generally the nature of the meeting. Speaking of his wife, he actively and joyfully gives himself to his wife in intimacy. He gouges out his eyes, cuts off his arms, and whatever else is necessary to protect himself, his family and his church from immoral acts. And again, he humbly and eagerly involves others in this protection and accountability.

5. A good pastor watches his life for rest and recreation. There should be adequate rest in the calendar and appropriate recreation. And a good pastor invites feedback on both, especially where there are questions about the appropriateness of some recreational pursuit. Eventually, pastors will lose the battle and the war if they don’t rest. If Jesus doesn’t return soon, and I pray that He would, a life of pastoral ministry will be a long haul and we’d better take care of our physical selves.

Next time, Lord willing, watching our doctrine.